I previously wrote a blog post on the freshman 15 that focused on proving that it was truly a myth. I am very interested in this topic because it relates so accurately to my life currently. I actually was able to find multiple other studies that both agreed and disagreed with my research, so in this blog I will add to the support and opposition for my hypothesis from my first blog post on this topic. It is crucial to put information out that clarifies the freshman 15 is a myth because so many people do not try to maintain a healthy lifestyle when they enter college because they accept that the freshman weight gain is unavoidable.

The US National Library of Medicine preformed an online survey that examined the freshman 15 more closely because they too recognized the lack of evidence supporting this phenomenon. The objective of the research is to “determine whether college students gain weight during freshman year.” An online survey was used to collect the information on weight gain and social behaviors. A possible problem with this method is voluntary response bias and could cause more extreme results. Even with the risk of bias, the results showed an average weight gain of 2.7 lbs. accompanied by 15% of the students actually lost weight. While the study did conclude that in general college student weight gain was 5.5 times greater than the general public, the average weight gain was only about 3 pounds, contrary to the dreaded 15 pounds.

Statistics is another way researchers extract information from samples, like groups of college students. The website statcrunch.com performed a confidence interval of the average weight gain using a volunteer study. The confidence interval did not contain the typical 15 lbs. weight gain that is expected, and it was actually lower and closer to 2.60 lbs. The confidence interval confirmed the idea that the freshman 15 is a myth because in actuality the weight gain was way less than 15 pounds. These results were lower than expected because college freshman gaining 15 pounds is the anticipated weight gain as advertised by social media.

In a meta-analysis of multiple different college weight gain studies I found some support on the freshman 15. The meta-analysis scanned through 6 databases and found all the studies that focused on weight gain for college freshman. The study assessed and extracted the data in order to form a conclusion. Overall almost two thirds of the students that were studied gained weight freshman year and students that did gain weight gained the weight at a much faster rate than the general public. Meta-analysis is “a statistical technique for combining the findings from independent studies.” A meta-analysis is a good way to assess a multitude of data and gives a good overall result. This information is very important to include when hypothesizing on the truth of the freshman 15.

Despite the opposing viewpoints that I researched for this post, my personnel conclusion remains consistent. The freshman 15 is 100% avoidable. There are so many ways to successfully avoid gaining an obscene amount of weight. The freshman 15 is more about self-restraint than anything else, so it is truly up to the individual to work to stay skinny.

If you were at a party full of people and saw a girl that was too drunk would you try to help her? Would you help a homeless man in a park if he looked like he was in distress? It is natural for a person to assume if they were confronted with an emergency situation that they would step up and be a hero, but often that is not the case. Luckily, most people never have to make the decision because according to a psychological phenomenon a person will avoid assisting some one in distress when there are a lot of other people around. This phenomenon is known as the bystander effect. The bystander according to Psychology Today is a social psychological phenomenon “when the presence of others discourages an individual from intervening in an emergency situation.” It is hypothesized that when people are in a large crowd they do not feel personally responsible for other people, and therefore will avoid getting involved.

There are three main reasons or mechanisms on why the bystander effect happens. One is the diffusion of responsibility that is prevalent when in a crowded, public space. The diffusion of responsibility is the lack of a sense that an individual should intervene when there are many other people around that could also step up. The next mechanism behind the bystander effect is social referencing. Social referencing is the tendency for a person to look towards the behaviors of other people to determine their own reaction. Even infants exhibit this psychological phenomenon when they look to their mother or father to form their own response. Finally the last mechanism that forms the bystander effect is shyness. Shyness is simply when people do not want to stand out and do something different from a crowd.

In an experiment examined in a nymag.com article, Marie Plotner studied how 5-year-olds either followed or strayed from the phenomena; the bystander effect. The experiment got 60 5-year-old children and told them they would be drawing a picture while an adult painted a cardboard canvas. In one scenario the child was alone with the adult and in the other scenario the child was with the adult and some other 5-year-olds coloring their own pictures. In the second scenario, however the other children were actors or confederates. The adult was told to spill water and ask the child for help, their reactions to the adult in distress is what was being measured. The findings confirmed the bystander effect because the children were more likely to help out if they were alone with the adult. Only a little over 50% of the children in that were in a room with other children actually helped the panicked adult. The children are exemplifying the diffusion of responsibility when they do not feel inclined to help when there are other children present to shoulder the accountability. The children in the room with other children are also exhibiting social referencing because they are mimicking the behaviors of those around them to cope with being in an ambiguous situation. Finally shyness can be attributed with the results because it is very natural for a 5-year-old child to be too shy to go out of their way to help an adult.

It is easy to claim that, when in a situation that requires it, a person will stand out and be a hero. The truth of the matter is that the bystander effect sis a natural social psychological phenomenon that humans are predisposed to exhibit.

Anorexia is an extremely well known disease in today’s society. From top models to teenage girls anorexia does no discriminate its victims. Anorexia or its full name Anorexia Nervosa is, according to dictionary.com an eating disorder characterized by pathological fear of becoming fat, distorted body image, excessive dieting, and emaciation. The ability to restrain oneself from eating on the level of anorexia is attributed to willpower. However Anorexia is truly a mental disorder and I wonder if it is choice to pass up food or a deeply rooted habit.

A study on nature.com asked the question, “why do people persistently make choices that are bad for them, even though they seem to know better?” This question is at the root of anorexia because people with the eating disorder know what they are doing is not beneficial for their health and instead they focus on the superficial benefits. In the study the mechanisms behind the continuous maladaptive choices are analyzed. The findings from the study provide information that the same brain circuits that are involved with habitual behavior, like biting one’s nails, are part of disorders in which people make self-destructive choices no matter what the consequences are. The Dorsal Striatum is part of the brains award system that is stimulated during habitual behavior. Dr. Walsh, a professor of psychiatry at the Psychiatric Institute at Columbia predicts that the longer someone is implementing anorexic behaviors the more of a habit it becomes and more of the Dorsal Striatum is involved. Anorexia is similar to addiction diseases like alcoholism or obsessive compulsive disorder. All this new information on how anorexia affects those that have the disorder can help evolve the course treatment.

Whether anorexia is considered a choice of willpower or a habitual behavior, different treatments are considered to be the most affective. Current treatments include medical nutrition therapy, art therapy, dance movement therapy etc. A statistic I found in a nytimes.com article says, “50 percent or more of hospitalized anorexic patients who are discharged at a normal weight will relapse within a year.” Clearly the treatments being used currently are only affective in the short-run and it is possible that a better treatment could be used with a more substantial result. Dr. Walsh said, “Habits have to be replaced with another behavior.” If the bad habit of starvation is replaced with a healthier habit in theory it is possible that anorexia can be cured.

Understanding anorexia and the mechanisms that are prevalent in the disease is very important to doctors and psychologists because anorexia has the highest mortality rates of any other mental illness. Anorexia spans culture, race, gender and age so it is important to have a cure that is truly effective.

Every parent wants his or her child to be the most smart, cute, happy, etc. child. If there is a way that a parent could do something to contribute to the child, well in most cases parents will not hesitate to comply. An example is my when my cousin was pregnant she would actually play classical music while she slept in order to stimulate her unborn baby’s brain. Some people can see through the crazy theories and do not do anything too unnecessary. However when my mother was pregnant it was widely known that if she breast fed my siblings and I then we would be smarter because it caused an increase of cognitive development. I wonder is this widely accepted theory true or just another myth?

It has been considered a fact that breastfeeding infants for as long as possible is beneficial for the cognitive growth of the infant. This theory seems very clear-cut and probable because long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids are found in breast milk and have a positive impact on brain development. However in my research I was able to find a blog from The New York Times that concluded from a study that there is no significant correlation between breastfeeding and children’s IQ. Instead there are many variables that are attributed with the results because so many different factors contribute to gains in IQ. The study features 11,582 children and two-thirds were breastfed for about four months and then they administered an intelligence test when the children turned 16. The results showed a weak and statistically insignificant outcome and concluded that breastfeeding infants did not truly impact intelligence. While this article and study seem legitimate majority if not all of the other information I found on breastfeeding and IQ supported the claim that it positively impacts cognitive development.

An article from livescience.com featured a study in which each additional month that infants were breastfed increased their results on a test at age 3. This study shows a very strong correlation with breastfeeding and intelligence, and even further that economic status and mother’s education level were both controlled for. That means that the results were not due to a difference in either of those variables. Repetition of these studies and more experimentation is the only way to differentiate which of these outcomes has more support.

A meta-analysis of the studies done on the connection between breastfeeding and IQ scores according to The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition illustrated that the second study I looked at was more accurate because breastfeeding was associated with significantly higher scores for cognitive development then formula feeding. Meta-analysis according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary is a quantitative statistical analysis of several separate but similar experiments or studies in order to test the pooled data for statistical significance. So meta-analysis of breastfeeding studies shows a stronger correlation because it looks at many different studies on the same topic and quantifies them as a whole.

Overall I think that breast-feeding infants is a very personnel decision and it is hard to determine what is best for every individual baby. When it comes to suggesting what scientifically is the best way for mothers to give their newborns nutrients, the data ultimately supports that breastfeeding is beneficial.

Can you predict the grades you receive in a class purely from where you sit in that class? Each day every student makes a decision as he or she enters the classroom on where they will sit for the duration of the class. Personally, I like to sit farther back because I do not like the pressure that a front seat could cause. I don’t think that my seat placement affects me or my grades in any way, however I wonder if on average students perform higher when they sit closer to the front of the classroom. Even though the decision of seat placement to most students is a subconscious choice, can it actually result in the academic success or failure of the student?

Students that sit in the front and middle of a lecture hall are often considered the highest achieving students. According to a scholarly article (Giles, 1982) there is a relationship between the distance from the front of a classroom and grades in that class. The study says that when students sit closer to the front they perform better on average than students that
chose to sit in the back. Giles had the professor assign students to their seats randomly and still students sitting in the front and middle had learning advantages and ultimately better grades. It is important to randomly assign seats in a study that focuses on grades because often more focused and determined students will consciously chose to sit in the front rows of the class causing a confounding variable to affect the result of the study.

Another study done by Steven Kalinski and Mark L. Taper used a single blind randomized trial in order to test the hypothesis of seat placement and grades. Contrary to the first article I presented this study actually found that there was no affect of seat placement on grades. The researchers concluded that confounding variables like size of the lecture hall and number of students in the class are both possible causes of grade variability based on seat placement. The actual results showed a negligible affect because the correlation was not strong enough to support the hypothesis. While many people will say that sitting closest to the professor will improve your grade, according to this study, that is not a legitimate theory.

An important problem with analyzing if seat placement affects grades is that there may be reverse causality. Chris Hakala, a psychology professor and director of the Center for Teaching and Learning at Western New England University, makes the important statement that, “its not clear if they sit upfront because they’re good students or if good students just prefer to sit up front.” Reverse causality could lead to a mistake in the conclusion of the hypothesis. Also reverse causality illustrates that correlation does not always mean causation, and it is incorrect to assume causation in this particular case.

Many different variables affect the decision every student faces when entering a classroom. Each of these variables can be attributed with causing a difference of grades. As a result there are too many confounding variables in the study to truly see if there is any connection between seat placement and grades. Personally from reading the many studies and articles on this topic I concluded that as long as a student is comfortable and focused where they sit there is an equal opportunity to achieve an A in any seat.

Tattoos are often thought of as fun and rebellious, however it is rare that people consider the danger a person could be risking when they get a tattoo. A tattoo is defined as a permanent mark or design made on the skin by a process of pricking and ingraining an indelible pigment or by raising scars. That definition alone does not sound like a safe process so as a result I want to know if getting a tattoo is truly safe or if there are long-term, unpublicized problems that come with a tattoo.

The first major risk when getting a tattoo that all people must consider is the cleanliness of the tattoo parlor. Tattoo infections and complications can be the cause of the tattoo artist/studio or the ink. If a tattoo parlor does not sterilize properly bacteria and other infectious organisms can be transferred through the needles. Diseases, like AIDS, can possibly be contracted when just trying to get a tattoo to get a fun decoration on a person’s skin. The ink used for a tattoo is considered a cosmetic product and should be regulated by the FDA. Unfortunately, according to the Harvard Health Publications, since there is a lack of research and evidence of problems with tattoo ink and other focuses for health officials often the FDA does not enforce their authority on regulating color additives used in the ink. This means that health officials are not actively trying to prevent problems associated with tattoo ink that is up to health standards. The FDA will only pay attention if an actual problem is recorded.

The FDA lists the other risks that must be highlighted are allergies, scarring, granulomas, and MRI complications. Allergies may be overlooked when people get a tattoo and their reaction to the ink can cause varying responses and health problems. Scarring is a major issue because when a person is getting a tattoo they often do not think that while healing the tattoo could develop scarred tissue that permanently changes the intended appearance of the tattoo. Granulomas are caused because ink is a foreign material that our bodies are made to fight off. As a result a person may develop small bumps around the tattoo. Finally it is possible that a tattoo may have a weird reaction when the person is in an MRI machine. A magnet powers MRI machines so while it is rare a tattoo could react to the magnetic field and swelling or burning occurs. I doubt any young adult getting a tattoo because it is exciting and rebellious realizes all these potential risks.

Tattoos are relatively safe and common in today’s society. Ultimately I believe that it is possible to avoid the risks that accompany a tattoo. Although I am sure that there are a very small number of people that are truly educated on all the risks that a person is taking by permanently marking their skin.

Modern medicine has helped society in so many ways, however is it possible that occasionally medical advances like vaccinations have rare consequences? Some people believe that certain vaccinations given to babies within their first year of life cause children to develop autism. This belief has gained some traction among parents so that a parent will opt out of vaccinating their child against diseases like chicken pox and many others. Whether or not to vaccinate children is an important question because it could bring back diseases that have seemingly become extinct because of vaccinations.

Personally I have an interest in this question because I had a Psychology teacher in high school that had triplets that were born seemingly healthy, but after they were vaccinated they began to show autistic behaviors and were soon after diagnosed. My teacher explained he sudden change he saw in his children and it truly concerned me that vaccines could have rare side effects. The reason a link between autism and vaccination has been given so much attention is because “the rate of diagnosis of ASD (autism spectrum disorder) has been steadily increasing since the 1990s. At that time also the routine vaccine schedule was increasing” (Science-Based Medicine). People believed that the increase in autism diagnosis was caused by the increase in vaccinations, however the correlation between these two events does not mean that there is causation.

The importance of vaccinations out weighs any supposed risk that may accompany vaccines. This is clear because before vaccines people often became fatally ill from diseases that are rare and treatable in today’s society. In fact both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Autism Speaks declare that vaccines do not cause autism. The ingredient thimerosal is typically what autism is attributed to however the CDC states “research shows that thimerosal does not cause ASD.” In fact a study was done in which between 1999 and 2000 thimerosal was removed or reduced in vaccinations and no change in the cases of autism was seen. From all the information presented vaccinations seem to be the safest way to protect children and the community.

While vaccinations are a controversial topic and every person feels differently about their importance, I think that vaccinations have been a very positive medical advancement. Vaccinations have contributed to longer life spans and higher infant survival rates. I understand the hesitation among parents and the fear of autism spectrum disorders, but ultimately the benefits of vaccines out weigh the alleged risk.

Most couples vow “till death do us part” however is it reasonable to assume that humans should mate for life? Ideally everyone would find their true love at first sight and be together forever but I am not naive, for I know that it not the case. Divorce and cheating are common terms in today’s culture so it is natural to wonder if humans are actually meant to be with one person from early adulthood till death. Further are all humans the same in their ability to remain monogamous?

When you dissect the question of monogamy down to animal instincts and primal behaviors it is clear that monogamy is not common. Only 3% to 5% of 5,000 different species of animals mate for life. According to evolution we are ancestors of primates, so clearly we are going against nature in maintaining monogamy. The point of most long-term, monogamous human relationships is producing offspring and raising a family. However Jane Lancaster, an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of New Mexico says that the bond of raising a child “can fit into all kinds of marriage patterns – polygamy, single parenthood, Monogamy.” This proves that humans do not need the commitment of a monogamous relationship in order to be fulfilled.

Gender is another important variable in monogamy. Does gender affect the likelihood of staying committed while in a monogamous relationship? Males are typically considered the less faithful gender. Daniel Kruger, a social and evolutionary psychologist at the University of Michigan, says that in human relationships “there’s more paternal investment than in most other primates” so men cannot be completely at fault.

Whether humans are meant to mate for life and it’s just a matter of finding the right person or polygamy is the answer, divorce rates have spiked within he past 50 years. The question of monogamy is an important topic to consider especially as society continues to change. How to preform the necessary experiments and studies to find the true answer is unclear.

Many people will be very quick to warn an incoming freshman of the dreaded freshman 15. Naturally, I am concerned of the possible weight gain because I am a freshman and still getting used to dining commons and the easy access to fast food. However, now that I am here on campus I notice that I walk everywhere. I walk to class, to the store, and to any type of meeting for a club I want to be involved with. I believe all this walking has to be making some difference. Furthermore is it possible that the freshman 15 is a myth?

The term Freshman 15 originated on a popular young adult magazine called Seventeen Magazine in 1989 with an article titled “Fighting the Freshman 15.” It is not an actual scientific term at all and was only legitimized through pop culture. A study preformed at Ohio State University showed that less then 10% of the 7,418 first year students that participated actually gained fifteen or more pounds. The typical weight gain was estimated at about 5 pounds and a quarter of students actually lost weight. This can be credited to the easy access to campus gyms, increase in walking, and healthy options at dining halls. Unfortunately researchers did notice that throughout the whole of college students did tend to gain weight, but this cannot solely be attributed to college. College students were shown to be on average just ½ a pound heavier than their peers that chose not to attend college. Even though the freshman 15 is a widely known and feared concept it is clear that college attendance and weight gain have no direct causation. It is more then possible to avoid the freshman 15.

In a way the myth of the freshman 15 has caused an increase in unhealthy lifestyles. The term has equated any form of weight gain as negative and socially unacceptable. Research shows that two thirds of the study’s female college students were reportedly moderately concerns with their shape and weight. This focus on maintaining a low body weight leads to skipping meals and binge eating. When the facts show that college students tend to gain closer to 5 pounds, but the widely known myth warns against major weight gain, students ultimately lead more unhealthy lifestyles.

College students should want to pursue healthy choices as opposed to choices that promote better looks and image. Penn State is considered the 10^th largest campus in the U.S. and with that comes hundreds of fast food options. However on the flip side since Penn State is so large it comes with a multitude of clubs, intermural sports, healthy food options, and walking paths. The freshman 15 is a myth and it’s truly possible to avoid any unnecessary weight gain at college.

This summer I went to Paris, France for a family vacation. While I was there I went, as every tourist in Paris is required to go, to the Eiffel Tower. While at the Eiffel Tower I was mesmerized by the view and the grandeur of the structure, however now remembering it I realize the Eiffel Tower in many ways can be related to science.

The Eiffel Tower was built for the Paris World’s Fair of 1889, when it was finished it became the tallest structure in the world at 300 meters. In many ways the tower was magnificent, but originally the tower was only supposed to be temporary and the permits would expire after 20 years, allowing for the tower to be demolished. Many Parisians were in favor of tearing the tower down because they felt that it was an eye sore. Gustave Eiffel, the architect behind the Eiffel Tower, used science to save the tower that now symbolizes France as a whole.

In order to save the Eiffel Tower Gustave Eiffel made the Eiffel Tower a center for science by installing a meteorology laboratory on the 3^rd floor. He gave the tower a specific scientific purpose so it would be saved from demolition. The Eiffel Tower would be used for meteorological and astronomical observations, physics experiments, an optical telegraph communications point, and wind studies. Gustave Eiffel encouraged other scientists to use the tower in their experiments. Gustave himself used the tower to conduct 5,000 trials on a wind tunnel experiment. The Eiffel Tower to most is just a beautiful landmark to tour, but science experiments like Foucault’s Pendulum, the mercury pressure gauge, and radio contact were all located on the tower.

Today it is hard to imagine Paris without the Eiffel Tower as a tourist attraction. I know my mom’s desire to see the Eiffel Tower primarily fueled my family vacation this summer. So it is difficult to think that the Eiffel Tower was almost taken down because it was thought of as a “giddy ridiculous tower dominating Paris like a gigantic black smokestack.”

Eiffel Tower Links:

link 1, link 2, link 3, and link 4