Sports are a huge time commitment, especially when in high school. From getting home late, to being exhausted from practice, schoolwork can be a real struggle. With that said, it also teaches you invaluable time management skills that simply can not be learned in another environment. So my question is: Does sports have any effect on academic performance?

Null Hypothesis: Sports has no effect on academic performance.

Alternative Hypothesis: Sports does have an effect on academic performance.

In many high schools, athletic prowess trumps academic prowess big time. When budget cuts come around, football and soccer are not being cut, it is activities like Math Team and Quiz Bowl that see the effects. Does this mean that academic achievements and goals are not being accomplished? In a study of Ohio high schools, it was found that “high schools that devote more energy to athletic success also tend to produce more academic success” (EducationNext). The study found that a 10 percent increase in winning percentage links to a .25 percentage point increase in the number of students at or above academic proficiency.

The sport that had the largest effect was football, which is not surprising because it is often the most popular sport in high school. It is hard to make a causal claim that athletics is linked to achievement based on this data, but the data is clearly consistent with such a conclusion. I see the threat of reverse causation as a real threat in such an area as well. While not considered, having smarter students on the athletic teams may cause the team to perform better. Having a smart, above average player is more beneficial than having a bonehead, outstanding player in my cases.

While the previous study looked at the effect on the student body of a school as a whole, there are definitely benefits to playing sports on the individual level as well. In a study led by Liberty University, the GPA of athletes was examined during and after a sporting season. The study found a significant difference in the GPA scores during and after sports seasons. It specifically found that GPA decreases following a sports season, which supports the theory that participating in sports positively affects GPA. The change in GPA during and after the sports season was extremely significant in males, while not nearly as significant in females. This could be attributed to the overall hypothesis that females are better students, but it can not be concluded for sure. Based on this information, overall there is clearly a correlation between participating in sports and academic achievement. Again, it is hard to determine that there is a causal relationship, but the evidence again supports such a stance.

A study from the University of Kansas analyzed the academic performance of student-athletes and students. The study showed “athletes had higher percentages of days of school attended, graduation rates, and Kansas assessment scores and lower dropout rates than nonathletes”
(KU). Angela Lumpkin, who analyzed the data, made a great point when she stated, “In general, an athlete is not smarter than a nonathlete” (KU). I found this quote very accurate and interesting. Playing sports does not mean an individual is smarter than a nonathlete. The studies and their results simply show that athletes achieve better. There is no causation between innate knowledge and playing sports, but I do believe there is causation between work ethic and better grades. I think that athletes have a work ethic which translates from the sports into the classroom because they know they need to perform in the classroom to be able to participate in the extracurricular activities.

Based on the studies I have found, I would have to reject the null hypothesis. There clearly is a correlation present when examining athletes and academic performance. I would argue that there is causation as well. I do not believe this means that athletes are smarter than nonathletes. I see this as a result of work ethic. Athletes work hard because they know they need to perform well in school to even get the chance to perform well on the field, court, track, etc.

When I think about Daylight Savings Time, all I think of is the hour of sleep lost when the clocks move forward. This often is the worst day of the year in my mind because I need my sleep. So what is the purpose of it? And why do we have it? Is it necessary to take away an hour of sleep? With no background knowledge, it seems like an odd concept, but we will see what the evidence shows.

First off, why does this exist? Daylight Savings Time started during World War I, in an effort to reduce the need for artificial light, which in turn saved fuel for the war. After World War I, it stopped until World War II, when it officially became observed nationally. Obviously, WWII is long over, so why is Daylight Savings Time still around? Is it a good idea to have daylight savings time? Does it make any sense? These are all tough questions that may produce simply normative answers.

Supporters of Daylight Savings Time claim that a big reason for it is to increase safety. In 1973, one of the reasons year-round daylight was repealed was because it resulted in more school bus accidents in the morning (StandardTime). Stanley Coren of the University of British Columbia led a study of traffic accidents in Canada in 1991 and 1992 before, during, and after the clocks moved forward. He found that “immediately following the spring shift accidental death rate increased by 6.5% compared to the week before, and and 6.4% compared to the week after” (Accidental Death). He also found that the fall shift, which gives individuals more sleep, had no effect on the accidental death rate before or after. This observational study appears very well done. The examination of the accidental deaths directly after the clocks move forward clearly asserts that the decreased amount of sleep people receive because of daylight savings time results in a drastic increase in accidental deaths.

The real question, probably more important than safety, is: Does it make a difference? In 2000, the Australian government extended Daylight Savings Time by 2 months because of the Sydney Olympic Games. A study at UC Berkeley showed that this change failed to reduce electricity at all. Also, a more recent study from Indiana, “showed that the savings from electricity were negated, and then some, by additional use of air conditioning and heat” (The Atlantic). Assuming these studies examined relevant data, they appear very accurate. There is no threat of reverse causation, and confounding variables most likely would not account for such a drastic increase.

Also, according to many sources, the shift in time for Daylight Savings is simply bad for your health. A study in Neuroscience Letters found that when people were transitioning their sleep schedules, as a result of the clocks moving up an hour, sleep quality decreased, and the average individual slept an hour less at night. According to the Journal of Applied Psychology, the loss of sleep results in a serious decrease in productivity in the workplace. The study found that employees do much more “cyberloafing” when they are tired. “Cyberloafing” is defined as anytime at work on the internet doing non-work activities. Examining these effects clearly show the negative aspects of Daylight Savings Time, and I completely agree with the findings.

Daylight Savings Time has a serious effect on people’s lives, even though it is over a short period of time. Based on many of these studies, it does not just stink. It has a serious, negative effect on people’s lives. Every one of the findings is definitely relatable. I know that I am simply not able to function at my best when I am tired. I need at least seven hours of sleep to be remotely productive. An hour of sleep makes a huge difference in my life, so I feel as though Daylight Savings Time is unnecessary. I do not see a need for it, especially since it does not actually save energy, its original purpose.

The common opinion on video games is that they are not good for you, or as I have heard many times, “They fry your brain.”  With violent video games, such as Call of Duty, or Grand Theft Auto, there is an especially negative connotation. It is often suggested that individuals that play violent or aggressive games become more aggressive and violent individuals. Without seeing any studies, I would be led to believe that this is an accurate assumption, and the results of studies also back this up.

A meta-analysis of 98 independent studies, consisting of 37,000 people, is consistent with this idea. The study came to the conclusion that video games that promote aggression increased aggression and decrease social outcomes. It also concluded that prosocial video games do not have a negative effect, they have a positive social impact. Since this study is a meta-analysis, it is very convincing. It also appears the study was well done, and proved causality between video games and social outcomes. I do see an aspect of reverse causality affecting such a study. I see this because I feel as though aggressive people would be more likely to play aggressive video games, but the study seems to convincingly prove that the video games make the individual more aggressive.

Also, another study from Italy also found negative impacts of violent video games. Although these studies have a slightly different finding, they are consistent with the idea that violent video games have a negative impact. The study concluded that the violent video games decreased self-control and increased cheating and aggressiveness.

I do not love the method used in the study, because the likeliness of the individual to eat the M&Ms could be contingent on confounding variables, not just self-control. I also do not particularly like basing findings off of a survey given to the participants, because I feel as though participants would be more inclined to choose the politically correct answer, rather than how they actually feel. I believe the study was well done and can be trusted. The threat of reverse causation is extremely minimal, if present at all, because it is highly unlikely that eating more M&Ms causes an individual to be aggressive. Therefore, the study convincingly shows a causal relationship between self-control and aggression and violent video games.

These findings raise the question: Should parents let their children play video games? My answer is yes, but be careful. I feel as though games such as FIFA, Mario Kart, and other games that promote fun and competition are perfectly fine and children should be encouraged to play them. With that being said, I would highly advise against allowing children to play highly violent games such as Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, etc. The non violent games promote more positive attributes, while the violent and aggressive games.  If it were my children, I would be inclined to allow them to play only non violent games, at least up to a certain age. For instance, I see no reason why a 9 year-old needs to be playing shooting games, but a 14 or 15 year-old may be a little bit different.

As I sit in my dorm, beating my roommate badly in NHL 2015, I start to think about doing homework. The natural reaction to that thought is homework can wait because this is a must-win game for bragging rights. Then I start to think: do video games affect your brain? Or is it just something that side tracks you, so you do not do your homework. The common answer from most people would be video games are not good for you. Still, some say video games have a positive impact on the individual playing,

When we look for positives, there is no shortage. According to a study, video games provide emotional, cognitive, motivational, and social benefits. “Several studies have shown a causal relation between playing preferred video games and improved mood or increases in positive emotion” (American Psychologist). When I see this, it is hard to disagree with. What is better than beating a friend in an intense FIFA game? The answer to that: Absolutely nothing. Even if it is just a puzzle game, such as angry birds, winning is winning, and this improves the mood of the player.

One of these studies concluded that playing video games causes changes in brain waves consistent with improved moods. Obviously, how much mood improves varies depending on the game. This study appears very well done. It performs a very complex evaluation of each participant, which lead to the conclusion, using formulas and statistics. Assuming there were no confounding variables, it appears safe to say that there is a causal relationship between playing video games and an individual’s mood.

The cognitive benefits of video games is clearly present. Video games can not be good for your brain. This statement is false. Video games, especially shooting video games, promote a wide range of cognitive skills. “A recently published meta-analysis (Uttal et al., 2013) concluded that the spatial skills improvements derived from playing commercially available shooter video games are comparable to the effects of formal (high school and university-level) courses aimed at enhancing these same skills” (American Psychologist). I find this conclusion to be amazing, but also not an outrageous assumption. If you think about it, video games, especially shooting games, force the player to make hundreds of split-second decisions in just one game.

The most interesting positive benefit of video games in my eyes is the social aspect. When I think of video games, social skills is the last thing I would think about. In fact, I would assume that people who play video games too much do not have said social skills. With many games, such as World of Warcraft, Farmville, and even games such as FIFA or Madden, playing with a friend is necessary or simply more fun. Based on the statistics, 62% of gamers play games with others, whether that is online or in person. The research done by the ESA seems very well-done, which makes this statistic fairly reliable. I would definitely agree with this statistic because, from experience, video games are more fun when you play with or against someone. It is not nearly as fun to compete against the computer, when you could be playing, and talking to, another human being.

When one thinks about the effect of video games, it normally results in the negative connotation. These statistics and studies clearly show the opposite. Gaming provides benefits that are not clearly visible when one thinks about video games. Especially within recent years, smartphone games have greatly increased the number of individuals who play video games. It is the common notion that video games, and technology as a whole, are ruining our generation, but I would beg to differ and the evidence supports such a stance.

I decided to do a blog on strokes because about 7 years ago my grandmother had a stroke. While it was not terminal, it clearly has impacted her abilities in a tremendous way. A stoke occurs when blood flow to the brain is cut off. This causes brain cells to die, and whatever function those cells were responsible for are lost. Strokes can now be treated, as well as prevented, which was not so 15 years ago. I am curious about this question because my grandmother had a stroke almost 7 years ago, and while still alive, fully suffers the effects of the stroke.

My question is: Even though she is relatively unresponsive, does she understand what is going on? Also, is there any experiment going on to find a way to prevent strokes. While I do not know what type of stroke she had, it has had a lasting impact. Based on research, I am led to believe she had an ischemic stroke, which occurs when an artery linked to the brain gets blocked, severely decreasing or stopping blood flow to the brain. This type of stroke accounts for 80% of all strokes and seems to be consistent with the symptoms she demonstrates. She appears to have slight paralysis in certain areas of her body, especially her hands, as well as cognitive deficits, which affect thinking, awareness, attention, and memory. It is hard to judge because, at the age of 91, it is hard to differ between these effects. Or in other words, how much of these deficiencies are because of old age and much is because of the stroke.

When around her, it is clear that she hears and processes what is going on around her. She does not communicate well, if at all. When you talk to her, she chuckles, smiles, and frequently says “Oh”, in a way that suggests she knows what you are saying. One study, led by the University of Michigan, found that a stroke ages your brain nearly eight years. In the case of my grandma, this would be very significant. The difference between an 85 year-old and a 93 year-old is huge, and can often be the difference between life and death. Assuming the study was done well, this finding could explain much of the deficits experienced by my grandmother. The observational study was based on data from 4900 Americans 65 and older, who partook in tests of memory and thinking speed over a span of 15 years. I am satisfied with the way the study was run, which makes me inclined to believe the findings are accurate.

This leads me to a further question of: Does preexisting dementia make having a stroke more likely? Prior to having a stroke, she exhibited signs of oncoming dementia from time to time. Based on the information I have found, I believe the dementia may be advanced as a result of the stroke she suffered, called vascular dementia. Individuals who have had a stroke have a “9 times greater risk of dementia than people who have not had a stroke” (eMedicinehealth). Also, after having a stroke, 1 in 4 people develop signs of dementia within one year. “Vascular dementia is most common in old people” (eMedicinehealth). Based on this information, it does not seem as though preexisting dementia would make having a stroke more likely.

Strokes have an enormous impact on an individual’s body. With how advanced our science is at this time, I am very surprised there has not been advances on ways to prevent strokes, other than avoiding things that clearly contribute to your the likelihood of a stroke. Based on the information found, there is no reverse causation between a stroke and dementia, but there likely is causation. The studies show that strokes can cause dementia. It is hard for me to say whether my grandmother does know what is going on, simply because I do not know which area of her brain has been affected by the stroke. All things considered, I have come to the conclusion that having slight dementia before the stroke was simply intensified the symptoms. As the study said, a stroke basically ages your brain 8 years. If she did not have a stroke, I am sure the dementia would be just as severe 8 years later as it was following the stroke.

We all complain about how long our walks to class are. I know, because I would be the first to complain. I often use this as an excuse when going to the gym. I look at it as I did a lot of work with my legs today, so when at the gym, I do not need to workout my legs. Am I right? Or is this just a lame excuse used to avoid leg workouts at the gym. I suspect this is just an excuse and that walking does not do much for your body, and your legs in general. So I wonder: is walking enough physical activity to stay healthy? Contrary to my thought, according to many sources, walking for as little as 20 minutes per day can be life changing.

A study led by Ulf Ekelund from The Cambridge University, found that minimal exercise can make an immense impact on the health of an individual. The observational study focused on a large group of 334,000, and consistently showed walking for 20 minutes a day “would cut the risk of premature death by almost a third” (Daily Mail). The study concluded as little as 20 minutes of walking could add several years onto one’s life span. It asserts that 676,000 out of 9.2 million recorded European deaths could be blamed on inactivity (Daily Mail). With such a small amount of exercise going such a long way, it is mind boggling how individuals do not stay active. Assuming the study was well done, the findings are eye opening.

I do not like observational studies as a basis for certainty, but performing an experiment on this topic over a long period of time would be difficult. I can not envision a long-term experiment for this topic because you can not simply force people to not be active. A short-term study could be performed, but it would still be difficult because 20 minutes of exercise is a pretty minimal amount. With the limitations the researchers faced, the only change I would have made to the study was the follow up time. The mean follow-up time was 12.4 years, which in my opinion is too long. I would much rather the study keep constant observation on the individuals, checking in every year or every two years. Since the study focused on the effects on life span, the long layoff between check ups does make sense.

In addition to this study, there are other findings that agree with the position, especially as one increases in age. According to Michael A. Schwartz, walking also shores up your bones. Again, his study was observational so it is hard to say with certainty, but the evidence is consistent with the conclusion that “30 minutes of walking each day reduced their risk of hip fractures by 40 percent” (Arthritis Foundation).  Also, according to a study done by the University of Virginia School of Medicine, researchers found that walking is associated to a reduced risk of dementia. These two studies clearly suggest that walking is extremely beneficial, especially as one approaches older ages. The studies, especially the dementia study appear to be very well done,which would suggest that the studies are reliable and accurate.

The only problem I have with the studies cited are the fact that they are observational studies, not experiments. While they clearly show a correlation between walking and increased life span, reduced dementia, and shoring up bones, they do not show why. Confounding variables, such as other activities an individual takes part in, could also contribute toward the findings. It would be very difficult, if possible at all, to run an experiment to figure out if causation exists between the variables. In the end, I do believe walking, and exercise in general, is very good for you. I’m not a believer in 20 minutes of walking making a huge difference. I think that more exercise than just 20 minutes of walking is necessary to increase one’s health, but 20 minutes is a good start.

Photo Credit

Kinesiology tape has become more and more popular in the recent years, beginning with the Summer Olympics in when many beach volleyball players were spotted wearing it. The purpose of the tape is that it supposedly “improves athletic performance and reduces the risk of injury better than traditional white athletic tape by amplifying proprioception, which is your sense of where your limbs are positioned” (New York Times). It is also believed that the tape helps speed recovery from injuries by raising the skin away from irritated areas. So with this stated, is it really working? I have never used kinesiology tape, so I do not know, but it does not seem like it would work very well.

Jim Thornton stated, “There is no solid, independent scientific evidence that kinesio tape does what it is supposed to do” (New York Times). For sports, I have had my ankles taped more times than I can count, with normal white athletic tape. I know this tape works. I can not say kinesiology tape does not work, but I can not imagine it working any better than normal athletic tape. A review of relevant studies is consistent with my opinion, kinesiology tape is no better than regular athletic tape. I find it very intriguing how many professional athletes continue to wear it even though there is no evidence that supports its benefits.

A study conducted in Italy attempted to find the effects of the kinesiology tape on muscle strength in the quadriceps of the subjects. In this study, subjects were tested three different times, with the tape applied in three different ways: to inhibit muscle strength, enhance muscle strength, and with the goal to deceive. The study found that “none of the three taping conditions showed a significant change in muscle strength and performance” (Breakingmuscle.com). Based on this study, and the common belief among many professionals in the orthopedic field, kinesiology tape does not do much, if anything. Why do we then believe it makes a difference?

The common idea for why it is believed to be effective results from the placebo effect. John Brewer, head of sport and exercise sciences and director of sport at the University of Bedfordshire in the U.K., is one of those individuals. He stated, “I think if you can get somebody in the right frame of mind, then that can make a big difference on what they do” (Web MD). In my opinion, this is what happens with kinesiology tape. When people put it on, they believe it is going to have a positive effect on them, which boosts confidence. As everyone has heard in their lifetime, confidence is key. When someone has confidence, they can be unstoppable, especially when it comes to sports.

Kinesiology tape is a very intriguing product to the common athlete because it appears to help performance a great deal. I would be cautious before using it though, because I believe regular athletic tape can do just as good, if not a better job with stabilizing any any area of the body. In my opinion, kinesiology tape is mostly hype. It is produced in bright colors so it stands out and looks flashy. This overshadows what the tape actually does, which is virtually nothing.

As I hung around watching the first week of the NFL season, something was clearly different. The extra point had been moved back. Instead of the kick being roughly 20 yards, it now is about a 33 yard attempt. This is a drastic change, which in my opinion makes the game more enticing.  Instead of a touchdown basically being worth 7 points, now it truly is worth six and the team must earn the extra point to make it 7. With this new rule, the two point conversion attempt remains at the 2 yard line, giving teams more of an incentive to go for the two points rather than kicking the extra point.

As you can see in the pictures, there is a large difference between a 20 yard extra point, and a 33 yard extra point. 13 yards may not seem like much, but in the scheme of a
football game, it is enormous. A 20 yard extra point was more or less automatic. In 2013 and 2014 respectively, all but five teams in the NFL were perfect on extra points. In total, NFL teams converted on 99% of extra point attempts. The NFL saw this as too easy which it clearly is. It served as an extra, meaningless play in the football game. So does making it a 33 yard field goal make any difference at all? The answer is yes, especially depending on where the game is being played.

NFL kickers still made roughly 90% of field goals from 30-39 yards, so what is the reason for the rule change? The NFL’s attempt to make the PAT a more strategic play seems to be a failure. They believed moving the extra point kick attempt would cause more teams to go for two points instead of kicking the field goal. In 2014, NFL teams converted a mediocre 47.5% (27 of 56) of their two point attempts. Since the adoption of the two point conversion in 1994, there have only been four seasons with a two point conversion success rate of over 50%. With this poor conversion percentage, would teams really be enticed to go for two instead of kicking a field goal they would make roughly 90% of the time? In my opinion, that is not nearly a good enough incentive to risk going for two.

While the NFL has changed kickoffs for safety reasons, they contradict themselves by changing extra points to make them more competitive. Before the rule change, the extra point was an almost meaningless play that players went, at most, half speed. Now, with the rule change and the decrease in the percentage made, it is sure to make the extra point more physical, and in turn, more collisions will happen. In my opinion, it goes against everything the NFL has been pushing with regards to player safety. They all but eliminated the kickoff by moving kick offs to the 35 yard line. The new extra point now counteracts the kickoff change, which is perplexing.

I understand the thought process behind the rule change regarding the extra point, but in the grand scheme of the NFL attempting to make the game safer, it makes no sense. Moving the kick to make it a 33 yard attempt makes the play much more meaningful and reduces the efficiency of converting the kick. At the same time, this introduces another meaningful play to the already long and grueling football game, which could result in injuries, something the NFL desperately has been trying to limit. We will see how the NFL adjusts to the new extra point distance throughout the season, and I am sure many changes will be made to the rule in the near future before it is perfect

Going to the gym is a great way to stay in shape and build muscle. Some people go to the gym to run on the treadmill, while others go to try to become more built.  When it comes to those who are trying to get bigger, what is the best way to go about it? There are dumbbells,  and machines. Which should you use? For me, I try to mix in a little bit of both, but I am under the assumption that free weights are more effective than machines.  When going by myself, I tend to use more machines because, with machines, a spotter is not necessary, while with free weights one should always have a spotter.

First, the advantages of free weights. Free weights can be used at home or at the gym, making it very easy to get a workout in wherever you are. Also, free weights allow the individual to workout using natural motion, with resistance.  It puts more stress on more muscles because free weights force you to use a large muscle group instead of targeting a specific muscle. The negatives regarding free weights mostly are associated with injury. Doing an exercise with bad form can seriously injure one’s body. For this reason, it is important to have a spotter with you, just in case. Another negative would be the fact it is hard to target one specific muscle if that is your goal.

Resistance machines also prove to be an effective way to gain strength. The machines that work best are the machines that adjust to your body, and allow a full range motion. Benefits of machines are numerous. One that sticks out is the ability to target a certain muscle or muscle group. Also, the machines provide a standard motion, which helps control the movements of your body, all but preventing injuries resulting from a wrong movement. In addition, there is no risk of hurting yourself if you try more weight than you can do. It allows you to push yourself without having to rely on a spotter because the machine is safe and will catch the weight. The detriments to using resistance machines relate to most machines not being natural motions, as well as only targeting one muscle makes working out much more difficult.

As you can see in the graph, when it comes to strength, resistance machines (green) and free weights (orange) are a close one and two when it comes to building strength. For the most part, the most important factor in deciding which to use is preference. For instance, I use both. It depends what I am doing or what I am trying to accomplish. Most of the time, I do free weights first, allowing all of the muscles to get engaged in the activity. Then, if I want to target a muscle i will use machines toward the end of the workout. I would recommend using resistance machines until you can do a relatively large amount of weight because keeping the weights stable is half the battle of using free weights. All in all, it is a matter of preference. I personally use both, but the most important thing is finding a workout that suits you best.

The graph seen above can be found here.

In recent days, there has been speculation over whether or not Matt Harvey will pitch in the postseason if the New York Mets were to qualify. The disagreement was between Harvey’s agent and the Mets front office. Harvey finally cleared the air when he told reporters, “I will pitch in the playoffs.” Originally, doctors had given an innings limit of 180-185 innings for Harvey, which he would easily surpass if he continued to pitch in the regular season.  The consensus opinion is that the Mets will skip his starts, if they can afford to, until the end of the regular season.

This obviously raises the question of whether or not the innings limit is needed. The limit was suggested by Dr. James Andrews, who has a reputation of being the best doctor for Tommy John surgery. The open discussions from Mets GM Sandy Alderson, Harvey, and his agent Scott Boras have caused a real distraction that the Mets could do without as they make a playoff push.  So is the innings limit really necessary? Or is this just a meaningless, superficial limit coming off of Tommy John surgery?

Tommy John surgery primarily serves to reconstruct the UCL in the human elbow. It is the most prevalent surgery throughout baseball, especially among pitchers.  It is caused by the simple motion of throwing the baseball overhand, which is not a natural motion for the human body.  In today’s game, “85% of players who undergo Tommy John return to the sport, at or above their previous level of competition.” Given this statistic, why is Harvey’s agent so concerned about the innings limit which apparently was a recommendation.

My first thought is whether Harvey has a legitimate chance of injuring himself again. These statistics are where it becomes tricky, because injuries to the arm are somewhat common after Tommy John surgery.  Studies have shown that “19% of Tommy John patients will have a subsequent elbow surgery and 25% will have shoulder surgery.” Based on this, the concern over Harvey’s elbow are definitely warranted, especially because of the talent he has shown.

As an avid Mets fan, it would kill me to see Matt Harvey shut down for the season because he has thrown too many innings. In my opinion, the innings limit is so arbitrary because of the number of pitches thrown in each respective inning, as well as the pressure of the pitch.  I do not understand how Matt Harvey throwing 110 pitches in 6 innings is technically the same as if he threw 90 pitches in the same 6 innings. I believe that is the reason for the pitch count system in Little League baseball, which makes much more sense. I believe that with Harvey’s determination and will to be on the field he will be on the mound in the postseason. I do not see a scenario where anyone will be able to convince Harvey not to pitch in the postseason, especially if he physically feels good.

Laying in bed when it is 90 degrees out with no air conditioning is one of the most uncomfortable things I have ever done.  I realized this the other night when I simply could not sleep because it was so hot.  I laid in bed for hours, trying to get to sleep, thinking about the 9 AM class awaiting me in the morning.  Trying to find a cool position to stay in was difficult.

This drove me to wonder what the perfect sleeping temperature is.  In my mind, this depends on the person, but there must be a temperature range that is best for sleeping.  Craig Heller, PhD, states the human body has an internal thermostat.  When we go to sleep, our brain tries to achieve a lower body temperature.  If it is too hot or too cold, our bodies have trouble getting to the lower temperature, making it hard to sleep.  This means that if the room is too hot it is very difficult for the body to get to the lower body temperature it is attempting to reach. Sleeping in an extremely cold room would be uncomfortable, but it would be easier for the body to get to the lower body temperature.

REM Sleep is the period of sleep in which the body temperature gradually becomes what it on the outside.  Thus, hot temperatures make people wake up during REM sleep. REM normally accounts for 20-25% of sleep, which is a great portion of your night. Theoretically, with hot temperatures, you would be getting, for example, 6 hours of sleep instead of 8.  I know for me this is a drastic difference and would make me grumpy, sluggish and unproductive.  The most important aspect that allows one to get to sleep is keeping your head cool with pillows that are not suffocating.

So what is the best way to fight the heat? It is simple to just say “Oh turn the thermostat down.” In a dorm room setting, with no air conditioning, this is not a plausible solution. One of the most overlooked ideas which may help sleep is staying hydrated throughout the day.  One of the causes of poor rest is dehydration.  Also, you could consider taking a hot shower before going to bed.  This would raise body temperature forcing your body to cool down and your brain to kick into “sleep mode”.

For me, 65-70 degrees would be the perfect temperature for me to sleep in.  It is not too hot and not too cold, and it is just cold enough where I can still be under a heavy blanket.  For now though, that is not reasonable, so I am going to have to try out some different methods to enable me to fall asleep quicker.  I don’t want the winter to come, but I also need sleep, so something needs to give.

Hi, my name is Ryan Metz. I am from Hopewell Junction, New York, which is about an hour north of New York City.  I am a big Mets fan, not because of my last name.  I am in the Smeal College of Business and intend to major in Supply Chain.

I am taking this course because I realized astronomy was going to be extremely difficult and I am not very into astronomy as a subject.  I am not going to be a science major because I do not like the concept of trying to find the end result, not knowing if there will be an end result.  I am more of a math-minded person, where there is one right answer and that is it.