Due to diets such as Atkins and South Beach, when people think of losing weight, the very first thing they think that has to be done is completely cutting out carbohydrates. In today’s society, carbs are the enemy. They are what help make America so fat. But is this true? Should you cut out carbohydrates to lose weight? To examine this closely, people need to know what exactly a carbohydrate is.

Carbs

While it may seem simple, carbohydrates are a huge category. Not all carbs are the same and have the same effects on our bodies. They are a source of energy that is used to fuel cells, like the brain and muscles. Carbs are part of the macronutrients group, the only other two being fat and protein. There are also three different types of carbs: sugar, starch, and fiber. Sugar could be found naturally in foods, like fruit, or added into foods like soda and candy. Starches are sugar units bonded together. This included bread, rice and pasta to help keep energy steady throughout the day. Fiber only comes from plants. It helps keep our bowels healthy and can come from vegetables with skins or wholegrain bread and pastas. Carbs can be broken down even more into simple carbs and complex carbs. Simple carbs include naturally occurring sugars in milk, vegetables, and fruit, table sugar, and corn syrup. Complex carbs include starch and fiber.

Case Against Carbs

The beef with carbs is mainly against simple carbs. These include products heavy with simple sugars and starches. For example, they could be a soda with fructose in it or white bread. These carbs can be rapidly digested. This has been linked to higher fat gain. A study was done on mice where they ate rapidly digestible carbs and slowly digestible carbs. One group didn’t weigh more than the other, but the group eating rapidly digestible carbs did gain excess fat.  Carbohydrates are also what help store water in the body. When you completely cut out carbs, you will lose most of the excess water weight in your body. This is good for diets, such as Atkins, that promise quick weight loss because it will happen. Most people will lose an average of fifteen pounds in the first two weeks to a month of starting a no-carb diet.

Case for Carbs

Many nutritionists argue that carbohydrates are necessary for the body to function properly. They are your body’s main source of energy. Cutting them out could lead to a deficiency throughout your whole diet, such as a deficiency of fiber, calcium, iron, and Vitamin B. This is because most of these supplements are found in vegetables, fruits, legumes, and dairy products. These foods are typically thought of as healthy, but in a no carbohydrate diet they would need to be cut out.  Cutting out carbs also could raise your risk of heart disease. When people cut out carbs, they often replace them with fats and high fat sources of protein, which leads to higher cholesterol and therefore potentially heart disease. Another major concern with a no carb diet is ketosis. This when the body breaks down its stored fat to convert it into energy because it is so low on glucose. Ketones then build up in the blood, causing ketosis. These symptoms include headaches, weakness, nausea, dehydration, dizziness, and irritability. An experiment done to test the difference between no-carb diets and no-fat diets produced mixed results. However, it did show that people with a balance diet faired well.

Middle Ground

Most nutritionists fall somewhere in the middle of the carb argument. They agree that cutting out the bad carbs, so the simple carbs is good for your diet if you want to lose weight. Foods like sweets, chocolates, biscuits, cakes, and soft drinks are often very high in sugar and calories, therefore negating the positives carbs would bring to your diet. They also don’t keep you satisfied for long, so you end up eating more in the long run. Complex carbs, like fruit, vegetables, and starchy foods, are highly recommended for a healthy diet. Around half your daily calorie intake should actually be from starchy foods, fruits, and vegetables. This gives you energy to keep going and generally leaves you feeling full.

Verdict: Cutting out carbs completely will promise quick weight loss. However, it almost certainly promises quick weight gain once you start introducing carbs back into your diet. Just like almost anything to do with losing weight, there is no magic cure. If you want to lose weight proficiently, you need to cut out the “fun” carbs, like candy and cake, and keep the good carbs, such as fruit and legumes. With the increase of these no carb fads, my guess is there will be many more experiments to come. I was only able to find one experiment that showed whether cutting carbs or fat is better. The results were mixed, but showed that people with a well-rounded diet did better. However, since there is only one experiment on this, we could not perform a meta-analysis. Because of this, I felt it was important to mention it, but not conclusive enough to use as evidence one way or another. Right now, all evidence points to the tried and true method of eating an all-around healthy diet and exercise is still the best way to lose weight.  This allows you to still decrease your calorie intake, but enjoy the positive benefits carbs give you and enjoy the energy that comes with them.

Another story I heard as a child was to not to sit too closely to the TV or I would hurt my eyes. This cautionary tale came from my grandparents when they babysat me. I always listened to their advice, but I was never sure why I did it. It never made sense to me on why this could hurt your eyes. This topic was brought up in Psychology 100 and it peaked my curiosity. Is sitting too close to the television bad for you? This was much easier to find out than I expected.

Back in the 1960’s, sitting too close to televisions actually did hurt you. However, it is probably not for the reason you think. General Electric TV issued a statement warning their consumers that their televisions radiated excessive x-rays because of a factory error.  The amount of radiation given off was anywhere from 10 to 10,000 higher than the safe rate. If you sat far enough away from the television and only watched it periodically, than you were safe. General Electric eventually figured out that if they put a leaded glass shield around their televisions, then their consumers were safe. At this point, this stigma about sitting too close to the television was already created. Even though there has been nothing similar to this since then, many people still believe watching television too close is bad for you.

But I’ve heard it is bad for your eyes?

There is no truth behind this statement. It is probably just another rumor stemming from the radiation problem in the early 1960s. Dr. Lee Duffner, from the American Academy of Ophthalmology, has reassured parents that watching television close up doesn’t do any physical damages to your eyes. In fact, the American Academy of Ophthalmology stated that children focus on things closely better than adults without eyestrain. This means that many kids actually develop the habit of sitting close to the television or reading things closely. It is just a habit that kids form.

Not all rosy

While sitting closely to the television causes no lasting effects, it could be a sign that the child is nearsighted and needs glasses. Sitting close to the television also causes eyestrain. This can be uncomfortable and cause headaches, but goes away once you turn the television off.

Verdict: You can sit as far away or close to the television as possible. Sitting too close to the television was once dangerous, but now it is just a myth that won’t go away.

Since I have looked at many wives tales lately, I am starting to question if any of them have any accuracy. Something my mom has always bugged me about it listening to my music too loud with my headphones. It doesn’t seem to matter how low I have the volume on, she is going to hear it and yell at me. She always tells me that I am going to lose my hearing because of them. I normally roll my eyes and keep listening to whatever how I want. At Penn State, so many kids wear their headphones. It is hard to walk from my dorm to class without seeing at least fifty pairs of them. My mom’s nagging rings in my ears. Are headphones bad for your hearing? Turns out not all wives tales are fiction.

Headphones initially came onto the scene in 1910 by Nathaniel Baldwin. They were then used heavily by the US Navy and expanded upon by then. Headphones were fairly constant in their shape and size (imagine chunkier Beats) until the early 2000’s when Apple made the new design popular. Everyone knows of the little white headphones that you stick directly into your ears. They don’t cancel out noise like old shape did and the fact that they settle inside your ear allows music to go directly into your ear canal. Now every 1 in 5 teen suffers from some kind of hearing loss. Experts think it is because of the new style of headphones.

Popular headphones now sit in your ear canal. This puts the music very close to your inner year, the sensitive part of year. This “turns” up the volume on ear damage more than people are aware. Volume is the culprit when it comes to ear damage and headphones. An iPod at 70% of its maximum volume is around 85 decibels of noise. An audiologist at Wichita State University randomly pulled headphones out of his students’ ears. Most students listen to their iPods between 110-120 decibels. Music this loud causes hearing loss in just an hour and fifteen minutes.We cringe when we hear loud noises, such as chainsaws and motorcycles, but those noises are only around 100 decibels sound. Basically, students are unknowingly putting more than that magnitude in their ears for hours at a time. The maximum volume teenagers should listen to from their device is 60%, so most teens are doubling the recommended volume. This is where hearing loss comes in.

Headphones cause permanent hearing loss by damaging the inner ear. The ear has three parts, the outer ear, middle ear, and inner ear, that all work together to process sounds. Inside the inner ear is a structure called the cochlea, which is covered in little hairs. These hairs send sound messages to the brain when received. With loud music, these hairs can get damaged or destroyed. This means the cochlea that cannot send the sound messages to the brain and therefore, your hearing becomes damaged. Once this loss occurs, it can never heal. A study at Tel Aviv University has examined this theory. The first stage of the study involved 289 participants aged 13 to 17. They answered questions about how often they used their personal listening devices and the volume they did so at. In the second stage, the researchers measured the listening levels of 74 of the teens in quiet and nosy environments. They then used the measured volume levels to calculate the risk of damaging their hearing. They discovered that one in four kids are in risk of hearing loss directly due to listening to loud music with headphones for long periods of time.

So what does this mean? Headphone lovers will argue that these are all just observations. Scientists are just looking at teenager’s personal listening device’s habits and then looking at ears for damage. They are not actively experimenting. Correlation does not equal causation. However, all the data seems extremely consistent with the hypothesis that headphones cause permanent damage to listening. I suspect the reason why I couldn’t find any experiments on this was because doctors are so certain that headphones cause hearing loss that most experiments would then be unethical on humans. Headphones can still be used. Scientists have discovered the sweet spot for listening without hearing damage as 60% of the maximum volume for no more than hour. Even better would to resort to the older style of the over the ear headphones. Some people may not find them fashionable, but their eyes will thank them.

Most people that keep up with popular culture know about Lamar Odom’s story by now. He was found in a brothel unconscious and was reported to have taken several tabs of herbal Viagra. At the time of his initial hospitalization, it looked like he may have overdosed on this. It later turned out he had many other drugs in his system, such as cocaine. Before this case, I had never heard of herbal Viagra before. Besides the few commercials that would show during the Super Bowl, it was something that never crossed my mind. Since Lamar Odom is so famous, there were many articles discussing the rising popularity of these drugs. Not much is known about them, but the curiosity towards them has been rising. Is herbal Viagra safe?

What is the argument for herbal Viagra?

There are many different brands that can be classified under verbal Viagra. Some of the most popular brands are Stamina-RX, Vigor-25, and Jia Yi Jian. They promise to contain herbal ingredients from Asia. Herbal Viagra touts itself as a safer and cheaper alternative method to regulated sexual arousing drugs. Also, one in four men are afraid to talk about their erectile dysfunction problems with their doctors. Since drugs like Viagra must be described, herbal Viagra appeals to the men who want to keep their problem discrete. Many men take herbal Viagra thinking they are ingesting natural ingredients and therefore can avoid the side effects from Viagra itself. What they don’t know is many brands of herbal Viagra contain Reload, Viagra’s main active ingredient. In fact, often times these drugs contain more than twice the amount of maximum dosage allowed in federally mandated drugs.

What exactly is in it?

The scary thing about herbal Viagra is that health experts are not entirely sure what is in each brand because the FDA and other similar entities do not regulate them. The director of Flora Research Laboratories, James Neal-Kababick, has analyzed hundreds of samples of herbal Viagra and around 90 percent has show to contain patented pharmaceuticals. Often times, they contain more than twice the dose allowed in the regulated drugs. The cost common prescription drug that shows up in double is Tadalafil and Sildenafil. These products often contain Sibutramine as well. This drug typically treats obesity and shows up in herbal Viagra more than four times the 15g that are allowed in prescription drugs. Health experts cannot be positive what else are in these drugs because like I mentioned before, they are not regulated.

What do these ingredients mean?

The ingredients shown in herbal Viagra highlights the many risks men are taking while on this supplement. Sildenafil works to increase blow flow to the penis when sexually aroused. The other products, such as Tadalafil, work to improve walls of blood vessels. This combination can cause dangerously low blood pressure in men. For men with heart conditions, this can be deadly. The risk is so great that people on prescribed Viagra have to check in with their doctors frequently and undergo testing. With herbal Viagra, due to the double doses, these risks are higher and men are not getting the check ups needed. These drugs also do not mix well with nitrates, a drug that mostly older men take. This is also the same market for herbal Viagra. On top of this, verbal Viagra does not have to list the substances or side effects on the bottle. Men take it having no idea what they are getting themselves into.

Can we prove that herbal Viagra is dangerous?

This is a tricky question because we all know how hard it is to say we have “proven” something in science. However, the evidence has started to trend this way. Doctors have not attributed any deaths to herbal Viagra, but they have recorded emergency room visits due to it in all major cities. A Chicago emergency room doctor and head of Northwestern’s clinical toxicology program, Mark M. Mycyk, has noted an increase amount of visits from men suffering after taking herbal Viagra. He also believes that there could be undetected deaths from it. Public health officials also agree that the number of cases reported is probably greatly underestimated due to the embarrassment of the men, so much so that only 1% of the cases get reported. The most extreme case is when an elderly man took a sample of Spontane-ES and then suffered a stroke twenty minutes later.

This is all very compelling evidence, but this is all observational. We know that correlation does not equal causation. The story of the elderly man could simply be an anecdote. In this situation, the reverse causation can be ruled out. Herbal Viagra causing men serious side effects makes sense. Serious side effects causing men to take herbal Viagra does not. We cannot rule out third variable. We do not know if something else could be making some men susceptible to these symptoms, such as their age or body weight. We would need to conduct an experiment to do so. A randomized double blind trial could occur. After random selection (this takes out third variables issues), men would be placed in two groups. One would be given Viagra and one herbal Viagra. Over time, doctors could track their symptoms and see which men suffer more.

Bottom Line: Doctors caution against herbal Viagra. Although we cannot prove that it causes dangerous side effects, so far the data is consistent with the hypothesis. Many different brands of herbal Viagra have shown to have double the amount of prescription drugs and double the intensity of side effects. The FDA is working hard to ban these drugs and encourage men to avoid them. It looks like for now men will have to empty their pockets on actual Viagra.

This summer when I was at the beach, I saw a little shop on the boardwalk advertising acai. Since I heard so many of my friends say such good things about it, I was curious to try it. The way the store made it for me was blending the acai with honey and strawberries into a thick, smoothie like substance. They then put bananas, raspberries, granola, and raspberries on it. It was absolutely delicious. I went back every day for the rest of vacation. I couldn’t believe what I was eating. It tasted like frozen yogurt and satisfied by sweet tooth, yet it was healthy for me?! Not only was it healthy, but my friends were telling me that it would actually help me lose weight. No wonder why people were calling it the “miracle fruit”. Since this sounded too good to be true, I decided to do a little research on it. Is acai a super food? A super food is defined as “mostly plant-based food, but also some fish and dairy, thought to be nutritionally dense and thus good for one’s health. Some other foods dubbed this are salmon, kale, and blueberries. The results were not as clear cut.

What is acai?

Before I move on, many people are probably wondering what exactly this “acai” thing is. Acai is a purple berry that tastes like a mixture of wild berries and chocolate. It is found in the Amazon River basin in Brazil in clusters at the top of skinny palm trees. It contains lots of anthocyanin, which is an antioxidant that could possibly prevent cancer, inflammation, diabetes, aging, and many other things. The high level of antioxidants is comparable to cranberries. It is low in sugar and has high amounts of iron, calcium, fiber, and Vitamin A. Natives in the Amazon used acai for many different treatments, such as parasitic infections, hemorrhages, and ulcers. Now in popular culture in developed countries, acai is used as natural food coloring, cosmetics, anti-aging skin creams, shampoos, and food loss supplements. What made it really rise in popularity was the promise that it helps with significant weight loss. This all seemed promising.

So what’s the problem?

At first, I whole-heartedly agreed with the notion that it’s a super food. A lot of my initial research seemed to point to that. However, it quickly became evident that the problem with acai is not the fruit itself, but the media attention around it. The craze around acai started when Oprah Winfrey hosted Dr. Mehmet Oz, a heart surgeon from Columbia University. Once they promoted it on air, acai exploded in the United States. All of a sudden it became a cure for weight less, sexual dysfunction, and long life. The biggest aspect marketers promoted about acai is that it helps people lose weight. Manufactures tout it as the main product in “miracle diet pills” because it boosts your energy and lowers your cholesterol. There are absolutely no studies to prove this. In fact, in January of 2009 the Better Business Bureau warned consumers about customers about drugs claiming to use acai as their main weight loss ingredient. Since it is extremely hard to keep acai fresh during its transport from Brazil, people in America almost never eat the fresh form. It is mainly grounded up in a liquid and then added into things, like the acai bowl I mentioned earlier. Most acai products sold have lots of added sugars to it that negate the nutritional value. Some companies are completely deceiving people, like BORBA’s Age Defying Advanced Recovery Cream. It advertises acai, but it is missing from the ingredients list. The case for acai isn’t looking as clear cut.

So what does this mean?

There is nothing wrong with acai itself. It is a very good fruit rich in antioxidants and does have many health benefits. With a balanced diet, it can be part of a weight loss plan. Realistically though, acai is just another fruit. The problem is how manufacturers sell it. They advertise it has a miracle weight loss solution, so when this doesn’t happen people understandably get disappointed. Steve Talcolt, a biochemist and Susan Talcot, a food chemist, have done extensive research on acai. Steve Talcott explained, “There is some really unique chemistry to the fruit. But it’s not a drug. It’s not a miracle, cure-all fruit.” So how did this perception happen? I think we can relate it back to the concept we learned in class: what happens when we don’t use the scientific method. Dr. Benjamin Spock meant well when he told parents to put their kids on their stomach, but this led to tens of thousands of cribs deaths. Since he was a well-known expert, the theory flew and quickly got adapted in popular culture. He just didn’t go through with the scientific method to actually test this. Obviously a fruit is nowhere as serious, but it is the same concept. Someone assumed that acai helped with weight loss and after the approval of Oprah and other doctors, it exploded. Once something like this gets out, it is vary hard to dispel it. Verdict: Go ahead and eat as much acai as you want. It is delicious, healthy, and does help your body fight many things. Just don’t expect to lose weight just by eating it and be very cautious of the products you buy advertising it.

From my last blog post, it is probably obvious by now that I love dogs (probably a little too much). Last time, I examined whether dogs can understand what we say to them. While sadly most dogs cannot, this doesn’t mean that dogs aren’t man’s best friends. So my new question is: Does owning dogs make people healthier? Without knowing much information, my hypothesis is that dogs do in fact make people healthier. I headed to the Internet to see if anything was consistent with this thought and I was pleasantly surprised to find that many different people researched this as well. Since “health” can get broken down into many different categories, I will also organize it this way.

Mental health: A huge part of our overall health is our mindset. Psychologists at Miami University and St. Louis University discovered that having a pet is similar to human friendship. Pet owners scored higher in categories such as depression, loneliness, illness, self-esteem, and activity levels. Animals probably have the greatest mental health impact on the elderly. Pet owners over the age sixty have lower stress levels, feel less lonely, eat better, and focus more on the present compared to non-pet owners. This is probably due to feeling the responsibility required to take care of an animal.

Real life scenario: A seventy-five year old man loses his wife and now lives by himself for the first time in over fifty years. He feels lonely and seeks companionship. He adopts a dog and now doesn’t feel as lonely. He feels like he has a friend and a reason to keep living.

So what does this mean? The wording above is key. It kept saying animals, not dogs specifically. Right now, there does not seem to be any studies that specifically prove that just dogs improve mental health. Nevertheless, dogs are obviously animals, it would be consistent with these findings that dogs help improve mental health. It just means that cat owners would reap the same benefits as dog owners. Since these are just observational studies and is not just specific to dogs, we cannot say for certain “dogs cause better mental health”. However, the studies seem consistent with the hypothesis so far.

Physical health: Although this has been a question for years, the American Heart Association (AHA) has recently announced that owning a dog likely lowers the risk of heart disease. The AHA cites evidence that dog owners are more likely to be more active have lower blood pressure, and survive a heart attack. A 1995 study looked at 369 people that already had heart disease and a year later looked at the survival rate. Dog owners who already had heart disease were four times more likely to be alive. Cats did nothing to help the survival rate. The AHA released a large statement on their findings over this topic. In the statement, it acknowledged that dogs positively influence physical activity for their owners the most out of any animals. They cited data from an online survey taken by 5,253 Japanese adults. The survey was controlled for age, sex, and socioeconomics and showed that dog owners walked much more and were 54% more likely to reach the recommended amount of physical activity. Studies done in Australia and Canada were consistent with these findings as well. AHA also brought up many studies that showed dog walkers were more likely to be less obese and have lower blood pressure. These results were not automatic just because someone purchased a dog, they had to show desire to improve their lifestyle.

Real life scenario: A slightly obese man, John, purchases a dog for a pet. John wanted to lose weight, but lacked the motivation to do so. Now that he has a dog, he feels more motivated to walk a lot because he feels like it is socially acceptable. Since he walks much more, he loses weight and is at less of a risk for medical problems.

So what does this mean? The physical benefits shown definitely tip the scale more in the favor of dogs improving their owners’ lives. Many studies looked at whether dogs and cats improve physical health, and the results typically came back showing only dogs show major improvement. It is very important to note that owning a dog does not simply improve health. It is the desire to walk the dog and leading a more active lifestyle because of a dog that causes the health benefits such as losing weight and less of a risk of heart disease.

Conclusion: When it comes to mental health, it appears that owning a dog helps a person live a happier life. Due to the sense companionship, dog owners tend to be less depressed and feel less lonely. However, someone could reach the same benefits by owning a cat. A dog is just one of the animals that can lead to better mental health. All of these studies are also observational, meaning that it is just a correlational relationship. We all know by now that correlation does not equal causation. All of the information we have learned does not rule out my original hypothesis that dogs make people healthier. We just need to conduct studies to definitively say that dogs cause better mental health for the owners. The physical health benefits seem much more in the dogs’ favors. Since owning a dog typically leads to a more active lifestyle, owners can enjoy many benefits such as less of a chance of heart disease, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of obesity. Owners must be committed to walking their dogs to enjoy these benefits. As Dr. Levine, a doctor at the Baylor College of Medicine, explained, “We don’t want people to go out and adopt a dog or a cat and then sit on the couch eating potato chips and smoking a cigarette and assume they are now going to live longer.”  Once again, these studies are simply correlational, so we cannot assume causation. The main issue with this conclusion is reverse causation. While we are starting to believe that owning a dog leads to healthier people, we still cannot rule out that it is actually just healthier people are more likely to own dogs. Verdict: Owning a dog will not hurt your health. Many studies show that dogs will improve your health, but we cannot definitely declare causation at this point in time.

As college students, we are all unfortunately used to not getting enough sleep. There seems to be nothing worse in life than fighting the feeling of nodding off while sitting in class or doing homework. Some people brag about how they effortlessly can pull all-nighters, while others are cranky if they don’t get a full eight hours of sleep. I am definitely in the latter category. Another big part of life for students at Penn State is THON. Hundreds of dancers stay awake and moving for forty-six hours every year. I had the privilege of watching my sister perform this selfless act last year. The weeks leading up to it, I certainly had my doubts. I asked my parents, “Can she really stay up for forty-six hours?!” and “Don’t people start hallucinating?” Well, she proved me wrong and not only did she make it, but she never wavered. But, what is the breaking point for humans? How long can you go without sleeping? Randy Gardner, a seventeen year old student, broke the world record and stayed awake for around eleven days (264 hours) in 1965 at a science fair. Besides this, scientists don’t have much definitive proof.

One thing for sure is humans do not appreciate the importance of sleep. We could go longer without food or water than we could survive without sleep. Humans do suffer severe consequences from a lack of sleep. We can follow these consequences through Scott Kelley, a ten-year Army veteran who suffered through sleep deprivation on the battlefield.

24 hours: In cases of adrenaline, most people do not feel the affects of sleep deprivation. On the battlefield, Kelley could still stay focused and alert. On a more comparable level, I saw my sister for the first time right as she hit the twenty-four mark. I would have never guessed she had been awake for that long. The adrenaline of the crowd, noise, and kids left her feeling good at that point. It changes drastically when someone is just staying awake all day and night to study. The International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health has concluded that staying up for twenty-four hours is the equivalent of have a BAC of .10%. People cannot stay as focused, remember as much, or make as good decisions.

36 hours: Kelley started to not be able to function as well. He reported that his head would buzz and he lost motivation. He also cannot remember chunks of his time. I did not see my sister at this time, but my parents visited her for a half hour. They reported that she was starting to get disorientated, confused about the time, and very cranky.

48 hours: Kelley explains that at this point his mind starts to turn neutral. He cannot stay focused and finds himself just staring into the distance. At this point, my sister was very happy go home and sleep for over twelve hours. She said she had a hard time making it home because she was so disorientated.

72 hours: Kelley’s simple conversations became a chore and he also started having multiple hallucinations. The sleep deprivation is so large that it is hard to concentrate, state motivated, and think critically.

Now, this series of events shows how dangerous a lack of sleep can be just after three to four days. In rats, it proved to be even deadlier. Allan Rechtschaffen , a researcher from the University of Chicago, deprived rats of sleep in the 1980s. After 32 days, all the rats were dead. While the exact reasons are not known, the researchers all agreed it was due to varying effects of sleep exhaustion.

So what does this mean? Scientists do not have an exact answer of how long humans can go without sleep. Reported cases of people staying up for several days’ show that we can stay awake for a while, but it is not without consequences. Physiological changes, such as temperature drops and increased blood pressure, show that our body needs sleep to function properly. Due to the evidence with the rats and experiences of people awake for multiple days, scientists are confident that humans would also die if forced under the same conditions. The amount of time it would take is still being explored.

I love my two yellow labs, Cisco and Holly. I shamelessly admit that they are two of my best friends. Now as empty nesters, my parents treat them like their children. It is not uncommon to find my dad sitting on the couch talking to them. This always makes me wonder: Can dogs understand humans? Although I know logically this would not make sense, my heart had me pursue this question. It turns out I am not the only one who has wondered about this.

(My puppies)

Scientists have proven that dogs worry about the emotion in our voices. They can tell if we sound happy or sad, the tone of our voice, and the different rhythms throughout our speech. A study conducted by scientists at Eotvos University in Budapest concluded that dogs react to human voices just like we do. The vocal region of their brain operates closely to the temporal lobe of our brains. To discover this, they put eleven dogs and twenty-two humans in an MRI machine. After playing 200 different noises, they measured the location and response characteristics of electrical impulses. It proved that the location in the dog’s brain related closely to the same area in the human’s brain. Dr. Attala Andics, the lead author of the study, concluded, “we know very well that dogs are very good at tuning into the feelings of their owners”. The study does not know why this is happening and it also points out that dogs respond much stronger to other dog noises. Also, while they do recognize human voices, they can’t recognize them as well as humans. This makes it seem unlikely that dogs could actually understand human conversations. However, other scientists are delving into this topic.

Andics explains, “We know quite a bit about how much dogs get about how we say things, but we know quite little about how much dogs get about what we say to them”. To find out more about how much dogs understand what we say, Victoria Ratcliffe, a graduate student from the University of Sussex, created an experiment. She gathered 250 dogs in a lab and put a speaker on both sides of the dog’s head. She played “to come” in both speakers and manipulated the words and tone of the voice each time. Ratcliffe then measured which way the dog reacted to the noise. When the dogs heard a meaningful command, 80% turned their head to the right. When more emotional commands were given, most dogs turned their head to the left. While this might seem meaningless, it shows that dogs can tell the difference between important and non-important sound sequences. Although it might seem backwards, it also shows that dogs most likely process emotional cues on the right and meaning of words on the left. Yet, most dogs cannot process this deeply enough to understand conversation like humans. Of course, there is always an anecdote.

(This shows and explains dogs in MRI machines)

John Pilley, a retired Wofford College psychology professor, taught his border collie, Chaser, over one thousand words. She has a thousand of her toys that she can identify. Chaser can also identify proper nous, verbs, adverbs, and prepositions. Pilley, also Chaser’s owner, is now excited that she can start to understand the difference of words in sentences. However, this did not come easily. Chaser and Pilley worked together for a minimum of five hours a day for three years. While border collies are a smart breed in general, Chaser has gone far above what any other dog has learned in the past.

So what does this mean? As of right now, dogs cannot understand a human talking to them. However, this doesn’t mean don’t turn towards them when your life is rough. On a less sophisticated level than humans, dogs can still understand your tone of voice and figure out your emotions. You are not imagining that your dog seems to pay more attention to you when you feel sad. Scientists are working hard to understand the rest of a dog’s brain to see if down the road teaching dog’s to understand us is a possibility. Some dogs, like Chaser, seem to show that this is a possibility. However, she is the product of countless hours of work every day and she can still not understand a normal conversation. For all dog owners around the word, I hope one day our furry friends can understand us.

Both my parents graduated from Penn State, so naturally I have been facing numerous questions about whether I am having the time of my life, just like they did almost thirty years ago. I patiently answer all their questions and fill them in on new stories, such as the kids on the floor below me received citations for drinking alcohol in their rooms. This shocked them and of course led into telling me crazy stories about how kids could put kegs in the study lounges and generally do whatever they wanted in the eighties. My dad also mentioned something that I was never aware of: the drinking age used to be just eighteen in the United States. This surprised me because of how strictly the over twenty-one law has always been enforced for my lifetime. So, I became curious. Would it be better to lower the national drinking age to eighteen? Now, almost any college student will think of this as a no-brainer. Of course! However, I decided to turn towards science to answer such a controversial question. Here are several of the main arguments used against the lowering the consumptions and whether or not they are valid:

1. Raising the drinking age lowered the amount of people killed and involved in drunk driving accidents.

Researcher William DeJong, from Boston University, conducted a research and reviewed many studies to conclude that “the evidence is clear that there would be consequences if we lowered the legal drinking age”. He argues this due to the significantly lower amount of drunk driving accidents since the raise of the minimum drinking age to 21. MADD (Mothers against Drunk Driving), also argues that since the start of their foundation in 1980 and the raising of the drinking age in 1984 that the number of people killed in drunk driving accidents was cut in half. In 100 out of 102 studies on comparing the drinking age to car accidents, they demonstrated that the higher the drinking age, the less accidents. However, we have learned in this class that correlation does not cause causation. These are all just studies and we cannot actually prove it without an experiment. Obviously, an experiment would be impossible due to ethical reasons and multiple constraints, for example we could not go back in time to experiment while the drinking age was still eighteen. In a case like this, third variables are very likely. A decrease in alcohol related deaths actually started occurring in 1982 in the United States, two years before the drinking age was raised to twenty-one. New seatbelt laws, stricter DUI laws, and better car models could help protect against death in drunk driving accidents just as much as raising the age. Without an experiment, it cannot be determined for sure what affects the drops of death more.

Conclusion: While the studies showing a drop in drunk driving related deaths initially looks compelling for the argument that the drinking age needs to stay twenty-one, when examined more closely it is impossible to tell whether raising the age directly contributed to it or if it was due to a third variable.

2. A lower drinking age law leads to more brain damage from alcohol abuse in teenagers.                                                                                                                                           Many scientists argue that the earlier teenagers consume alcohol, the more negative affects it has on their brains. They argue that lowering the drinking age would only compound these issues because people would be drinking alcohol at a younger age. A study from neuroscientist Susan Tapert seems to support this theory. She looked at scans of teenagers who drink heavily and those who don’t. Tapert found damaged nerve tissues in the drinkers, which is concerning because important areas of the brain are still under construction during adolescence. She also noticed in her reports that teens that drank heavily performed worse on memory and thinking tests and had less white matter. The younger teens are when they start drinking, more damage would occur to their brains.

Conclusion: Once again, this evidence is correlational, not necessarily due to causation. However, a possible third variable is not as obvious as the drinking and driving example. The possibility of brain damage in adolescents’ developing minds due to alcohol abuse is concerning and should be looked into more closely.

3. The drinking age needs to stay twenty-one due to the great responsibility and maturity consuming alcohol requires.

Many supporters of the higher minimum drinking age argue that eighteen year olds are still teenagers and cannot handle the effects of alcohol. They do not have enough maturity to make alcohol related decisions and stay safe. On the other hand, when someone turns eighteen they can go to war, vote, smoke cigarettes, get punished as an adult, and get married. This is a strong argument people make for lowering the drinking age. If someone is responsible enough to decide to go to war, why can’t they drink a beer? Science also supports this opinion. Per The Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, the number of alcohol poisoning deaths for eighteen to twenty-four year olds went from 779 cases in 1998 to 2,290 cases in 2005. The taboo nature of alcohol makes teenagers violate it even more due to the thrill of it being illegal and promotes binge drinking

Verdict: Due to the extremely sensitive and controversial nature of this topic, I do not believe I have enough evidence to definitively argue to lower the drinking age to eighteen. Several things, like the inconclusive data to linking the decrease of drunk driving accidents with the lower age, makes me believe lowering the drinking age should be at least considered. It would cause the concept of drinking to be less stigmatized and hopefully lead to less binge drinking episodes. I would not feel fully comfortable advocating for the change until more brain studies are done to assess the damage this could have on teenagers minds.

Hi, my name is Rachel and I’m from Downingtown, PA, which is about 45 minutes outside of Philadelphia (like everyone else here). Right now I am in the college of communications and plan on majoring in public relations. Ideally, I would love to work for a professional sports team one day!

Like many other people in this class, I had to fulfill general education requirements. I had no idea what to take, so my advisor recommended this course. After doing my research on it, I was excited that I picked an interesting class that would seem to really help me understand science in general better! Even though I really enjoy biology and was planning on becoming a vet, I am not becoming a science major because most science courses just doesn’t “click” for me. I have a hard time putting all of the different pieces together. I love reading and writing, so I found my home in the college of communications.

Both of my parents went to Penn State and I grew up going to almost every football game, so I am a huge fan! I’ve made so many fun memories and cannot wait to make many more. So far, my favorite game ever was when we played (and beat) Notre Dame in 2007. It was the first whiteout game ever!

As you can tell, it looked amazing. Here is a video of the highlights from that game!