Lets face it. Most places a person frequents, people are on their phones. Often, they are texting. I admit, I am part of the generation in which is dependent on texting and technology in general. I have often thought texting may be too good to be true. After doing some research, it has come to my attention that there is a condition known as “texting thumb.” This phenomenon occurs when a person’s thumb feels pain due to the frequent activity of texting and/or typing things into ones phone. How detrimental can texting really be to person’s thumb?

On average, it has been found that people send or receive 10 messages a day. For teenagers, the average number of texts sent a day for people between the ages of 18-24 was 67 messages a day, meaning they send 2,022 on average a month and received almost another 2,000 a month. Here is a link to a chart of the monthly average of texts sent and received per month in the year 2013 (divided into age groups).

The “texting thumb” is actually known as two different things:

1) The trigger thumb which entails the restriction of the tendon responsible for flexing the thumb. This strain is caused from the constant holding of a cell phone or stretching of the thumb to type text messages. The thumb can pop out of place and even remain in a curled position if extended too frequently.

2) Thumb arthritis which occurs in the carpometacarpal joint where the wrist and thumb are joined. Once this occurs, there is no treatment to fix the problem.

Texting thumb is referred to as de Quervain tendonitis or tenosynovitis. It involves inflammation in the tendons and the synovial sheaths that protected the tendons in the hand. Repeated irritation of these tendons leads to pain and a weakened grip. Permanent damage can occur thanks to the repetition and increased inflammation which can degenerate. These occurrences then result in pain in which can be severe and intrusive in everyday life.

Researchers from Turkey recruited about 150 people from the ages of 18-40. About half the population recruited fell under the category of ‘frequent texters’ (sending about 1,200 messages a month). Ultrasound imaging was able to measure the thickness of the tendons within the carpal tunnel, which ends at the tip of the thumb. The greater the thickness of the tendon, the more frequent a texter the person was found to be. This thickness again attributes to the pain and weakness of grip felt in the thumb and wrist areas.

There have been many cases reported of texting thumb that support the alternative hypothesis that texting thumb is a health risk to be concerned about.

There has been a relevant study involving a 48 year old woman who suffered from de Quervain tendonitis. The woman went to her primary physicians office to receive care after noticing her searing pain in her hands and weakness. After wearing wrist splints and reducing her texting to minimal amounts, her pain subsided after a three weeks. It appears her tendon sheath was 3 to 4 times more thick as a result of her constant texting beforehand.  This thickness, as I mentioned before, attributes to much pain and weakness of a person’s hand grip.

Another case was reported of a 14 year old girl who admitted she had been texting 4 hours a day on average for two years.  Her mother confirmed these actions were true.  She had tissue swelling and pain due to thickness and severe tenderness in her right thumb.  Her radiograph results were normal and she was not found to have a severe injury or disease.  In order to heal, she wore a splint on her thumb and took aspirin.  Her texting has since been limited to 45 minutes a day.  This problem has not reoccurred since she made the changes to the time she now spends on her phone.

One group of researchers observed 27 people to see how excessive texting affected their thumbs.  The motions of texting revealed their was extreme extensions and flexions of the thumbs.  In addition, the motions revealed that such things as musculoskeletal disorders and several pain disorders (such as myofascial and fibromyalgia) could easily arise after prolonged periods of texting.

There are definitely cases in which show there is a correlation between texting and thumb-related problems.  It seems texting thickens the tendons in a person’s hand, which then causes extreme pain and weakness.  Although confounding variables could be a result of these cases and studies, texting has some effect on people’s thumbs that is still being researched.  After reviewing this topic, it seems a person may want to lay off texting and instead spend time doing things like reading books or walking his or her dog.

Mobile phone service concept

http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-number-of-texts-sent-2013-3

https://www.rush.edu/health-wellness/discover-health/when-technology-hurts

http://ergonomics.about.com/od/De-Quervains_Syndrome/a/What_Is_Texting_Thumb.htm

http://www.wsj.com/articles/texting-frequently-with-thumbs-may-cause-tendinitis-1411410025

http://www.jfponline.com/index.php?id=22143&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=175766

Click to access 00b4951ec139770252000000.pdf

http://core0.staticworld.net/images/article/2014/01/texting_primary-100224994-large.jpg

http://www.eorthopod.com/images/ContentImages/hand/hand_cmc/hand_cmc_symptoms01.jpg

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1292731/thumbs/o-WOMAN-TEXTING-SAD-570.jpg?1

http://jaoa.org/article.aspx?articleid=2094077

A person walks into Wal-Mart with the goal to pick up some toothpaste. As they find the aisle, which contains toothpaste, they come across some mouthwash. She thinks that it cannot hurt to purchase some as the container claims the product cleans your mouth and makes your smile whiter. Although these claims may be true, there may be a danger present in using this mouthwash. Is mouthwash associated with oral cancer?

40,000 Americans and around 640,000 people in the world are diagnosed with oral cancer annually. The deaths that result from oral cancer are over 7,800 a year.

The ingredients in certain mouthwashes are said to be carcinogenic. Fluoride, formaldehyde, and saccharin, (or common ingredients found in mouthwash) have been suspected to be cancer triggers. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claims formaldehyde is a “probable human carcinogen.” Studies in the 1980s revealed that rats exposed to formaldehyde ended up having nasal cancer in fact (but no proof has shown it causes cancer in humans yet).

The Dental Journal of Australia has made the claim that alcohol-based mouthwashes and an increased risk of oral cancers correlate as a result of causation (the mouthwash causes oral cancer).

One study completed by researchers from the University of Glasgow Dental School studied 1,963 patients with cancer of the oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, larynx or esophagus and then tested another 1,993 people as control subjects from nine different countries. The researchers seemed to find a link between mouthwash and cancer after removing the causation of oral cancer from smoking, alcohol, and low socioeconomic status. Scores were interpreted to analyze oral health and dental care. Odd ratios (which help us identify the probability one thing is associated with another) of low versus high scores of oral health and dental care and confidence intervals were used to adjust for confounding factors. The odd ratios for the absolute frequent use of mouthwash (in which is considered the use of mouthwash 3 or more times a day), was 3.23 with the confidence interval ranging from 1.68-6.19. This proof is very strong as odd ratios over 1 show a strong correlation between two things but only 1.8% of cases and 0.8% of controls reported using mouthwash 3 or more times a day. This information was said to show a link between oral cancer and mouthwash. There needs to be more research however as no known mechanism has been found.

Professor Wolfgang Ahrens, Deputy Director of the BIPS says, “These results are really important. Up until now, it was not really known if these dental risk factors were independent of the well known risks for mouth and throat cancers – smoking, alcohol and low socioeconomic status.” The researchers found, “frequent use of mouthwashes (3-plus times per day) was associated with an elevated risk of developing mouth and throat cancer.”

The Journal of Oral Oncology has gone into depth to discuss whether or not mouthwash is the causation for oral cancer. It analyzed 10 major control case studies that have been performed in the last three decades to observe this phenomenon. Of the 10 reviewed, 7 showed there was no consistent association with mouthwash and oral cancer, while the 3 others had very minor proof to link the two.

In 1991, a study found that the risk of oral cancer was elevated by 40% for males and 60% for female who used mouthwash containing alcohol after adjusting for tobacco and alcohol use. Thus, raising some concern there are many confounding factors linked to raising the risks of cancer. Since then, a handful of other studies have been completed, but they cannot directly prove the causation of oral cancer thanks to mouthwash.

There have been numerous studies in which show there is a connection between cancer and mouthwash but yet again, there are too many confounding variables to be aware of. The numbers in the studies are too insignificant to worry researchers yet. The null hypothesis has not been rejected so far. I would tell people to keep using mouthwash but to limit the use of it to no more than twice as day as little evidence shows high use of the mouthwash shows some concern in elevating oral cancer risks.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/04/08/300257396/mouthwash-and-poor-dental-hygiene-may-up-the-risk-of-oral-cancer

http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/substances/formaldehyde/formaldehyde-fact-sheet

http://www.emagazine.com/earth-talk/harmful-ingredients-in-mouthwash

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/04April/Pages/Is-frequent-mouthwash-use-linked-to-oral-cancer.aspx

http://www.oraloncology.com/article/S1368-8375(14)00065-7/pdf

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-04-reveals-mouth-throat-cancer.html

http://www.medicaldaily.com/mouthwash-overuse-may-lead-oral-cancer-alcohol-content-raises-risk-carcinogens-mouth-lining-274556

http://ac.els-cdn.com/S1368837508002649/1-s2.0-S1368837508002649-main.pdf?_tid=af440d94-7658-11e5-ae1c-00000aacb362&acdnat=1445256077_29101b8154fe199338c9ead18a5c4b30

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/51/11/3044.full.pdf+html

http://www.stacymakescents.com/wp-content/uploads/listerine-mouthwash-bottles.jpg

http://www.mdanderson.org/patient-and-cancer-information/cancer-information/cancer-types/oral-cancer/oral-full.jpg

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Travel/Pix/pictures/2011/8/27/1314438844663/Mouth-wash-007.jpg

Can smoking pot really make a person less intelligent? There are many rumors and stigmas behind the effects of marijuana on a human. People have made the claim that smoking the drug after a long period of time will in fact lower your IQ (which yes, does not necessarily determine how smart a person is but it is a method of doing so).

According to a survey done in the summer of 2013, almost 40% of Americans had tried marijuana. Nowadays, the drug is even legal to smoke and use in a few states in America. This drug comes from Cannabis indica plants. These plants contain over 500 chemicals in them including tetrahydrocannabinol or THC. THC is the well-known culprit for the greatest effects on the brain due to marijuana . THC attaches to cannaboid receptors, activating the brain’s neurons and interfering with normal functions. The cannaboid receptors found in the brain, affect a person’s memory (specifically short-term as a majority of cannboid receptors are found in the hippocampus), thinking, concentration, and perception.

There are studies in which have decided to analyze the suggestion that smoking marijuana does lower a person’s IQ over time.

To begin, experimental studies were performed on lab rats to examine the effects of marijuana on their brains. It was shown through the studies with laboratory mice that those that were exposed  to marijuana on a regular basis from an early age had smaller orbital frontal cortexes (which are in charge of decision-making) than those who were not exposed frequently or at all to the drug. This study does not prove the mice were then less intelligent than the others but was interesting enough for researchers to note as the shrinkage of the brain is something to be tentative about.

Researchers from the University College of London tested around 2,600 participants in Bristol. They checked the participants’ IQs at age 8 and then at age 15. Those who were recorded to have smoked the most frequently and largest amounts did not have lower IQs years later than those who did not smoke or smoked occasionally all of those years. That being said, test results of the participants at age 16 of those who smoked the most were 3% lower.

A study was completed in which followed 1,037 participants from age 13 to the age of 38. They were from Dunedin, New Zealand. Their dependency on marijuana was evaluated at ages 18, 21, 26, 32, and 38. The groups were divided by dependency- nonusers, those who smoked an average of once a week, those who smoked an average of twice a week, and those who smoked an average of 3 or more times a week. After years of testing, it was found that those who had a physical dependence on the drug before the age of 18 had an average decrease of 8 points in their IQ by the time they reached the age of 38. Despite this result seeming drastic, it only occurred to 38 people out of the 1,037 tested. This result is significantly small. In addition, those with lowered IQs smoked much more frequently, smoking marijuana on average 4 days a week.

Dr. Malik Burnett, a renowned researcher in the field, claims “follow up studies of this data have shown that differences in socioeconomic status may account for the differences in IQ found in the study, not to mention the discussion surrounding IQ as a valid measurement of brain function and intelligence which are beyond the scope of this response.”

Many socioeconomic factors seem to have a possible effect such as education levels, employment history, and childhood traits

Another study completed in 2002 measured the IQ’s of 70 people. They first had their IQ’s tested when they were ages 9-12. Their IQ’s were then taken again when they reached ages 17-20. Heavy users (smoking 5 joints or more a week), light users (smoking less than 5 joints a week), and non-users were separated into groups. It was found that heavy users IQ scores were an average of 4.1 points lower after years 8 years of smoking while light users IQ scores were an average of 5.8 points higher after 8 years of smoking. Non-users IQ scores were found to have risen an average of 2.8 points interestingly enough (did not increase as high as light users). It has been found from this study that heavy users are really the ones affected.  It is quite strange there was a correlation between light smokers and there IQ’s rising much more on average than non-users.  These results could be a fluke or due to chance most definitely.

There are too many confounding variables that could be responsible for these results. Some results do suggest that a high use of marijuana does lead to lower IQ’s, but there is not much significant proof. In addition, how can anyone decide how much a person’s IQ really reveals about his or her intelligence. More studies must be done, but unfortunately it seems they must be performed over a large length of time. There seems to be a lack of evidence to support that marijuana does make people less intelligent or lowers their IQ’s (the null hypothesis). The correlation does not mean causation here. I would say it is not likely the Texas Sharp Shooter problem occurs currently because there are studies that support both sides of the argument. Null results have been published, eliminating the issue of the File Drawer problem. More research must be completed to find the biological mechanism as well.  Just be aware that smoking weed may have an impact on your IQ and/or intelligence.

http://www.livescience.com/24553-what-is-thc.html

http://science.howstuffworks.com/marijuana4.htm

http://marijuanahealthwellness.com/?p=1295

http://www.drugpolicy.org/blog/does-marijuana-kill-brain-cells

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/11/4251.full.pdf?with-ds=yes

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/22/no-marijuana-use-doesnt-lower-your-iq/

http://sciencenordic.com/does-pot-really-make-you-dumber

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/166/7/887.full.pdf+html

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-regular-marijuana-shrinks-brain-20141110-story.html

http://cdn.urbanislandz.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Snoop-Lion-Smoking-Weed.png.jpg

http://www.laszlolaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/marijuana-leaf.jpg

https://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/PxpDB58cQOKPx9GmJxLa_getting_high_weed.jpg

On campus, I am constantly seeing teenage men and women wearing jeans. This article of clothing is considered fashionable and is acceptable to wear to classes as well as a plethora of other places. That being said, there is an element of risk a male takes when deciding to wear jeans in which are too tight on him. There are health risks in which have correlated with people who wear skinny jeans. Could there really be a problem involving the health risks a male has when he decides to make the “harmless” (or maybe not so harmless) decision to put on jeans that are too slim on him.

Let’s first take a look at how often people really do where jeans.

• Americans wear jeans 4.2 days a week on average
  • Men wear them 3.9 days a week on average
  • Women wear them 4.7 days a week on average

A majority of the week, males and females tend to wear jeans.  That is quite frequent if you consider how many weeks there are in a year in which males and females choose to wear this article of clothing.

I have decided to look at a study in which analyzes how the tightness of a male’s jeans correlates with dyspermia. 121 men within their late 20’s and early 30’s were examined. The controls of the group were normospermic infertile men with two normal semen analyses.  Tight trousers and underpants were examined along with possible confounding variables such as smoking, alcohol, coffee-drinking, age, and education.

When examining the results of the study, the researchers used odds ratios to show how strongly there is a connection between two things ( in this case pant ‘tightness’ and sperm count). The odds ratio being over one means there is a much more likely chance there is a correlation between the two. A narrower confidence level of 95% is used in this experiment to correspond with the 5% chance that results are due to chance (a conventional rule).

It was found that when comparing men who wore loose fitting underpants versus those who wore tight underpants that the odds ratio was 1.9 (with a confidence level of 95% being between 0.9-4.1).   It was found that when comparing men who wore loose fitting trousers versus those who wore tight trousers that the odds ratio was 1.6 (with a confidence level of 95% being between 0.9-3.0). When then comparing men who wore both loose pants and underwear versus those who wore loose underpants and trousers, the odds ratio was 2.5 (with the confidence level of 95% being between 1.2-5.2).  The odds ratios seemed to show that there was a high chance the tightness of the jeans lowered sperm count.

The p-value of these results was less than 5%. As we discussed in class, the researchers can then reject the null hypothesis that the tight jeans do not affect sperm count. The p-value being less than 5% elevates the confidence we find in the results but does not mean these results are not a fluke as results due to chance are always possible. These results do not necessarily prove that sperm quality or count is decreased when a person wears tighter clothing. However, there is a correlation with these results and we can see a strong possibility of causation. No reverse causation is possible here.

I would not necessarily warn men not to wear jeans but would inform them to be cautious of the results that accompany wearing them this far as more research is needed to support these results.

One theory that can explain the reason tight-fitting jeans may affect sperm count is explained by Justus Liebig University Giessen who claims, “’wearing tight fitting under trousers is associated with higher scrotal and consequently testicular temperatures than wearing loose fitting under trousers or none.”

It seems a human’s internal temperature, which is 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, is much too hot for a man’s testicles. Therefore, they are located outside the body. The heat created by the tight pants may lower a man’s sperm count as heat tends to kill off sperm.

Amos Grunebaum, MD, director of clinical maternal-fetal medicine at the New York Hospital-Cornell Weill Medical College states: “Anything you do that damages sperm will affect them for the next 10 to 11 weeks.”  Reversing the causes of lowering one’s sperm count thus take time to occur.

In conclusion, the study above has results in which were eye-catching as the p-value was under 5%, meaning the researchers should reject the null hypothesis.  More studies with similar results must be done to consider this scientific knowledge.  The explanations behind why the sperm count are lowered deal with the heat produced near the male’s groin area when jeans are too tight.  Men, I suggest going with looser fitting jeans for both style and safety.

https://books.google.com/books?id=FGps_gqjp_8C&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=average+number+of+days+a+week+people+wear+jeans&source=bl&ots=9M9e4b8nJW&sig=hkXue_1ayV3I5Tz9U9n84bqqmHw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBGoVChMI4MHeu5rCyAIVwoI-Ch15YAuW#v=onepage&q=average%20number%20of%20days%20a%20week%20people%20wear%20jeans&f=false

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2605.1995.tb00400.x/epdf

http://mentalfloss.com/uk/health/26660/do-tight-jeans-cause-infertility-in-men

http://kidshealth.org/teen/expert/guy_stuff/tighties.html

http://www.webmd.com/infertility-and-reproduction/features/boxers-vs-briefs-increasing-sperm-count

http://images.complex.com/complex/image/upload/t_article_image/dalb5tccd7o6j274h5kk.jpg

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/zdMsE5mi4C0/maxresdefault.jpg

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s–JsX-l8cS–/c_scale,fl_progressive,q_80,w_800/17nj5k05kbt21jpg.jpg

I absolutely love my dogs. From playing fetch to sleeping on the couch together, they are constantly by my side when I am at home. Being a pet owner, I must make sure that I am feeding my dogs food that is not harmful for them to ingest. That being said, I do find myself giving my dogs table scraps after getting a glimpse at their “puppy dog eyes.” Once, after throwing a grape on the ground, my aunt scolded me and warned me that grapes were found to give dogs kidney stones. I had never imagined that this fruit, which healthy for humans, is so harmful to dogs. I decided to research how deadly feeding a dog grapes really is.

portrait of a cute purebred puppy chihuahua eating fruit

Grapes are beneficial to humans as they contain many vitamins and minerals in addition to fiber. They are even known for preventing heart disease, heart attacks, and strokes. Grapes contain flavonoids in which help lower levels of cholesterol and the risk of heart disease.

That being said, the toxicity from grapes can be deadly to dogs as it can lead to something as extreme as acute kidney failure. Less deadly symptoms that arise when dogs consume grapes include (a list from PetMD):

• Vomiting
• Diarrhea
• No appetite
• Weakness
• Abdominal pain
• Dehydration
• Kidney (renal) failure
• Death

An experimental study was completed between the years 1999 and 2001, in which 10 dogs were given large amounts of grapes to consume. The grapes caused the dogs to get both acute gastrointestinal and renal toxicosis. Unfortunately, the biological mechanism for the toxicosis has not been found which as we have discussed in class, is very hard to pinpoint. A list of possibilities of mechanisms include (as provided by Medicine Center):

1) a nephrotoxin in the grapes and raisins

2) fungicide, herbicide, or pesticide contamination of the grapes and raisins

3) heavy metal contamination

4) high concentrations of vitamin D

5) fungus or mold contamination of the fruit.

A scary statistic is that anywhere from 50%-75% of dogs that receive acute kidney failure die as a result of eating grapes. 

More studies have been completed which have also seen that the correlation between the consumption of grapes and renal failure is seemingly not coincidental. Anywhere from 10 grams to 57 grams of grapes consumed by dogs caused renal failure to occur. Again, the toxic mechanism that causes such horrific actions to occur is a mystery. It seems that after a consumption of these grapes, renal failure was seen to occur anywhere from 24 hours to 72 hours after in the dogs. Symptoms such as vomiting and dehydration become prevalent as quickly as 6 hours after consumption.

In 1999, reports of acute renal failure were brought to the attention to Animal Poison Control Center (APCC) of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) in which involved 4 dogs. After this was brought to attention, a study was performed on 43 dogs. 28 dogs ate raisins, 13 dogs ate grapes, and 2 dogs ate both. The median amount of grapes ingested was 448 g and the median amount of raisins ingested was 19.6 g/kg. Out of the 43 dogs that ingested the raisins and/or grapes, 23 survived and recovered, while 15 received euthanasia, and 5 died.

In summary, the signs point to the fact that grapes are terrible for dogs. That being said, the toxic mechanism behind why the grapes are so dangerous has yet to be discovered. There is a reason to believe that the correlation between grapes and dogs is causal due to these results. There is no reverse causation which can result here as  sick dogs do not affect grapes negatively whereas grapes make dogs sick. From now on, I will be extra careful when eating grapes near my dogs!

http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-supplements/ingredientmono-472-grape.aspx?activeingredientid=472&activeingredientname=grape

http://www.petmd.com/dog/emergency/digestive/e_dg_grape_raisin_toxicity#

http://veterinarymedicine.dvm360.com/raisins-and-grapes-potentially-lethal-treats-dogs?id=&sk=&date=&pageID=2

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1939-1676.2005.tb02744.x/epdf

http://s3.amazonaws.com/i20/photos/164/medium.jpg?1364589044%22

http://can-dogs-eat.com/wp-content/uploads/can-dogs-eat-grapes-no.jpg

http://f.tqn.com/y/homecooking/1/W/4/9/1/raisins3x.jpg

http://jaoa.org/article.aspx?articleid=2094077

Click to access ITX-2-169.pdf

Nowadays, a lot of people seem to search for healthier substitutes for the things they eat and drink. People are often experimenting with lower calorie, sugary drinks. Today, there is much debate over whether or not diet drinks really allow a person to enjoy their sugary drinks and foods without receiving the consequences of gaining weight. The question I instead ask is whether or not these chemicals that are used in these diet drinks and foods have an effect on the brain itself. The chemical I have decided to look at specifically is aspartame.

Aspartame is a substitute for sugar in which is low calorie and is the combination of the amino acids, aspartic acid and phenylalanine.  It is the most popular and frequently used artificial sweetener in the United States currently. It is found in many diet soda drinks, gum, yogurt, and desserts. Aspartame is used because it is said to be two-hundred times sweeter than real sugar, meaning much less of it can be used to get the same sweet effect sugar produces in the drinks and foods we consume.

Aspartame acid is processed by the body differently than other acids because it is an unnatural structure. The amino acids in which aspartame is composed of tend to attack cells in the brain, causing a toxic cellular overstimulation that “excites” a person’s cells.

Dr. Russell Blaylock, a notable retired neurosurgeon states: “Excitotoxins have been found to dramatically promote cancer growth and metastasis. In fact, one aspartame researcher noticed that, when cancer cells were exposed to aspartame, they became more mobile … “

Here is a list of illnesses which in fact occur when there is long-term exposure to excitatory amino acid damage. This exposure could be due to excessive amounts of aspartame in a human’s system.

After coming across several studies, it has come to my attention that it is in fact the combination of aspartame-containing beverages with carbohydrate-rich foods that presents the most risk to the brain. Researchers began to experiment with rats and the effects of aspartame on them. Both the New England Journal of Medicine and the Environmental Health Perspectives discuss studies in which were performed on rats to analyze the effects of aspartame. The rats first consumed aspartame. Just from the consumption of aspartame, the phenylalanine in the rats’ brains doubled. This effect was then doubled if a rat then consumed a carbohydrate-rich food after consuming the aspartame. The Environmental Health Perspectives reported that the same effects occurred with the amount of phenylalanine in humans when they consumed aspartame in addition to a sufficient amount of carbohydrates.

What is bad about the increase in phenylalanine however? Excess amounts of phenylalanine can be harmful to the brain as it can decrease the production of brain hormones and serotonin (which acts as a neurotransmitter) by competing with the amino acids in aspartame. In addition, excess phenylalanine has the ability to inhibit enzymes that synthesize neurotransmitters. Neurotransmitters communicate much of the information from our brains to our bodies.

There have not been many substantial studies in which have raised concern with the higher levels of phenylalanine due to aspartame on the human brain. There have been a few studies that have been performed on children and their cognitive development after they have ingested aspartame, but there have been no real surprising outcomes. The studies with the rats have caused researchers and scientists to keep an eye on the use of aspartame and the effects it may have. I suggest more studies be done as the results of too much phenylalanine are not good. Starting off with experimental studies on the rats is ethical I believe but more must be completed.

In conclusion, the levels of phenylalanine are doubled when rats and humans consume aspartame. The levels of phenylalanine are doubled again for both humans and rats when they consume aspartame-contained drinks and carbohydrate-rich food together. More studies must be completed to really say how high the levels of phenylalanine must be to be dangerous, having detrimental effects on the brain. Researchers have not rejected the null hypothesis that aspartame has no dangerous effect on humans as of now. Research does not necessarily suggest people need to keep a watchful eye on the consumption of aspartame but it is better to be safe than sorry!

http://familydoctor.org/familydoctor/en/prevention-wellness/food-nutrition/sugar-and-substitutes/sugar-substitutes-what-you-need-to-know/aspartame-what-you-need-to-know.html

http://www.livestrong.com/article/389334-a-list-of-foods-containing-aspartame/)

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/03/24/aspartame-affects-brain-health.aspx

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198308183090710

Click to access envhper00434-0053.pdf

http://www.caffeineinformer.com/wp-content/caffeine/diet-pepsi-cola.jpg

https://janinerbeaner.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/aspartame.png

http://i49.tinypic.com/16hrqf9.jpg

Society has constructed the stereotype that jocks are dumb. Numerous videos have portrayed athletes, such as football players, to be jerks who struggle with anything pertaining to education. There have been studies to test this popular stereotype.

At Indiana University, students and student-athletes were asked to fill out surveys. These surveys revolved around the perceptions of student-athletes. Almost 50% of college students felt the student-athletes were not quite as intelligent as those who did not play sports in college. 44% were under the impression that student-athletes took easier classes in order to maintain their role as athletes.

It is said that the attribution theory can explain why athletes tend to actually have better school performances. People attribute failure to a lack in effort. Success is accredited to the work one puts behind their attempts. An individual formulates what is considered a success and a failure in their eyes. Student athletes strive to be competitive and are wired to be persistent in order to obtain their goals. They read success and failure in each of their decisions and actively do so through sports and then academics as well, typically. Some reasons why student athletes may aspire to be academically successful include the fact that their dedication to training transfers to academics, they are motivated to get good grades so as to receive a scholarship to play a sport in college, and they receive special encouragement that is provided by coaches and trainers.

A study was completed in 2012 in which tested Swedish soccer players who played on either the elite Allsvenskan league in Sweden or on a Division l team. The soccer players ended up scoring 95% higher on specific brain functions that are known as executive functions in comparison to the general population that did not play sports. Executive functions include time management, working memory, and attention. These executive functions are essential in assisting a person with their studies.  For example, the use of time management is crucial when it comes to turning in assignments on time or studying for tests. The soccer players from the elite league were found to be even smarter than those playing for Division l teams (interestingly enough).

Another study was conducted in which the grades of 1,550 student-athletes and 4,553 non-student-athletes were compared. The average GPAs were higher from the student athletes, as their average was a 2.67, as compared to 2.12 for those students who were not athletes. There have been other studies in which have also shown there is a positive correlation between athletes and higher grades. In addition, student-athletes were found to have been failing less classes on average and were more likely to take collegiate level courses in high school.

As a result of the numerous studies conducted, I would say the stereotype about athletes should be forgotten. Student athletes have proven to have done better in classes than those who did not in several studies.

I have always enjoyed using makeup, trying out different eye shadow and lip gloss colors. However, I have always wondered why drawing a black line on someone’s eyelid or darkening the shade of someone’s lips makes them appear more attractive. For some reason, I am intrigued in finding out why makeup, which is made up of oils and chemicals nonetheless, allows people to conceive someone as more being “beautiful.”

Applying makeup is referred to as a type of body decoration in which some consider the “most important of arts” in different societies.  One should know that facial attractiveness plays off of sex differences in facial appearance. The more feminine a woman looks, the more attractive she is said to be. The difference between male and female pigmentation is a contributing factor in how women appear more attractive. In general, women have lighter colored skin than men. It is key to be mindful of the contrast of makeup to the skin for women. The contrast of a woman’s eyes and lips to her face creates a perception she is more attractive, as long as the intensity of the contrast is strong. Makeup assists in emphasizing this contrast of the skin versus the eyes and lips; thus, the women appear more attractive to men. Biological factors can play a large role in how makeup is effective in different societies. One could examine traditional Geisha apprentice cosmetics looks versus typical American teenage girls looks. The traditional Geisha apprentices wore white paint and dark lipstick, while American girls often wear foundation that compliments their skin tones and lightly shaded lip glosses.   Both looks are said to be attractive in different places.

It has been found that males approve of prominent cheekbones, large eyes, smooth skin, and small noses. Although a person cannot (at least naturally) change their facial features, one can enhance them through various techniques, which involve makeup. For example, one can contour their cheekbones to appear more prominent and use eye shadow to enhance the size and shape of her eyes.

Basic experiments have been conducted, testing the makeup’s power on enhancing one’s looks using before-after facial stimulus.  One study was conducted using 16 male and 16 female subjects who judged four females in different makeup combinations. The women were found significantly more attractive with the makeup on. Interestingly enough, the four women had more positive personality ratings when wearing the makeup as well. An older study was performed in which 8 male and 8 female subjects rated 32 college students on whether or not they were more attractive with or without makeup. The women subjects did not really find the women more attractive with the applied makeup like the men had.

One of the most interesting experiments was performed to find out whether women received more tips while wearing makeup. A waitress served two groups of people (in total, one hundred and seventy-four people) for five days a week for six weeks. She served sixteen lunches with makeup and fifteen without makeup. After analyzing various components to this experiment, it was confirmed that the times in which the waitress wore makeup, she received a higher tip on average.

Makeup has proven to really enhance women’s looks, making them appear more attractive in the eyes of others. The manipulation of contrasts with the eyes and lips against skin tone is the key reason makeup affects the attractiveness of a person. Makeup can alter ‘imperfections’ of the face as well as alter the confidence and self-esteem a person obtains.

Closeup portrait of a woman applying dry cosmetic tonal foundation on the face using makeup brush.

Do you ever go to the movies with the intention of purchasing a ticket for the newest horror film that is all the rage? You are excited to see the movie due to the hype. After the film begins to start and the intense music begins to play, your stomach drops, your heart beats fast, and you begin to ponder why you went to see the movie in the first place. Why do people such as myself like to subject themselves to this phenomenon?

It is said that humans, deep down, are rotten. There is a ‘beast’ with which lives deep in our core. Humans can be evaluated psychoanalytically in order to see why they enjoy these feels of fear provided by movies. A scary thought in which has been suggested is that the actions performed in these movies are satisfying a human’s repressed thoughts.

Horror films attract viewers because the weird occurrences attract our attention in contrast to the corny love movies in which can be predictable. The mere fact that there is suspense and uncertainty is appealing to an audience. To begin, horror films reveal a negative conflict and disruption in society. In addition, horror films creates gray areas for whether something is good or bad and normal or abnormal. When thinking about horror films, one must think about what is rational.

New creatures are created in which perplex and intrigue audiences. They are able to escape and picture a world with these new reality-defying creatures. Apparently, there is an expressivity solution to analyzing why humans like to watch horror films. According to Collingwood (a prominent researcher who focuses on the thrills of horror) “unburdening oneself of emotions by engaging in acts of make- believe” explains why humans gives in to watching these films.

Watching these films is comparable to people participating in high-risk or fear invoking activities such as sky diving and riding rollercoasters. In our minds, there is danger but we find something attractive about flirting with death. We are confident we can escape the dangerous situation.   Watching horror type of films, we receive this feeling of fear as if we are in the movies ourselves. However, we know at any time we can leave the movie and are not trapped in them like the characters themselves are.

During horror films, it was recorded by Purdue University that hearts beats can eventually rise to as high as 15 beats per minute. Skin temperatures lower and blood pressures rise steadily.  High sensation-seekers are aroused by these movies due to testosterone and the body’s response to the neurotransmitter dopamine. Men, particularly, respond to the dopamine, enjoying  the movies as they feel brave doing so.

Fun Fact: Researchers do not recommend people watch these movies. A study was completed revealing almost 60 percent of people who had viewed something before the age of 14 in which caused a disturbance in their lives (specifically with their sleep cycle).

Audience at a scary movie — Image by © Daniel Koebe/Corbis

Pets are commonly found in households nowadays. Many people cannot resist having a pet around to comfort and love them. I mean, lets face it, some are pretty darn cute. I have always found it interesting that pets seem to make a person more relaxed and happy after a long day. One question I have always asked myself was whether or not pets are beneficial to a person’s health.

An amazing fact would be that almost two-thirds of households (or 71 million) have pets in the United States. The benefits they possess seem endless. It is said they can lower blood pressure, reduce stress levels, and lower a person’s chances of having depression. 420 patients were part of a study in which compared patients with and without dogs. Those who had them had a much more likely chance of living another year.

Back in the year 1991, researchers from the University of Cambridge discovered that after a few months of owning a pet, people experienced less health problems such as back pain and headaches. Another study was completed in which included 92 convalescing patients. 14 passed away a year after the study began. The vast majority of those who had died were very socially inactive and did not own any pets. A researcher by the name of Friedman was able to conclude that 30,000 Americans a year could be saved from a death caused by a heart attack if they had a pet.   In addition, another interesting study was done in which 5,741 attendees of a heart disease risk clinic were asked whether or not they had a pet. Those who had a pet had 2% lower cholesterol levels, downgrading their chances of having a heart attack by 4%.

It seems friendly pets are able to relax those around them. They provide companionship and listen to what a person has to say. They also are able to keep a person active if they choose to play or walk with them. Companionship, especially when older, seems to have a real correlation with fighting old age and the obstacles that come with it. It has been shown that men who are divorced that are 50 years of age or older have a death rate that is over twice that of married men as a result of loneliness. Pets can provide this lack of spousal comfort. Interestingly enough, the mortality rate for people with pets was one third of those with pets. Hospitals have been more open to letting pets visit liberally as a result of the positive effects they have on cheering up patients. Pets are around to listen, to be sleeping buddies, and to be a companion for the long haul. This bond has shown that dogs can save lives or lengthen them in the long run.

Ginger domestic kitten (Felis catus) rolling on back playing

Everyday, people talk about leaders such as Obama, Pope Francis, and Martin Luther King, Jr. They all seem to share some similar traits and have obviously reached a standard of success. All three of them have been able to reach people through their actions and words.. What made them so successful and allowed them to stand out from the rest?

When people are born, they attain certain genes naturally. Of course, we know that people are born with certain facial features and color of hair. We also know nothing such as a ‘leader’ gene exists. That being said, people are born with skills and characteristics that make it easier for them to become a leader. Naturally, some people are more assertive than others, for example. Our genes provide use with our behavioral aptitude, as well as our temperaments and personalities.  It is true that there are child prodigies that are born with extreme talents to play instruments or recount every president by name. Opportunities must arise for talents and skills to be revealed. A person may attain all of the skills and mannerisms of most leaders but may never be provided the chance to lead others. Although a person may be given a talent such as Michael Phelps to swim, he or she must practice in order to really master it.

In all actuality, anyone has the chance to be a leader. A leader is someone who has followers. Unfortunately, anywhere from 50% to even 75% of organizations lack proper leadership. That being said, the leader takes a stand and represents an issue or way of life. Leaders are said to encourage and inspire people. They should aim to be visionary, decisive, relatable, and be willing to take responsibility for their choices.  People grow, develop, and attain skills to be more of a leader throughout time. According to Warren Blank, there are 108 skills that make a natural born leader.   No one can represent or attain all 108, unfortunately. Leaders represent so many different companies and ways of life that it is hard to pinpoint what makes a person one. There are many who claim leaders are born with extreme amounts of persistence, intelligence, and energy. It is said parents provide the building blocks to success for becoming a leader. Senior vice presidents and highly ranked military leaders have been interviewed saying their parents raised them with high moral character and have challenged them to be better people.

There is a counterargument that points to why genes are responsible for the jobs people obtain. For example, some people are not tall enough to play in the NBA.   IQ and OCEAN (personality) tests reveal how people differ from the early stages of life. People can obtain a mutation that causes one to be antisocial, known as Huntington’s disease. People can be born more social, athletic, and so on. Although this argument is relevant, people still must work hard to perfect their skills and must be provided an opportunity to really take the shape of leader.

The important lesson to learn here is that people are given advantages in life that may elevate their likelihood of landing a job or leadership position. However, it takes much time and practice. In addition, an opportunity must be present in which a person attains followers and represents something of great importance.

Hello, my name is Stephanie Loesch. I am from Fairview, Pennsylvania. I live very close to Lake Erie. I am a freshman currently enrolled in the Smeal College of Business.

I decided to enroll in this course because the description of this class mentioned that it was for people who really have no desire to pursue a science-related major.   The description of this class really intrigued me though, and I realized the topics covered in the class were really unique and interesting to me. I mean, who wouldn’t want to learn answers to questions such as “Could a zombie virus exist.” In addition, an advisor at my New Student Orientation mentioned that kids who took this class in previous years had good things to say about it.

I am not planning to be a science major because I really am not interested in the material. After taking several science classes in school, I found I struggled the most in those classes. I have no desire to learn things such as what the mitochondria is and why it is the powerhouse of the cell. My memories in my science classes will haunt me forever. Personally, I find business and writing much more fascinating.

I very much like to travel. I decided to post a picture of the town Oia, a place I visited when I was in Greece last summer.

Here is a video in which you can witness four men riding the fastest roller coaster in the world at Ferrari World. I choose the video because I have a deep love for amusement parks and roller coasters.

Nice to meet you all!