It is common for competitive athletes to train at high altitudes because of the decreased amount of oxygen in the air. They believe that it will provide an advantage when returning to sea level. This is why the US Olympic Team has their main training center in Colorado Springs, CO, which has one of the highest altitudes of any major US city. Several different machines have been developed to try to mimic the training in Colorado Springs, but they are unaffordable for most athletes. A newer company, Training Mask, has developed their own product for athletes that is much more affordable (they usually sell for around $100).

In the last few years, these altitude-training masks have become more and more popular. On their website, Training Mask says that, along with making your workout more efficient, it will “increase your stamina and ability to go harder at your sport.” At first glance, it makes sense, but I’ve done some digging and found out that maybe it’s not worth the money.

An observational study from Texas Tech University analyzed the Training Mask in seven NCAA runners. These subjects took performance tests before and after four-weeks of training using this mask. They essentially failed to reject the null hypothesis that the masks help with stamina and endurance. The subjects had greater respiratory muscle strength, but this only means that they could breathe “harder.” It did not change the maximum amount of oxygen absorbed during running, which is what is actually important when exercising and what increases muscular endurance. The major limitation of this study is the fact that there wasn’t any sort of control group. Researchers at Arizona State fixed the second problem, studying nine cyclists and having a control group. Their results were very similar. A limitation shared by the two studies is small sample size, but I think we can ignore this because the results were so significant and similar. Another possible reason for no increase in endurance during their respective sports is the time frame. Both studies only gave the subjects 3-4 weeks with the masks. What would have happened if they had 10-15 weeks? It would be interesting to see if the results would differ.

I had a hard time finding many credible trials regarding Training Masks. This could be largely due to the file drawer problem. Training Mask’s website shows a few studies supporting their product, but it’s hard to know their credibility due to bias.

Many people misunderstand these altitude-training masks. Yes, they are good for strengthening your respiratory muscles (i.e. how hard you can breathe). This, however, shouldn’t lead to an increase in performance. According to runnersconnect.net, “the main problem isn’t usually getting air into your lungs anyways—it’s getting oxygen from the air into your blood, and then putting that oxygen towards a useful purpose in your leg muscles.” Athletes train at altitude because the air has less oxygen, but these masks do not actually limit the amount of oxygen in the air you inhale. Instead, they just make it harder to breathe. This forces you to “suck” in the air, potentially running the risk of poor breathing habits due to the mask.

Overall, there is no major evidence that supports the use of the training mask for sports; however, there is no evidence showing that it is “bad” to use. Of course, some will train harder because they feel like Bane when wearing it, but for most, it doesn’t seem like it’s worth the money.

Everyone knows the classic pink, yellow and blue sugar packets. Whenever I have coffee in the morning, and then another 3 more times throughout the day, my mom always yelled at me for putting in artificial sweeteners. She claims they cause cancer. Although it seems to me at this point everything causes cancers and it’s completely inevitable to prevent, it led me to wonder: do artificial sweeteners cause cancer? I decided to look into further research in order to try and find an official answer.

Artificial sweeteners, otherwise known as sugar substitutes are used to replace traditional sugar in order to sweeten foods and beverages. Any foods that are labeled as “sugar free” or “diet” tend to have artificial sweeteners in them. Mostly artificial sweeteners are sweeter than traditional sugar by about 200 times and therefore less is needed for the consumer. Many people are using these products with the conception that it is healthier than traditional sugar. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates these artificial sweeteners since it is not to be known as an assumed “safe” food (Mercola 2011).
So what is even in artificial sweeteners thats so bad? Most artificial sweeteners use a chemical called Aspartame. Aspartame was discovered in 1965 it is made out mostly out of aspartic acid (about 40%.) Aspartame doesn’t break down once digested. According to Lendon Smith, M.D. some side affects from Aspartame include decrease in eye vision, ringing or buzzing sounds in ears, headaches, memory loss, sleepiness and even depression” (Janet Starr Hull 2002).
Several studies have been conducted to reveal a link between artificial sweeteners and cancer. Research has been conducted in a lab where animals are fed aspartame, often in high doses of about 4,000 mg/day. So far there have not been any direct links between these animals getting cancer and getting fed aspartame. Although this seems promising, those who are getting tested aren’t humans, therefore it’s difficult to test whether or not the same reaction to aspartame will be for humans. Italian researchers published two studies that stated very high doses of aspartame could increase the risk of some blood related cancers such as leukemias and lymphomas in rats (FDA 2007). Once again these studies do not promise whether or not humans would react the same way as rats. Even the FDA has called these studies into question wondering whether or not there is enough data to back up this hypothesis (American Cancer Society 2015).

Although tests are always easier to perform on animals, there have been several studies conducted on people. One study suggested that the increase of brain tumors in the US during the 1980’s was related to aspartame. However, the American Cancer Society proceeded to fight against the study stating that “the increase in brain tumor rates actually began back in the early 1970’s, well before aspartame was in use.” Another study from researchers from the National Cancer Institute looked at cancer rates in more than 500,000 adults. This study found that those who drank aspartame contained beverages compared to those who didn’t did not have an increase risk of lymphomas, leukemias, or any brain cancers (NCI 2015). This research according to the National Cancer Institute completely contradicts the previous research. Since 500,000 people is a large portion of people for a study, most likely aspartame doesn’t cause brain tumors. On the other hand, there was a recent study which over 125,000 people participated in. This study found a link between consumption of aspartame sweetened soda and the risk of leukemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma both only in men (American Cancer Society 2015). As a result, most researchers have concluded that this link is due to chance. Both the FDA and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have found aspartame to be safe enough to be consumed, although research regarding a potential link between aspartame and cancer is still occurring. Since aspartame is a major ingredient within artificial sweeteners it remains unknown whether or not they are bad for you. Ultimately traditional sugar is probably the safer option regardless since facts about that are more known.

Works Cited:

Artificial Sweeteners and Cancer (2015 ). In National Cancer Institute . Retrieved from http://
www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/artificial-sweeteners-fact-sheet

Aspartame: By Far the Most Dangerous Substance Added to Most Foods Today (2011). In
Mercola . Retrieved from http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/11/06/
aspartame-most-dangerous-substance-added-to-food.aspx

Aspartame Side Effects (2002). In Janet Starr Hull . Retrieved from http://
www.sweetpoison.com/aspartame-side-effects.html

FDA Statement on European Aspartame Study (2007). In Food and Drug Administration.
Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/
FoodAdditivesIngredients/ucm208580.htm

Things happen nearly everyday. We wake up. We breathe. We eat. We walk. We learn. We make friends. We talk. And everyday, science continues to advance our understanding of these daily human occurrences further and further. We know why we wake up. We know why we breathe. We know why we eat, why we walk, why we learn, and why we make friends. But almost everyday, one thing happens that few of us understand, that few of us even bother to actually question… Our headphones tangle in our pockets. But why? What’s the scientific reasoning for why our headphones tangle despite no serious movement or handling? Why does this happen nearly every…single…time they’re stored in our pockets?

Bill Murray is reported to have summed up this issue best for readers. “What’s the best way to tie the strongest knot ever?” he asked, then answered, “Put headphones in your pocket and wait a minute.”

According to James Vincent, scientists have been curious to find out the reasoning as well. Promptly, as scientists do, they moved to experiment- the individuals placed all different pieces of wire, like headphones, into a cardboard box and shook them…3,415 times. The result? Tangled wire. But more than that, the scientists discovered that there are two important factors involved in the formation of these difficult-to-untangle knots: “critical string length” and “agitation time”. The chart from the study can be seen below.

It was also discovered that the probability of your headphones getting tangled (if they’re approximately 139 centimeters in length) is very close to…1 in 2. 50%. This experiment, and many others similar, are monumentally more complex (and were certainly difficult for me, as a nonscientist, to easily wrap my head around). More details can be found within the hyperlinks. But some may still be wondering why exactly headphones tangle?

Put simply for further explanation, logic speaks plenty regarding the all-to-common tangling of wires. “There is one way for a cable to be straight, but a massive number of ways it can get tangled”. The two involved scientists, Dorion Raymer and Douglas Smith, also mentioned that the shape of the headphones, with the split into two separate wires, adds to the likelihood of entanglement greatly. In addition, it’s been discovered that even the slightest bit of movement and slightest variation in temperature can lead to these wires shifting and reshuffling in your pocket, or backpack.

However, the most important question to the reader is perhaps, “Can I stop my ear buds from getting tangled?” To which, sadly, the answer is that there’s no proven, easy, definite fix. If you’re up for a “gamble” or more complex solutions though, these scientists have a few methods to offer (of course).

A loop can be formed with the wire. Scientific experiments have tested the loop method in nearly 12,000 trials. The result? Less tangling and less knots…by nearly 10x.

The other simpler, less tested strategies are to keep the individual earphone and wires separated, make the chord thicker, or simply…prevent movement at all (good luck with that obvious, but difficult strategy).

Despite the amount of research and studies done, it seems that this issue may just be one for humans to remain tangled in handling. The only 100% effective method of keeping these headphones unknotted seems to leave us with two choices:

1.) We can use our headphones, and they’ll tangle. Or 2.) We can’t use our headphones, and they won’t tangle.

Sad song

In a previous post, I discussed how scientists have started using stem cells to reduce the symptoms and hopefully cure Multiple Sclerosis. I have previously read about the use of stem cell in disease treatment, however after my research for the post I found a lot more I felt could be shared in an additional post.

Stem cells are one of the new “in” innovations in the field of science and disease study, however they have been studied for over a hundred years. They were first termed in 1868, in a research piece published by biologist Ernst Haeckel. He described these cells as single-celled organisms that acted as the ancestor cell to all living things in history. In 1981, Martin Evans from the University of Cambridge and Gail Martin from University of California San Francisco conducted separate studies [that] derive[d] pluripotent stem cells from the embryos of mice. This was the first time these cells had ever been isolated. And more recently, President George W. Bush sign[ed] an order that called for federal funds to b given to research of human embryonic stem cell lines. Since then, stem cells have been at the forefront of scientific study on cancer, transplant medicine, and the many ways to heal numerous human ailments.

Now, the newest research on stem cells has scientists generating contracting muscles from these miracle cells. A group of researchers led by Dr. Paolo Macchiarini, professor of regenerative medicine at Korlinska Institute, have succeed[ed] in recreating sections of the diaphragm. (The diaphragm is a sheet of muscle used in the process of inhalation. It sits at the base of the chest cavity and separates the abdominal cavity from the thoracic cavity. It is essential for breathing.)

Dr. Macchiarini has been at the forefront of the study and manipulation of stem cells. In 2008 he took a woman’s stem cells and created a new windpipe to replace her diseased one. However, creating the diaphragm is a significant step as it is a much more complex muscle. Although this feat was accomplished using rat stem cells, the doctor and his team of researchers believe they are capable of recreating a human diaphragm from human stem cells. Over 2,500 babies are born each year with dysfunctional diaphragms, so this is an urgent and necessary study.

The great things achieved through manipulating stem cells aren’t without controversy though. One of these issues is over the ethicality of using embryonic stem cells. Many people believe that abortion (the means of which most of the embryonic stem cells are gathered) is an unethical and immoral act. These people believe that an embryo is a human life, thus abortion is the illegal ending of a human life.

Another issue that has arisen is the financial aspect of stem cell research and use. According to analysts at Frost & Sullivan, a Texas consulting firm that does market research and analysis, the global market is value at $16.4 billion and is expected to grow to $67.5 billion in the next 5 years. With so much money on the line, the important thing is to remember the scientific importance as well as the importance of helping as many people as possible. If the scientific community is able to focus on the medical needs and put financial gains in the back burner, the positive impact of studying and implementing stem cell techniques is unparalleled.

Personally, I think the use of stem cells is an amazing and useful scientific study. Any advancement in science that has such a beneficial impact on people should be utilizing to the greatest extent possible. Because if not, aren’t we just keeping people from being in the best medical condition possible?

Sources:

http://time.com/4131443/stem-cells-trachea-muscle/

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/how-regenerative-medicine-and-the-use-of-stem-cells-is-becoming-big-business-2015-12

http://stemcell.childrenshospital.org/about-stem-cells/history/

http://www.healthline.com/human-body-maps/diaphragm

http://www.eurostemcell.org/factsheet/embyronic-stem-cell-research-ethical-dilemma

Wake up, eat, class, weights, eat, class, practice, eat, study, and sleep. That is a typical day for a student athlete at Penn State. I am an athlete myself, so I know the pains of the incredibly busy schedule. For athletes, what you eat is very important, but finding the time to eat enough is the hardest part. It is vital to consume the right amounts of every food group, and it is hard to do that on a busy schedule. Looking at most factors including portions, calories, and food groups, I think that Chipotle is perfect for student-athletes.

There are five main food groups for a balanced diet: carbs, protein, milk/dairy, fruits/veggies, and good fats/sugars. A chipotle burrito or burrito bowl makes it possible to get most, if not all of these in one meal. Rice covers the carbs; beans and meat provide a lot of good quality protein; cheese is a good source of dairy; corn, peppers, and lettuce cover the veggies; avocado is an excellent source of good fats. All of these ingredients are needed for the body, especially when it needs to recover from a tough workout. Unlike most Americanized Mexican fast food restaurants, Chipotle uses local, fresh ingredients. Many people make the argument that chipotle is bad because of the high amount of calories (a burrito typically has around 900-1000+ calories), but with the amount of training that athletes do, they need a lot of calories in their diet, and chipotle provides them with good quality calories.

An observational study published in The Training and Conditioning Journal looked at the eating habits of 345 male and female athletes from different division one schools. The researchers took gender and eating disorders into account when processing the data. Looking at body composition, eating frequency, and calories consumed, they found that 70% of female athletes and 73% of male athletes were consuming too few calories to meet their energy needs. This study showed that many student-athletes had an inadequate amount of calories to support their athletic energy, let alone the energy they need to process information in class. There are several limitations to this study. Athletes are constantly trying to vary their body weights. Since it is an observational study, it is very susceptible to third variables. For example, a football player might be trying to put on 10 pounds in the offseason while a soccer player might be trying to lose 5. That could mess with the data. Another aspect we need to look at is the subjects lying or exaggerating. For example, self-image has become a major factor in today’s world, especially for women. I think that we can ignore this because the study was both voluntary and anonymous. The workload for athletes can also differ from school to school and sport to sport. Can the findings from this study be applied to most college athletes? I think yes. The sample size is quite large and is varied throughout many athletic programs, and the data is quite significant.

It is clear that many student-athletes are not consuming enough calories. This is probably due to their busy schedules and often having to eat quickly and on the run. Some universities, including Cal Berkley, even have an express line for their athletes at the local Chipotle. Looking at the high quality ingredients and the amount of calories that Chipotle provides, it seems like a perfect, one-stop-shop meal for a college athlete.

Have you ever felt your melting brain dribble out of your ears after watching a few hours of TV? Didn’t think so. If you said yes, definitely get off your computer and go see a doctor. For the rest of you without liquified brains. I’m sure you’ve heard about some of the negative aspects of watching TV. I know, the Big Bang Theory is super funny but you should really go outside. Humans are not meant to spend most of their time sedentary, that means you! It has long been known that the advent of television has contributed to obesity related diseases. But does it make you dumb? There is some evidence out there that suggests just that! Before you call your mom and tell her that your bad mid term grade was Modern Family’s fault, lets check it out.

A study done by researchers at the University of Cambridge looking into this question was published in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. They started with 845 adolescents between the ages and 14-15 and monitored their screen time, physical activity and study time leading up to when they took the GCSE, a pseudo-equivalent to a high school diploma in the United Kingdom. They adjusted for BMI z-score, deprivation, sex, season and school before analyzing the results. After they got the exam scores back and analyzed the results they uncovered some fairly predictable trends. Those who spent an extra hour everyday watching TV or playing video game scored an average 9.3 less points. For a test that is only out of 58 points, that is the difference between and A and B. The kids who spent an extra hour every day studying scored a whopping 23.1 more points on average and the kids who spent an extra hour exercising scored an average 6.9 more points more.

Based on these results, it is clear that studying makes you do better in school (duh). We’re interested in the difference in scores between screen time and physical activity. These results do suggest that screen time is a significant factor in worse test scores. However, I don’t feel that this study did a great job controlling for confounding variables. Kids between 14 and 15 in the UK have never taken the GSCE before and based on the researchers’ methods they are getting these variances by comparing test scores across the 845 subjects. It is possible that IQ is the main determinant of GSCE score and that more or less physical activity/screen time is a non factor. It is also a possibility that if one of the subjects is inherently smarter he/she will be more inclined to spend less time playing video games and prefer to spend their time reading or playing outside. This was an observational study because the independent variables, physical activity and so, were not manipulated by the researchers in any way. Therefore, their results can only suggest a correlation at best but have means of establishing a causal relationship.

This doesn’t mean that I’m suggesting that watching copious amounts of TV is okay! In fact I urge you to do the exact opposite. Children in this country spend an average of 1,620 minutes a week watching television. That’s an incredible 27 hours or 16% percent of the hours in a week. If we assume that a child gets around 9 hours of sleep per night, that means they spend 25.7% of their waking hours watching TV. Even if the Cambridge study is only correlational, there is a definite possibility that screen time inhibits learning. For the rational person, unless you value hours spent watching TV more than higher grades in school, it is safe to say that spending more time not watching TV is worth it. Maybe it’ll keep your brain from melting too.

Have you ever wondered if you would be a different person if you had a different name? Would you be more successful? Would people like you more? It sounds a little strange, that your name can dictate your success and future, so I investigated more to see if it’s true.

Having a “white-sounding” name more beneficial?

Researchers have found that having a “white-sounding” name is worth as much as eight years of work experience, and you are 50% more likely to get a call back when sending out a resume.

Many experiments have been done to justify this theory. A study was done in 2003 that was called “Are Emily And Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal?” In this study researches sent 5,000 CV’s to job advertisements in Boston and Chicago newspapers. All the CV’s were the same, but half were given names like Emily Walsh or Greg Baker, and the other half were given names like Lakisha Washington or Jamal Jones. The results were astounding, as the call back rates were 50% higher on the “white names” then the “black names.” In 2004, “20/20” ran an experiment with a group of young black professionals who doubted the “black-sounding” names on their resumes made a difference. In this experiment they sent out 22 identical resumes, with the only difference being the names. You would think that since the resumes are identical they would have the same results, but results showed that the white-sounding names were downloaded 17% more often by recruiters than the resumes that had the black-sounding names on them. Employers in both studies were using people’s first names to unfairly discriminate perhaps on an unconscious level. These experiments show however having a certain name can cause a barrier when looking for a job. An observational study done by Dave Figlio (http://www.nber.org/papers/w11195) showed more discrimination between having a “black” name. He analyzed the scores of 55,000 children in a school district in Florida, and created sliding scales once for example went from Drew to Dwayne to Damarcus to Da’Quan. He found the further he went on his scale the worst the test scores were. He believes that “the fault lies with the expectations of school teachers and administrators.”

Although it is greatly unfair, people stereotype based on what name you have. If someone has more or a “black-sounding” name, you may have a disadvantage simple because people assume you come from a poor background. In a article by CNN, “people can make educated guesses about you gender, possibly your race or religion, maybe the era in which you were born and in some cases those educated guesses can lead to judgments being made about you, sight-unseen.”

The Position of your surname on the alphabet

Its crazy to think even where your last name lies on the alphabet can dictate how successful you are. A study by the Economics of Education studied ninety thousand Czech students’ last names and their admission chances at competitive schools. The results showed that students with lasts names that were low in the alphabet had higher test scores overall, those students with last names close to the top of the alphabet were still more likely to be admitted. The theory is that people with surnames at the top of the alphabet have gotten used to being first whether it was for school register or a job interview. Wiseman tested this theory also when he invited telegraph readers to rate how successful they thought they were in aspects of their lives. Over fifteen thousand people responded to this study providing information like their surname, and the results were that if your surname was lower in the alphabet it was less likely that you were successful. This correlation in the study was stronger in older age groups, which Wiseman suspected it was because older generations were likely to have been ordered alphabetically in the classroom. That means people with surnames higher on the alphabet were closer to the front of the classroom, which means more attention from the teacher and behaved better resulting in higher grades.

Is it true?

However, although people test this theory that your name can affect your success in a bad way, there are studies that have contradicted this. In “Freakonomics” they claim there is no evidence that your name determines your success. They backed up their conclusion with a true story of two brothers from New York, whose names were Winner and Loser. People would assume having those names, Winner would be more successful than his brother, but in the end it was the opposite. Loser went on to having a better life and Winner ended up being a criminal.

After gathering up this information, I do see where there is a correlation between your name and your success. However, I do not think having a name like Elizabeth will automatically make you successful, and I do not think having the name Shaniqua means you will never be able to have a high rank job. Yes, maybe having a certain name will make certain aspects or life easier or harder, but having a certain name will not define you life.

“Parents should give their children whatever name they want, but they need to recognize that names have consequences,” says Figlio. “Is a name 
a guaranteed ladder to success? Of course not. But can a name make your life a little bit easier? For sure.”

Rock, paper, scissors, shoot! The simple, yet timeless game dates all the way back to the Han Dynasty and is known by many as a method of combining chance and luck in order to determine who gets the last slice of cake, the home side in FIFA, or any other random situation. Although you might think of it as childish, RPS (rock, paper, scissors abbreviated) is actually a mind game comprised of strategy, anticipation, intelligence, and observational skill. Some in fact take it so seriously that they created the USARPS World Championships; before it became extinct, the finals would air on ESPN yearly. It raised so much awareness that Chinese researchers assembled together to crack the science behind RPS.

If you like your odds of guessing at random (33.33%), then statistics reveal that each “weapon” choice will have the same probability in future and previous rounds of the game; this is referred to as a Nash Equilibrium. Curiousity about whether the odds of the game could be manipulated led Chinese scientist Zhijian Wang from Zhejiang University to conduct an experiment of his own. After experimenting and tinkering around with the data, he “discovered that gameplay typically consists of predictable patterns.”

The observational experiment began with 360 subjects divided into 60 groups of 6. They played 300 rounds of RPS where each and every move, win, and loss was recorded by the Chinese scientist. Ironically enough, the generated results confirmed that the subjects played rock 100 times, paper 100 times, and scissors 100 times…the Nash Equilibrium! It was also discovered that players that lost tended to rotate from rock to paper to scissors while the consistent winners would stick with one main strategy instead of switching it around. “This game exhibits collective cyclic motions which cannot be understood by the Nash Equilibrium concept but are successfully explained by the empirical data-inspired conditional response mechanism,” he said. Other data collected from flowingdata.com uncovered that “males have a tendency to throw rock on their first try, inexperienced RPS players will subconsciously deliver the item that won previously, and paper is thrown least often, so use it as a surprise.”

While we might think of it as a game, the concept of RPS lies within nature, as well. The common side-blotched lizard “exhibits a rock-paper-scissors pattern in its mating strategies.” There are three color types: orange, blue, and yellow. Scientists have observed the behavior of these reptiles and it has been confirmed that an orange will defeat a blue, a blue will defeat a yellow, and a yellow will beat an orange in a competition for a mate. That’s not all, however. Some bacteria also use a RPS strategy during antibiotic production. Doctors Benjamin Kerr and Brendan Bohannan of Stanford University discovered the pattern during a computer simulation in a laboratory. Biologist Benjamin C. Kirkup, Jr. “demonstrated that these antibiotics, “bacterioicins”, were active as Escherichia coli compete with each other in the intestines of mice, and that the rock-paper-scissors dynamics allowed for the continued competition among strains: antibiotic-producers defeat antibiotic-sensitives; antibiotic-resisters multiply and withstand and out-compete the antibiotic-producers, letting antibiotic-sensitives multiply and out-compete others; until antibiotic-producers multiply again.”

I find it extremely intriguing how a game thought of as “elementary” or “basic” is reflected in elements of nature throughout the world. Next time you find yourself in a RPS duel, keep in mind these strategies that will help you to succeed.

Sources:

How to win Rock-paper-scissors every time

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2617808/The-science-Rock-Paper-Scissors-Mathematicians-reveal-hidden-pattern-game-guarantee-win.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock-paper-scissors#Instances_of_use_in_real-life_scenarios

http://psychology.about.com/od/cindex/g/condresp.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_side-blotched_lizard

Pictures:

http://cdn.bgr.com/2015/09/rock-paper-scisscors.jpg

http://i0.wp.com/flowingdata.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/rock-paper-scissors.gif?zoom=1.5&resize=620%2C1412

I come from a town where everyone always wants to try the latest juice cleanse. Personally, I have never seen the point in only drinking juice for 4-5 days. Even though juice cleanses are popular all across the world, I want to know if they are actually safe. Are people actually hurting their health when they go on a cleanse?

https://cbsnewyork.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/urban-remedy.jpg

Before I can begin to describe the dangers of a juice cleanse, I must first describe what it is. Actually, it is exactly what it sounds like. Lasting for a few days or several weeks, cleansers limit their diets to fresh veggies, fruit juices, and water. Everything in this fast focuses on freshly made, unpasteurized juice. While there are many juice cleanse product manufacturers, some people prefer to make their juices at home.

The reality is that some of the truths about juice cleanses are not that pretty. Here is a list of all the reasons why one should take precaution before undergoing a juice cleanse:

1. Dangerous for some people
   • The juices actually contain more sugar than regularly prepared foods. People undergoing chemotherapy, diabetics, and people with nutritional deficiencies can run the risk of skyrocketed blood-sugar levels. These can then lead to fatigue, rapid weight loss, blurry vision, and slow healing of infections and wounds. Also, excessive juice consumption can encourage potassium build up in the blood.
2. Juicing removes nutrients from whole fruits and vegetables
   • Dietician Jennifer K. Nelson says that their is no scientific evidence that makes extracted juices healthier than the juice found in a whole fruit or vegetable. In fact, while the final liquid of juicing contains most of the vitamins and minerals found in the whole fruit, it lacks the healthy fiber that is in whole fruits and vegetables. This removal of nutrients can also affect blood-sugar levels.
3. Not as filling as whole fruits and veggies
   • Studies show that eating and chewing food satisfies the stomach better than just drinking it. Also, the loss of fiber as mentioned above rises the rate of consumption in the stomach. If the fiber wasn’t lost, then the fiber would have helped slow consumption.
4. Not an effective way to lose weight and keep it off
   • The chances of you losing weight on a juice cleanse is high, but the chance of you maintaining that weight is low. Dr. James Dillard from the Columbia University College of Physicians claims that the wight lost in a juice cleanse is just water weight. Water weight is very easy to gain back.
   • New York Times writer Judith Newman recently went on a juice cleanse. She observed that juices cleanses actually lower ones metabolism. If juice cleanses are done enough, metabolism can actually be permanently lowered.
5. There is nothing in the body that needs to be detoxed
   • Our bodies already have natural detectors! These are our livers, kidneys, and intestines! There is no need in putting our bodies through a strenuous diet when our bodies are already working tirelessly to filter out unwanted things. Chemical scientist Dr. John Emsley said our bodies are “very good at eliminating all the nasties.”

Even though juice cleanses are a big fad right now, people should still be careful. Is it really worth putting the body through such a limited diet? Before taking on a juice cleanse, one should weigh the risks to see if it is really worth it.

The practice of tobacco smoking use has been around as early as 5000-3000 BCE. Native Americans and other ancient cultures harvested the plant and then smoked it for medicinal and ceremonial purposes. Yet as discussed in class, it was not until the late 1950’s that humans began to realize it’s harmful and dangerous side effects. On the other hand, vaping is a relatively new idea (with the first electronic cigarette being developed in 2003) that has been argued by some to be a safer alternative to smoking. While others debate the new substitute to be just as bad, if not worse, than traditional smoking. So, who is right?

When smoking the heat from the fire causes the tobacco to go from it’s solid state to vapor. In cigarette’s this releases nicotine which gets absorbed into your bloodstream through the lungs and in result causes constricted blood vessels, increased heart rate, feelings of alertness, and the release of dopamine in your brain. However, since nicotine is a stimulate, once it is no

longer available you “crash” and begin to crave more, which in the long run could cause addiction. Being addicted to anything isn’t good, especially something so harmful like tobacco. From the extensive research that has been done on tobacco use, it is common knowledge that smoking not only causes addiction, but can create cancer causing effects, development of tar in your lungs, blackening of your teeth, and destruction of taste buds. This certainly magnifies the cons of cigarette smoking. According to the American Lung Association smoking kills approximately 443,000 Americans each year. To a reasonable person the side-efffetcs of smoking should appear not only very dangerous, but also extremely harmful.

Now what about vaping? Electronic cigarette’s transport a nicotine-containg aerosol (vapor) by heating a solution containing nicotine, glycerol, and sometimes flavoring agents. Theoretically this results in the same effects as smoking, without the process of inhaling the dangerous smoke entering your lungs. The amount of nicotine in the solution (e-liquid) can be regulated and may range from 0-30µg of nicotine per puff. This way users can chose not only the flavors and brands of their product, but also the strength. A study conducted by the Society for Research of Nicotine and Tobacco on popular e-cig brands determined that the level of nicotine spawned from 15-20 puffs varied from 0.5µg to 15.4µg. They concluded that the amount inhaled from 15 puffs is much lower compared to one puff from smoking a traditional cigarette. This could leadus to believe that e-cigarette’s are in fact a safer alternative and could help wean users off a smoking habit. On the contrary, the contents of the e-liquid found in this alternative can widely vary from company to company and are sometimes mislabeled. In addition e-liquids contain a base that helps contain moisture without causing sogginess. This base is found in cosmetics and theatrical smoke, that have been known to cause eye irritation and respiratory infections. Scientists are yet to determine prolonged effects of exposure to this base and therefore the FDA has been able to easily approve these products. To me it seems logical that smoking something that’s used in theatrical smoke may not be so good for you. Another argument against vaporizers is that the wide variety of flavors can cause the product to become more appealing to younger people. With delicious names such as Blueberry Cheesecake or Sweet Tangy Melon, I can see how the product could easily attract a younger crowd.

So which option is safer? By examining all the evidence it is hard to say. Since smoking has been around for so long, all the information we have is from prolonged studies and can be much more heavily relied on. With vaping being relatively new we simply don’t have access to longitudinal studies and therefore cannot draw a clear conclusion on what is worse. The gray area in e-cigarette’s and similar products is way too foggy to say that vaporizers are a better option, and if anything could support the fact that they’re are just as bad or even worse than traditional smoking.  But for the sake your own health, maybe you should put both products aside and wait for scientists to determine the true dangers of vaping.

With the emergence of medical marijuana in the nation over the past decade, the rare eye condition, Glaucoma, has become a household name of sorts. What was once a condition rarely referenced outside of ophthalmologist’s offices, is now splattered across the news, pop culture, and almost every stoner comedy. But for those who suffer from this disease, it is no laughing matter. Glaucoma effects over 3 million Americans today, and is the second leading cause of blindness in the world according to the World Health Organization. But thanks to the medical marijuana movement, the situation for Glaucoma patients is looking up!

As of now, Glaucoma has NO cure. Those affected with it, even those who receive treatment, have a ten percent chance of losing their vision. Glaucoma is a condition in which the optic nerve deteriorates over time. This is caused by higher than normal levels of Intraocular Pressure. Those who suffer from glaucoma regularly experience peripheral vision loss as well as extreme pain caused by this internal pressure differential. So how does cannabis factor into all this?

Cannabis has an uncanny ability to relieve ocular pressure. What many people note as red eyes in cannabis users, is actually the manifestation of Interocular Pressure relief. That’s right! When glaucoma patients ingest marijuana and their eyes begin to redden, they are actually being relieved of their Interocular Pressure and the pains associated with Glaucoma. Unfortunately, due to the limited amount of research available on medical marijuana it is unclear of the future of its use as medicine for Glaucoma patients. Although, it has been proven to relieve pressure and therefore prevent damage to the optic nerve, scientists fear its blood thinning affects might contradict these benefits. That being said, in the thirty years of limited testing that has been conducted, damage to the optic nerve has not been noted. Patients praise marijuana for its alleviative affects, and simplicity. Many patients have reported liver and kidney damage as a result of the numerous glaucoma medications they are prescribed. Elvy Mussika, a medical marijuana patient for over 30 years had the following to say on the matter,

“I was diagnosed with Glaucoma in 1975. Within a year, I already knew that there was nothing absolutely nothing that was on the market then worked for my glaucoma except for marijuana… One of the benefits of using marijuana is that most of us drop all the other drugs that really do a number on our heads and make it difficult for us to stay healthy..”

Patients seem to be very open and accepting of cannabis as a treatment options, but doctors are much more skeptical. Doctors worry that having to be in a state of perpetual “high” is dangerous and ineffective as a treatment.  The American Glaucoma Society, takes a conservative approach, as well

“[T]he mainstay of treatment for glaucoma patients is lowering the IOP [intraocular pressure]… Although marijuana can lower the intraocular pressure (IOP), its side effects and short duration of action, coupled with a lack of evidence that it use alters the course of glaucoma, preclude recommending this drug in any form for the treatment of glaucoma at the present time.”

Despite the skepticism, marijuana advocates and patients maintain high hopes for the future of cannabis as glaucoma treatment. With new advances in the medical marijuana field, it will soon be possible to dose out cannabanoids in a regular and moderate dosage throughout the day. Similar to the way in which some diabetic patients receive insulin regularly throughout the day without the pain of injections. Regardless, patients rejoice that there is a cheap, non-addictive, and non-invasive medication to alleviate their pressure differentials available today. With only 30% of Americans even having knowledge of this condition, maybe it is good that Glaucoma is receiving the national attention it is. That being said, it is important to remember that marijuana is not just for recreational use, it has marvelous medical benefits for many people. Whether it be Epilepsy, Glaucoma, Multiple Sclerosis, or Cancer patients across the country depend on its use. However, for many patients across the globe, the use of marijuana carries heavy consequences. Even here, the U.S has maintained its federal classification of marijuana as a schedule 1 drug. Deeming it void of medical use and having a high potential for abuse.

In conclusion, marijuana has shown a fascinating ability to relieve the main proponent of optical nerve damage, Interocular Pressure. This provides relief and resistance to the escalation of the Glaucoma disease in many patients. Whether marijuana will eventually cure Glaucoma is unknown, but as states begin to initiate their medical programs, more information is being learned every day. Scientists and doctors are skeptical, but patients and proponents praise the drug, and pray for continued investigation and investment.

http://www.geteyesmart.org/eyesmart/living/medical-marijuana-glaucoma-treament.cfm

http://www.glaucoma.org/glaucoma/glaucoma-facts-and-stats.php

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000140

http://www.dea.gov/druginfo/ds.shtml

Driving is one of the, if not the most, dangerous activities that the vast majority of society engages in on a daily bases. In this day in age there are many different methods in which entities try and protect society to the best of there abilities in order to make driving as safe as possible. With this in mind, I was compelled to conduct research on a way that was rumored to improve you driving skills. I have heard that certain types of video games, particularly ones involving driving, improve you ability to drive.

Shortly into my research I found an article titled, “Do video games really make you a better driver?” that discusses the reasoning behind why video games make you a better driver. The article starts off by saying that video games are in fact good for your brain, and then goes on to say that they improve your ability to make the right decision faster. The article then goes on to explain a study conducted on two groups 18-25 years old, the one group played fast paced action video games while the other group played slow paced video games. The study examined individuals from both groups ability to make quick decisions and answer questions. The researchers found that the group that played fast pace video games was able to make decisions and answer questions at a 25 percent faster rate. Not only were they able to make these decisions at a faster rate, but also these decisions were accurate, which is the crucial factor as to why video games benefits driving. My only criticism on the study is that the connection to driving is present, logical, and easy to follow; however, the study would be more meaningful if they did a test involving driving. They could do some type of simulation where each individual experienced the same potentially dangerous situations while driving and examined how they the two groups reacted differently.

In order to ensure that this study was not an outlier I conducted further research to see if similar studies drew similar conclusions. The next study I found was explained in an article titled, “Increasing Speed of Processing With Action Video Games”. This study simply reviewed evidence that found that individuals playing action video games significantly reduced their reaction time without loosing accuracy. Unfortunately, this study did not test the individual’s improvement driving capabilities; therefore, I continued to look for ones that did.

Eventually I was able to find a study that actually conduced an experiment that tested driving through a simulator. The study was discussed in the article, “Excellent gamer, excellent driver? The impact of adolescents’ video game playing on driving behavior: A two-wave panel study”. The study included 354 adolescents that played video games took a driving stimulator. The researchers found that they did have improved reaction time, which benefited driving; however, they exhibited risky behavior while driving, which in fact made them worse drivers. The conclusion of this study was unique in that it said that video games made them worse drivers; however, I wonder if they took greater risks because they knew they actually were not in danger since it was a simulation.

Take home message: Action and high paced video games improve reaction time in individuals, thus, giving them the an asset to become a better drivers. It is important to realize that video games only give the individuals an asset to become better drivers, but does not mean that they will be better drivers.

Have you ever had a really good dream?  One you wish you could dream all over again?  I always wished I could control my dreams, maybe bring me back to a really good one.  I wondered if it was possible, so I decided to do some research.

Deirdre Barrett is the author of “The Committee of Sleep: How Artists, Scientists and Athletes Use Dreams for Creative Problem-Solving-and How You Can, Too” and did an interview with the Scientific American on dreams.  She described the scientific definition of a dream as a “narrative experience that occurs during sleep” (Barrett).  She was then asked if it is possible to control our dreams, where she said that yes it is possible.  She said it depends on what type of dream: lucid, nightmare, etc.  To solve a problem in a dream, one must think of that particular problem before they go to sleep.  One could also place something next to their bed that would help remind them of the problem, such as a person he/she is in a fight with.  Also important, when one wakes up, they mustn’t get right out of bed.  They must lay for a second, and the dream will come back to them.  Another interesting thing Barrett spoke about was if someone wants to dream of a particular person or experience.  You have to get a picture of who you want to dream about, or a specific line they would say (anything relating to them) or the experience you had.

Controlling lucid dreams take a very different approach.  Lucid dreams in general are risky, and much harder to control.  Lucid dreams occur during your REM stage, when you are actually aware that you are dreaming.  Since you are aware that you are dreaming, you then might try to control your dream.  It is a lot harder to control this because you are
still sleeping, and these dreams can get a
little out of control sometimes.

The video below tells of how you can control your dreams:

http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l18FvtFl7ks

Here are some more ways to control your dreams from Yahoo Health:

1.Write down your dreams in the morning.  That way, you will eventually recognize patterns in them.  

2. Pay more attention to your daily activities.  You have to understand your life.

3. Get a habit.  Something to do everyday and get the hang of.

So now that we know how to control dreams in general, let’s get in a little more in depth.  Ever wanted to have a flying dream?  Well, since flying is not something humans normally do, your body is going to have to grow on it.  So jump around in your dream, higher and higher, and eventually you will fly.  What about changing the scenery?  Visualize where you want to go.  Whether it is Greece on the other side of the door, or look into a mirror and see a shopping mall.  As long as you believe that destination is truly there, you will be taken there.  Traveling through time can be made easy with a time travel machine you think up or fly into the clouds and end up in a different time period.  To find objects you want, just reach inside your pockets, bags, in front of you; it is guaranteed to be in one of those places considering your mind is controlling it.  Last but not least, if you want to talk to your unconscious self, it would be much easier to put yourself into a dog or cat form, and then talk to that animal as yourself.  It sounds crazy but hey, it works!

Although more research must be done on controlling dreams, we now know it is possible, no matter how crazy it seems.  Just put in a little effort next time you sleep, and you never know, you could be controlling your dreams in no time!  Sleep tight!

Works Cited:

1. http://www.dawn.com

2. www.lifehacker.com.au

3. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-control-dreams/

4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/van-winkles/what-is-lucid-dreaming-an_b_7663492.html

5. http://www.howsleepworks.com/types_rem.html

6. http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/how-to-control-your-dreams.html

7. http://dreamstudies.org/

Considering that we spend approximately 33% of our lives sleeping, the position in which we sleep must be important. I have a tendency to sleep on my stomach and often wake up with mild back pain. I feel strain on my lower back when I lay in this position, so I wanted to look into what sleeping positions are good and what sleeping positions are bad to avoid any possible physical pain in the future.

After doing research, I have concluded that sleeping on your back does damage to both your lower back and your neck. Having to turn your head to the side on your pillow causes unnecessary strain on your neck. If you can only sleep on your stomach, it is recommended that you use a soft pillow or no pillow at all in order to avoid putting your neck at an awkward angle. In general, you should avoid sleeping on your back if you are able to sleep in other positions.

In addition to sleeping on your stomach, sleeping on your back can also cause lower back pain. To avoid this back pain, it is recommended you put a pillow below your knees in order to elevate your lower body and facilitate the natural curve of the spine. Sleeping on your back can also cause sleep apnea which is when you periodically stop breathing in your sleep. This causes your sleep to be less sound and restful. On the other hand, I consulted with medicaldaily.com who said that sleeping on your back  is the healthiest position. There reasoning is that your head, neck, and spine are all aligned when you sleep flat on your back which results in the least amount of pressure added to your lower back and neck.

Image courtesy of https://i.ytimg.com/vi/B57UPRBhy4I/hqdefault.jpg

The final position which is recommended by bettersleep.org is sleeping on your side.  If you put a pillow in between your legs, it helps diminish lower back and hip pain. Medicaldaily.com ranked sleeping on your side as the second healthiest position to sleep in. Just like sleeping on your back, sleeping on your side does help with pain in the lower back and neck. Unlike sleeping on your back, sleeping on your side also helps to prevent sleep apnea. That being said, there are negatives to sleeping on your side such as wrinkling of the skin. As a matter of fact, sleeping on your left side versus sleeping on your right side can cause a number of different issues. If you sleep on your left side, you can damage internal organs such as your liver, lungs, and stomach. If you sleep on your right side, you can increase heartburn. The positive to sleeping on your left side is it helps limit acid reflux and promotes better blood flow which is why doctors advise pregnant women to sleep on their left side.

Image courtesy of https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e7/7d/11/e77d11064ef4baa33c2ba887749cff39.jpg

It does not seem that there is a consensus as to which sleeping position is the best. Some doctors believe sleeping on your back is the best method for your back and neck while others believe sleeping on your side is the best way to avoid physical pain while preventing sleep apnea from taking place. Either way is an effective method for sleep as long as you do not position your limbs in an uncomfortable and unnatural way. One thing that is certain is that sleeping on your back is an unhealthy and ineffective way to sleep.

Sources Used:

http://bettersleep.org/better-sleep/sleep-positions

http://www.medicaldaily.com/sleeping-positions-stay-healthy-best-and-worst-ways-sleep-during-night-296714

Most people say that the first thing they notice about an individual is their eyes.  However, besides just looks, can eyes tell us anything important about a person? Actually, your eyes can tell you more about yourself than you may have previously thought. It has been proven that an individual’s eyes can give insight on their health or the way in which their body functions. The color of a person’s irises and sclera can often alert a person if they have certain health issues.

There are many different health related associations with blue or light colored eyes. The first is that people with blue eyes tend to be more light-sensitive. It likely due to the fact that light-colored eyes have less light-absorbing eye pigment. Darker eyes aren’t as light sensitive because they have more pigment, meaning less light gets through the iris. Another association is that blue or light- colored eyes may be more at risk for cancer. Due to the fact that “lighter eyes have less pigment to protect them from harmful ultraviolet rays, it’s true that light-eyed people have a greater lifetime risk for melanoma of the uvea, the middle layer of the eye, than their dark-eyed peers” (Vann). Although this form of cancer is extremely rare, it is still possible due to the eye color. The last important association is an autoimmune disease that causes blotchy skin color, called Vitiligo, is less common is lighter eyes. In one large study, nearly half the patients with this disease had brown eyes. Researcher realized that “two particular genes, TYR and OCA2, which play a role in blue eye color, also decrease risk for vitiligo” (Klein). Which could be why individuals with blue or light eyes are less likely to get this disease.

Brown eyes also have a health association. Individuals with brown eyes are at a greater risk of getting cataracts. A study done by the American Journal of Ophthalmology in 2000 found “dark-eyed people had a 1.5 to 2.5 times greater risk of cataracts.” (Klein). Some researchers believe this may be due to dark eyes being more light-absorbent which increases the temperature of the lens.

There are also health associations with what the white a person’s eye, called the Sclera, looks like. The first is that if it begins to turn red, it may mean the person is suffering from an infection, allergies, or dryness. Yellowing of the eyes may mean the person has a problem with their liver. Lastly a white or grey ring forming around the iris, a condition called Arcus Senilis, is a result of cholesterol deposits. This shows the person may have high cholesterol, meaning they are at a higher risk for a heart attack or stroke.

Overall, it is clear our eyes have more purpose than just sight alone. An individual’s eyes can tell more about them than most would imagine. Studies have proven and scientists strongly support the claim that individual’s eyes can give insight on their health or the way in which their body functions.

(Picture)

http://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/files/2012/03/1233511701.jpg

I know that many people have posted about this topic throughout the semester, but I think that it is a topic worth addressing again. Cell phones are ubiquitous in our society. Everybody them and everybody uses them. Approximately 6 billion people on this planet have access to a mobile phone. But is this mainstream device dangerous? Yes, they provide convenience and entertainment but is the use of a cell phone really worth the risk that it carries?

Cellular devices use “electromagnetic radiation in the microwave range.” This is similar tot he type of radiation produced by other digital wireless systems. In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified cell phone radiation as Group 2B. This means that cell phone radiation is possibly carcinogenic. Some agents and mixtures also classified as Group 2B are acetamide, lead, uracil mustard, and cobalt. The agents and mixtures included in Group 2B usually have limited or inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity but relevant data proves a slim chance of carcinogenicity.

So what does this mean for cell phone users? Group 2B is a lot better than Group 2A (meaning probably carcinogenic) and Group 1 (carcinogenic). In order to truly tell if cell phone radiation is carcinogenic or not, long-term research must be conducted. However, scientists have begun conducting studies to try and understand the connection between cell phone use and cancer.

A scientist with the last name of Yakymenko conducted a meta-study. From his meta-analysis of epidemiological and experimental data, Yakymenko concluded that the exposure long term low intensity microwaves can lead to tumorigenesis. Yakymenko analyzed several studies that dealt with “radar radiation and cancer promotion,” “rodent model of cancer promotions by microwaves,” “microwaves and cell metabolism,” and “microwaves of radars and mobile communication systems.” Based on these conclusions, Yakymenko suggests that precautionary measures for everyday microwave exposure from cellular devices should be put into place. Despite the relatively low risk of brain cancer, people should still be cautious because ailments can take up to 30 years to fully develop. After reading through his study review fully, I believe in these results. However, I still must remain hesitant to believe it 100% because of the file drawer problem. Since this is a meta-study, it could suffer from the file drawer problem. Studies that found that cellular radiation had no affect on cancer formation could not have been published. Therefore, the results of those null-hypothesis studies would not be considered in Yakymenko’s analysis.

http://www.healthyfoodelements.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/mobile.jpeg

It is unrealistic to tell the world to stop using cell phones. However, it is important that the world is aware of the dangers we may face because of cell phone radiation. The World Health Organization recommends that people try to adopt hands-free devices or texting to reduce the radiation exposure. Obviously, the exposure is higher when the cell phone is closer to our heads and bodies. It is also best to try and keep mobile phone use limited for children.

But despite all of this, there have been many studies that concluded that cell phones do not cause cancer. In 2010, the largest international study of brain tumor wish in mobile device usage was conducted. The Interphone study group conducted an “interview-based case control study” with over 4,00 glioma and meningioma patients. In the end, the Interphone study group saw no increase in risk of meningioma or glioma due to the use of mobile phones. However, the long-term effects still need to be investigated.

So what does all of this mean? Are cell phones good or bad? Well, I believe that it is still too early to tell. Cell phones have only been around for about twenty years. Only time will tell if the cell phone radiation will effect the world in the long term. To really find out what is going on, a study should be conducted now that follows thousands of people, with controls, throughout their lifetimes. For now, I would use my cell phone with caution, but there is no way that I am taking it out of my life.

When I wake up in the morning before class or before I head to an exam, I usually do not think twice before I throw on a pair of sweat pants and sweat shirt. But could what I wear affect how I perform in the classroom? Does dressing more comfortable affect how I preform, or could it be wearing an outfit that is nicer can do so?

In a unique study I came across the scientists conducted an experiment putting this to the test through lab coats. Within in this single study two different experiments were conducted. First, fifty-eight undergraduate students (19 male, 41 female) were randomly assigned to two groups, one group wore a lab coat and one that wore there own clothing. To create blindness, the subjects wearing lab coats were told all prior subjects wore them as well. Both groups then completed a test that measured the time it took to indicate whether the letters on the screen or red or blue and their accuracy in doing so. The time did not vary between the two groups, but the group that wore lab coats had nearly half the amount of errors as the other group.

The second test divided seventy-four new undergraduate students into two groups. This time both groups were given lab coats. One group was told that the coat they were given was a doctor’s coat and the other group was told the lab coat was a painter’s coat. The people were then surveyed on what they thought of the coat. By doing so, they were able to make a third group based off the people who thought it was a lab coat described as a doctor’s coat. In this test each subject was shown two sets of two pictures. When each set was shown, two of the same pictures were shown on the screen, but each had four minor differences, and they were all instructed to write down the differences they found as quickly as possible. Then, it was measured the time it took and number of differences that were found. The results showed on average, those wearing “a doctor’s coat” found more differences than those who wore the “painter’s coat” and those who saw it as a lab coat not a painter’s coat. The time it took the three groups was relatively similar. This study can lead one to conclude that by wearing the doctor’s coat, one may become more attentive than if they were wearing a regular lab coat or a painter’s coat.

Multiple studies have shown that a person who is wearing formal attire will have an increased “abstract cognitive processing.” ttp://spp.sagepub.com/content/6/6/661 These studies show that in a way, formal clothes make us feel powerful, giving a person an increased level of confidence they did not have before. Based off the two studies I have concluded to fail to reject the hypothesis that the clothing you wearing can affect how a student performs in the classroom. The studies show that some clothing more than others can make a student more likely to pay closer attention to detail.

urlpicture 1

         Cats or Dogs? I am sure we’ve all been asked the age old question one too many times. The cliche question is commonly posed in icebreaker activities, sparking an interesting discussion into the reasoning behind people’s preferences. Interestingly enough, the question seems to result in a one sided answer, with most people preferring one over the other.  The Humane Society of the US reports that 65% of American households own a cat or dog. With that being said, it’s no surprise that many Americans today either distinguish themselves as a “cat” or “dog” person. The label may be derived from childhood experiences, current or past pet ownership, or simply a self proclaimed title constructed by the media or a friends experience with these pets. According to a poll conducted by the associated press, 74% of participants claimed to favor dogs more, while only 41% felt passionately about cats. Notably, there have been multiple scientific studies examining the differences in personality and physical appearances between cat and dog lovers.

         In a web based study  published by Sam Gosling, a psychologist at the University of Texas, 4,565 participants were initially asked if they identify themselves as a cat or dog person, neither, or both. They were then asked to complete a 44 question assessment that sought to examine the “Big Five” personality dimensions that psychologists use to study human personalities. These broad personality domains include extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, and openness to experience.

It was found that on average, dog lovers were 15% more extroverted and 13% more agreeable. These statistics coincide with the fact that dogs are naturally more sociable and “people person” oriented than cats are. Additionally, those who favor dogs tested 11% more conscientious (being able to display self discipline and aim for personal achievement) than cat lovers. This can probably be accredited to the fact that dogs are more easily taught commands and tasks than cats are.

        Cat people tested much differently on the personality scale, they were found to be 12% more neurotic, meaning they are emotionally unstable. On the other hand, cat people were 11% more open than dog people, meaning they hold a greater appreciation for worldly concepts such as art and emotion, and possess a stronger sense of imagination than their counterpart. These people were likely to hold unconventional and unusual beliefs, straying from traditional, cliche interests.

        Overall, dog owners were found to be more social and accepting than cat owners, who tend to be introverted and keep to themselves. Interestingly enough, Sam Gosling, a psychologist at the University of Texas in Austin and  head researcher in this study, has come to illustrate the major differences in cat and dog owners in a single comparison. Gosling asked pet owners, “If you had adequate living space and there were no objections from other people in your life, and someone gave you a puppy as a gift, would you keep it?” The responses of cat and dog people were analyzed, and it was found that two thirds of exclusive cat owners said they would not accept the gift, while 70% of dog owners said they would welcome a cat into their household.

         Personally, I am not surprised by these statistics. It’s understandable that dog owners, who were in general found to be more agreeable and easy going, would accept a cat into their household. On the other hand, cat owners would be hesitant to welcome a rowdy dog into their house due to their more introverted and sedated personality traits.

         Multiple studies have been conducted that attempt to uncover the personality differences between cat and dog owners, and findings have been similar across the board. Another article I stumbled upon talked about a study conducted of 600 college aged students.  Similar to the  initial study I analyzed, dog owners were found to be more lively, seek companionship, possess a more dominant personality, and distinguish themselves as “people persons.” On the contrary, cat owners were found to be smart, open minded, seek affection, and prefer solitude.

         Who would have thought that one’s choice in household pet could say so much about their personality? Overall, it can be agreed upon that personality traits can be partially determined through an individual’s affinity to either a cat or dog.

Some are small. Some are tall. Some lap at our feet. Some knock us over. Some destroy entire cities…towns…islands…and cultures. If we’ve ever seen the ocean-or any other relatively large body of water- we’ve seen wave as well. We see all different kinds, with all different velocities and looks and heights. And oftentimes, we’re more inclined to play in or surf them, rather than ask ourselves…what makes waves? What even are waves?

            In high school physics class, most of us learned about energy (or definitely should have, at least). When we learned about energy, we learned that it moves in waves. All energy possessed different wavelengths, with different heights or crests, but regardless, we learned that all energy moves in this pattern of a wave.

            Energy is everywhere. It’s in the air, on the ground, in the plants, the animals, ourselves, and anything around us. It’s constantly moving. This holds true to water in the ocean. Given that the Earth is made up of 71% water, whether it be in oceans or lakes, it’s only logical that this constantly moving energy must logically move through the seas as well.

So it does, and we see it through this perfectly visible medium that is ocean water. Regarding this type of water though, out in the ocean, the waves aren’t typically, actually moving anything- the water remains relatively stationary. What is seen then isn’t necessarily the water moving…but rather, the energy moving. So where does this energy even come from?

Most of the time, it simply originates from the wind. As this wind blows, it collaterally disturbs the surface of the water. And as it continues to blow, more friction is manifested, more continual disturbance is created, and the wave crests continue to rise and rise until the water is higher and waves are effectively created. These types of ocean waves, transferring energy along the water’s surface, is inherently known as surface waves, or wind-driven waves.

            However, as we’ve all probably heard at some point in our lives, the gravitational pull of the moon and the sun cause waves as well. These waves, caused by this gravitational pull and the rotation of the Earth, are generally refereed to as tidal waves.

            With all of this information combined, it only makes sense that tsunamis (which are, despite common belief, not the same as tidal waves) are the same as this typically transferring energy. However, when something such as a landslide or an earthquake contributes an unexpected mass amount of energy to the ocean water, it largely contributes to the waves that are already moving, therefore…simply…creating one massive wave.

What causes waves to break along the shore though? Well, this energy wave does not only move along the surface of the water. It also moves along the ocean bottom. As the sea gets shallower and shallower toward the shore, “the drag on the wave’s bottom becomes stronger”, and in turn, “the upper part of the wave begins to tilt forward,” as it continues to move at its regular, faster speed. And therefore, the wave as we know it, and the wave as we enjoy it, is created.

As for those waves that are so common to Beaver Stadium? They’re instigated by energy as well- however, it’s main source is often reported to be the pride of Nittany Nation.

For men my age, one of the more common forms of exercising is weight lifting. There are numerous forms of exercising, but one of the biggest debates is whether calisthenics or weight lifting is better for your body. Both weight lifting and calisthenics have pros and cons that the other does not have, but which of the two exercises is the best?

Weight lifting is exactly what its name says it is, lifting weights or using resistance equipment. It is mainly done to build muscle or mass, but following the right workout routine, can be used to lose weight. Calisthenics has become increasingly popular over the past twenty years. It involves exercises that do not require extra weight to be added, therefore can be considered as body
weight training. Well known calisthenics exercises include push-ups and pull-ups.

A test was conducted to see the results of weightlifting on elderly men and the subjects were fourteen 60-70 years old. None of the subjects has any prior experience in weight lifting. The study was conducted by performing exercises to train elbow flexers on one arm. This lowers theoverall need of a control group because they’re other arm acts as this. Different exercises were performed three days a week over the course of twelve weeks. After the twelve weeks were over, the maximum repetitions able to be completed increased in all the subjects. The twitch torque was recorded at elbow joint angles, and it increased considerably in the arm that experienced training, but did not increase at all in the arm that did not experience the weight lifting training.

Calisthenics research was conducted on a group of Army ROTC cadets. Each cadet received multiple baseline tests on their current physical state including height, weight, overall fitness level, cardiovascular response to exercises, and Army physical fitness test. The 26 cadets completed calisthenic training three days a week for four weeks. Following the four weeks of calisthenics training there was not enough evidence to fail to reject the hypothesis that calisthenics improves overall fitness levels. There are many factors that may have affected this. One being that ROTC cadets already face intense military training, and the calisthenics may not have been as intense as the training they already receive. Also there was no way to prevent a bias. The cadets may have not taken it seriously and may have not worked as hard as their bodies would allow them too. With the great deal of variables that were not accounted for in this study, it is difficult to use this as an accurate representation of the benefits of calist
henics.

Another study analyzed the affects of calisthenics on obese children. They performed six different calisthenics exercises three times a week and this study showed that over the course of six months the average child dropped from 45% overweight to 25% overweight.

Both calisthenics and weight lifting can be used as a form of strength training, increased stamina, and improve bone health, but he most common benefit of calisthenics over weight lifting is flexibility. Calisthenics use different movements unlike weight lifting, which are essentially isolated weighted movements that are like a robot because they the exercises are almost always done in the exact same way. Weight lifting has shown to be a faster way to gain muscle mass.

Based of the tests and research, both provide positive effects on the health and fitness of a person., but whether one is better than the other is dependent on the goal of that person. The first test showed that even in an elderly person weightlifting can increase strength and muscle stamina. Although the second test showed no change, one can conclude that the calisthenics training was nearly up to par with military training because there was no decline in their overall fitness levels. The third study shows that calisthenics can be very effective in weight loss, and has led me to believe that it is the better option to increase one’s overall health, but not strength.

picture 1

picture 2

In college, it is very hard to get a full night’s worth of sleep. With schoolwork, clubs, Greek life, going out, and studying, there is no way that you will be able to sleep for a long time. I swear I have sleep deprivation so I wanted to research it and see what that really means.

In America today, at least 40% of Americans are sleep deprived. A typical adult needs an average of 7-9 hours of sleep each night. However, obviously most people do not have time to sleep that much. Most people average 6 hours of sleep during the week every night. Sleep deprivation can come from a sleeping disorder. Apparently around 70 million people in America have insomnia, they probably just don’t know it.

Sleep deprivation is not a good thing, and can cause short and long term affects and issues. First off, it is not healthy to be sleep deprived. If you do not get a long good night’s sleep, and then you will have problems in the daytime with alertness. You will have a hard time remembering things, concentrating, focusing, and staying awake. This can include falling asleep while driving which is very, very dangerous and risky. Surprisingly, 41% of people driving have admitted to falling asleep at the wheel at least once. It can be as dangerous as driving drunk. It is estimated that sleep deprivation is the cause for one out of every five car accidents that occur.

Many long term affects follow sleep deprivation. Not sleeping enough messes with your biological rhythms. Of course it will stress your body and make you tired, but it also puts strains on your interactions with others, your work, and other parts of one’s life. Losing just 90 minutes of sleep can cause you to be 32% less alert the next day. As a result of this, your motor skills can become impaired and your hormones can fluctuate inappropriately. Sleep deprivation also causes your immune system to be weak. This will make you become sick more often. It can also cause high blood pressure, heart failure, diabetes, and many more serious illnesses. Not getting enough sleep can also severely affect your mood. It can also affect your body and make you obese.

Your body needs sleep because it is the time when your brain organizes itself. Sleep deprivation can also make you develop Alzheimer’s disease faster. This is because if the body doesn’t have sleep, then the central nervous system that cleans the brain is not able to empty the information. Then cerebrospinal fluid starts to fill up throughout the days. This liquid starts to build toxins in it. If one is also sleep deprived this can cause brain cell loss.

While you sleep, your brain sorts and stores information that you got that day. Once we get information, it moves from our hippocampus to our prefrontal cortex, to the neocortex region, where long-term memories are stored. Every night this process happens. Without sleep, we wont be able to remember things and false memories may occur. You will incorrectly process memories if you do not get enough sleep and may confuse your events that have happened.

Now here are some ways to try avoiding sleep deprivation in college

1. Try to avoid caffeine at night or even during the day. This will keep you up at night and will make it hard to fall asleep.
2. Try to wake up close to the same time everyday. Do not sleep in on weekends and try t keep the same sleep schedule.
3. Do not watch TV at least an hour before bed.
4. Do not do homework right before bed or use your computer.
5. Put your phone down at least an hour before you want to fall asleep.

http://www.asri.net/sleepsurfaces.shtml

https://www.aaafoundation.org/sites/default/files/2010DrowsyDrivingReport_1.pdf

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/texting-while-driving-worse-than-drunk-driving.htm

http://www.webmd.com/sleep-disorders/features/important-sleep-habits

http://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/headache/what-are-hormone-related-migraines.htm

http://animals.howstuffworks.com/mammals/elephant-memory.htm

It’s the battle of the sexes! The never ending power struggle between man and woman, but let’s be honest both sexes excel in different areas of life. No matter how much I study for an exam, it always seems that I have a difficult time retaining the information. The opposite can be said when my female counterparts study for an exam. They always seem to do a lot better than I do even when we are in the same classes and we put in the same amount of time studying. What’s even more crazy is that we study together and compare notes. After seeing a pattern, I started to wonder maybe females are more able to spit out information on an exam than males. Of course, this is only a small group of people, but I decided to look into it. I also realized that the differences in memory didn’t just stop at studying, but in males forgetting other things like birthdays, appointments, mailing something, etc.

One researcher out of Hamilton College who dedicates her time to the gender and memory connection attributes it to females being more able to link memory to events that invoke emotions. She discusses how when girls are describing when something happened they are expressing it through their feelings. Females generally are conditioned to elaborate by adding their feelings in their memory-making, which in turn allows them to be able to remember better. This is because memory as Azriel Grysman, the researcher, explains is “a pattern of mental activity, and the more entry points we have to what that pattern might be, the more chances we have to retrieve it.” Such entry points act as triggers to memories by doing something that recalls a past event and how it made you felt. So, how does this fit into the equation? Exams can be an emotional and stressful time for people and actually associating an exam to a memory of freaking out to study for one can keep that knowledge stored in your brain to strive for a passing grade. In other words if you had failed an exam or had been cheated on in the past and then the same thing were to be repeated that would bring about feelings of pain and discomfort, which you wouldn’t want to experience again, therefore change how you combat the situation. Grysman does not state why the same does not apply to males.

A study was performed at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology and was headed by Professor Jostein Holmen, who rounded up 37, 405 men and women from ages 30 and beyond. The participants were then given a questionnaire consisting of nine total questions that relate to memory. Such questions were of the nature of whether their memory has changed since they were younger or something like if they have problems remembering dates to what events occurred a few days or years ago. The conclusion to the study displayed 1.2% of women reported memory difficulties and that 1.6% of men had problems with memory. Eight of the nine questions had men reporting the most problems. It became apparent that as age progresses the harder it is for men to remember. With that said, they were unable to find a direct link as to why that may be.

Another study seems to only support that men have greater memory struggles than females. In this instance, 1,246 people of normal brain health and who were between the ages of 30 and 95, the researchers discovered that while memory started to decline for both sexes at age 30, male memory was worse than women overall, most notably past the 40 year mark. The hippocampus in males, which is the memory control center of the brain, was smaller in size compared to women. Neurologist Dr. Charles DeCarli, states that “The men’s hippocampus starts off a little bit above average in the young people in the study…But then it falls way below average in the older men as compared to the older women.”

Females have an even greater edge in the brain in the form of hormones that act for protection. The common one is estrogen, which shields from infections, heart disease, hypertension, etc. Males simply don’t have this defense like females do and even if a woman looses this advantage at an older age, they’ve had it for their whole lives up to that point and still have some effects working in their system. Dr Charles DeCarli also offers a hypothetical in saying that it can very well be a possibility that “Women may have developed skills and strategies over our evolutionary development to keep track of stuff that helps their memory that men just never acquired.” Something else to consider is that females aren’t at as much risk for vascular disease as males, which can come from things like smoking, hypertension, or diabetes. Any type of activity that disrupts the vessels will have an negative impact on the brain. 

Sources: 

http://www.businessinsider.com/women-have-better-memories-than-men-2014-9

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/17/health/male-memory/

http://www.healthoffered.com/study-women-have-better-memory-than-men/

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/271642.php

http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?13467-Proof-Women-Smarter-than-Men

         In the exercise crazed culture we live in today, it would  be completely understandable to assume that the more miles jogged a week or hours spent at the gym correlates to one’s physical and mental wellbeing. The media constantly aims to convince us that absurd amounts of exercise will result in model-type bodies displayed on TV and in magazines. Take Kate Gosselin for example, who reported to Us Weekly she feels best when she runs 10 miles every other day.  I personally feel better about myself when I squeeze a daily run into my hectic schedule.

         However, multiple studies have been conducted examining the adverse effects that distance running has on the body. Unfortunately, our society is brainwashed by the media and doesn’t understand that when it comes to vigorous exercise, more isn’t always better.  According to an editorial recently published in the British Journal Heart, people who work out too hard for too long may be less healthy than sedentary people and are more likely to die than moderate exercisers. The authors additionally examined decades worth of research regarding the effects of endurance athletics. Overall, the findings concluded that moderate exercise was good, but excessive exercising is damaging.  For example, in one particular German study, researchers compared the hearts of 108 chronic marathon runners and sedentary people. Shockingly, the runners had noticeably more plaque buildup, putting them at risk for heart disease. The following picture compares a normal, sedentary runner’s artery to a chronic runner’s artery. Plaque buildup in the arteries causes a decrease in blood circulation, and can eventually lead to several severe health problems.

         In another observational study, performed by scientists at Birmingham University, researchers tracked  52,000 people  (a combination of runners and non-runners) for 30 years. Runners reported a 19 percent lower death risk than those who did not exercise. However, the findings showed that too much endurance running has an adverse affect on one’s physical well being. The researchers concluded that running an average of 10-15 miles per week spread across three to four days results in the greatest health benefits. For example, those who followed the recommended guidelines risk of death dropped by 25 percent. There are endless negative side affects that excess running has on the body. During a strenuous workout, the  body works overtime to burn sugar and fat for fuel, creating a smoke substance in the body.  The “smoke” that travels through one’s  system binds with cholesterol to create plaque buildup in the arteries, and damages your cells through a process referred to as oxidative stress. James O’Keefe, Director of Preventative Cardiology at the Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute of Kansas City claims, “Your body is designed to deal with oxidative stress that comes from exercise for the first hour, but prolonged intense exercise causes excessive oxidative stress, which basically burns through the antioxidants in your system and predisposes you to problems.”  However, researchers across the board agreed that these findings are not a reason to give up running forever. As O’Keefe additionally claimed, “Exercise is the most important component to a healthy lifestyle, but like any powerful drug you’ve got to get the dose right.” Exercise in moderation reduces  the risk of heart disease, high blood pressure, type 1 diabetes, Alzheimer’s, dementia, and premature aging.

        In a  similar article with the catchy title,  “ Fast running is as deadly as sitting on the couch” scientists ran an experiment with similar findings. The study documented the exercise  habits of 1,098 runners. The findings showed that those who ran at speeds over 7 mph were nine times more likely to die prematurely within a twelve year span compared to those who ran around 5 mph ( a fast jog)  a few times a week. Statistics showed that vigorous runners were just  as likely to die as “couch potatoes” who never partake in physical activity. Peter Schnohr, a researcher from the Copenhagen City Heart Study quotes, “ There may be an upper limit for exercise dosing that is optimal for health benefits, and it is important to emphasize that the pace of jogging corresponds to very vigorous exercise”. Overall, the findings from the above studies are unmistakingly correlative: Running too fast/ too frequently causes alarming health problems, while running at moderate speeds and frequencies allows for optimum benefits widely associated with exercising.

         Overall, when it comes to your running routine, finding a happy medium is key. You should probably think twice about becoming a crazed marathon runner, as it leads to brutal side effects that are detrimental to one’s health. If you happen to love running like myself, just remember that everything’s better in moderation.

In February of this year the National Sleep Foundation issued a new summary for the amount of sleep recommended for different age groups. According to their expertise they recommend no one should get less than 7 hours of sleep, however the younger the an individual is, the more sleep they should get. According to Charles Czeisler, Chairman of the board of the NSF, “This is the first time that any professional organization has developed age-specific recommended sleep durations based on a rigorous, systematic review of the world scientific literature relating sleep duration to health, performance and safety” (NSF). So why is the amount of sleep we get important enough to have guidelines set to advise us and potentially change our routines?

The reason behind us needing to be aware of it is because sleep or lack of it can seriously impact a person’s health and wellbeing. Sleep is extremely beneficial when an individual gets the right amount. This may be due to the fact that “Major restorative functions in the body such as tissue repair, muscle growth, and protein synthesis occur almost exclusively during sleep” (Rogers). Sleep helps maintain these vital functions that allow the body to recover properly from aspects of everyday life. It has many benefits that help an individual, some of the most important being reduced risk of health problems, healthier weight, sharper attention and much more.

One of the most important benefits of getting the right amount of sleep is that it reduces the risk of certain diseases and illnesses. When an individual gets less than the recommended amount of sleep they are shown to have higher levels of inflammatory proteins than individuals who get the correct amount. Inflammation is commonly associated with heart disease, arthritis, stroke, diabetes, and other serious health issues. So getting the right amount of sleep can curb inflammation and reduce the risk of these diseases linked to it. On the other hand, sleep deprivation can actually have negative effects. One study in 2010 “found that C-reactive protein, which is associated with heart attack risk, was higher in people who got six or fewer hours of sleep a night” (Sparacino). While another study “simulated the effects of the disturbed sleep patterns of shift workers on 10 young healthy adults. After a mere four days, three of them had blood glucose levels that qualified as pre-diabetic” (Griffin). These both show that sleep gives the body time to heal and lack of that after years can have a serious impact on health. That is why most people with the condition “Insomnia” usually have another health issue.

Not only does it help with serious illnesses, but also helps with something as simple as a cold. Getting enough sleep has been shown to strengthen an individual’s immunity. According to WebMD “Researchers tracked over 150 people and monitored their sleep habits for two weeks. Then they exposed them to a cold virus. People who got seven hours of sleep a night or less were almost three times as likely to get sick as the people who got at least eight hours of sleep a night” (WebMD). This is because if the body does not have the time to heal overnight, it weakens the immune system which makes it more likely for someone to catch a virus if they are exposed to it.

Another benefit of sleep is that it helps maintain a healthier weight. According to Dr. Rapoport “Sleep and metabolism are controlled by the same sectors of the brain. When you are sleepy, certain hormones go up in your blood, and those same hormones drive appetite” (Sparacino) The levels of a hormone called leptin, which is what makes an individual feel full, is what drops. That is why when people don’t get enough sleep it stimulates hunger, mostly for high-fat, high-carb foods and lack self-control is a result of being overtired. The claim that people that sleep less have a higher risk of being obese has been proven through multiple studies such as “one study that followed 500 people for 13 years found that people who regularly slept less than seven hours a night were 7.5 times more likely to be overweight — even after controlling for physical activity, family history, and demographic factors.” (Loria) So this shows that whether you’re on a diet or are just trying to be healthy, getting the recommended amount of sleep is an important aspect of not gaining weight.

The last important benefit is that it sharpens an individual’s attention. Without that sharp attention due to lack of sleep people are more prone to making mistakes, which can sometimes be dangerous. Research has found “Drowsy driving is responsible for 100,000 crashes and 1,500 deaths every year, according to the National Sleep Foundation. Almost 20% of serious injuries in crashes happen when there’s a sleepy driver involved” (Loria). Some studies similar to this have even shown that driving sleep deprived is almost as harmful as drinking drunk. Not only is sleep loss an hazard on the roads, but it can also be a danger in certain workplaces. Many accidents and injuries occur on jobs when there sleep deprivation is a factor. In fact some of the biggest disasters in history such as the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear meltdown or the Exxon Valdez oil spill were a result of this problem. Due to issues like this many companies have put in place regulations on how many hours workers can work to allow them to get more sleep.

So overall, what is the importance of sleep? Well, according to many studies getting a healthy amount of sleep or having a lack of sleep overtime can actually have a huge impact on your health and wellbeing. It can effect important aspects of life such as risk of health problems, weight, and sharpness of attention. However, there are many more positives of getting the correct amount of sleep. If the benefits alone don’t change your mind, maybe the consequences of not getting the correct amount of sleep will encourage you to get those important extra hours in. Sleep is such an easy way to improve many aspects of a person’s life, so if you have the opportunity, making sure you get the recommended amount of sleep is one of the best things you can do.

(Picture 1)

Being a girl in state college who loves to tan, of course one of the first things I did here was sign up for a monthly package of indoor tanning.  I tan indoors in my hometown too, and I used to wear wink-ease, which were little disposable eye protections for your eyes while tanning.  Within the past year or so, I stopped wearing eye protection.  I recently went to the eye doctor because my sight has gotten so much worse, and I think it is because of the lack of eye protection when tanning.  So, I set to find out.
When you think about it, people always wear sunglasses to protect their eyes, so why not wear something when tanning indoors?  It is the same idea.  According to the Health Physics Society,  tanning indoors exposes eyes 100x more than the sun does to ultraviolet radiation.   In the tanning bed, the ultraviolet radiation has direct contact with your eyes.  Photokeratitis is a short-term issue for your eyes from tanning.  It is when your eyesight becomes hazy, your eyelid swells, there is eye tearing, and pain.  Eye cancers can also be caused by indoor tanning, as well as skin cancers.

Another effect of UV light on the eye could be pterygium, which is when the conjunctiva grows on the surface of the eye.  It could become harder for one to see because the pterygium now goes over the middle of the cornea, which is what you see out of.  You can get rid of this through surgery, but it can keep coming back.

Philip R. Rizzuto, MD, from the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, stated, “UV damage to the eyes may result in the development of cataracts . . . as well as cancer of the uvea, which is the middle layer of tissue under the white of the eye,”. (Eye Smart)  Another problem that can occur is you can get a corneal flash burn.  This is when a lot of UV rays cause your cornea to burn.   The eye will then become watery, hazy, painful, red, or the eyesight could become worse.

Not many studies have been done on indoor tanning and eye damage.  Scientists say it is harmful, but no actual studies (worthy of commenting on) have really been done.  If I were a scientist researching this field, I would conduct a controlled experiment. It would not be able to be a double blind procedure because the controlled group would know if they had eye protection or not while tanning.  I would get a large group of people, maybe 400, and test their eyesight.  They all must have 20/20 vision and be in good health.  They would all tan three times a week in the same level bed.  Half of them would wear eye protection and the other half would not.  After a month, an optometrist would check their vision once more.  They would then report who’s vision worsened and who’s did not.  This would be a very good way to test my hypothesis.

Next time you want to hit the tanning bed, think about how it could be affecting not only your whole body, but your eyes as well.  After doing my research on this post, I think I have decided not to sign up for tanning next month…

Works Cited:

1. http://www.who.int/uv/faq/uvhealtfac/en/index3.html
2. http://valleyeyecareaz.com/what-indoor-tanning-can-do-to-your-eye-health/
3. http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/28/pf/taxes/tanning-tax/
4. http://blog.coolibar.com/tanning-bed-legislation-where-are-we-now/
5. http://awomanshealth.com/just-say-no-to-indoor-tanning/