As long as I know, diet sodas have always been contentious. Some people say that drinking diet sodas does not affect our health. Some people say that diet sodas are bad. So why do diet sodas still exist if they are bad for our health? Do they really help people who are on diet? I am not a fan of soda products but I usually want to drink soda in the summer. My father always buys cans of sodas but he never drinks diet ones. When I skype with my parents one weekend, I saw him opened the coke, I asked him why he never drinks diet sodas. And he replied that diet coke is worse than normal cokes. This answer made me confused, I wonder what he said was correct. Since I drink sodas in summer, and this relates to my health concerns, I started my research to find out the answer.

First, I find an article about diet sodas on Washington Post. Use examples from 749 Mexican-Americans and European-Americans ages 65 and older in San Antonio Longitudinal Study of Aging (SALSA), they found out that diet soda drinkers gained almost 3 times as much belly fat as non-diet soda drinkers. “Occasional diet soda drinkers added an average of 1.83 inches to their waist circumferences, while the non-drinkers added .8 inches over the 9.4 years of the study. Daily consumers like me gained a striking 3.16 inches” (Washington Post). These details were updated. And this condition has excluded other factors that could affect the study result: age, exercise and smoking. In this case, it seems like that some of the third variables are already left out, but I think there still could have other factors influencing the result, such as gender problem. Men might defer from women in gaining belly fat of drinking diet sodas. Also, various soda brands might cause different results of gaining belly fat.

Due to the adjunct assistant professor of University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio, Sharon Fowler, there always has an argument about the diet soda and artificial sweeteners. One study he made in 2008 found that there is significant increase in body mass index within diet soda drinkers but within this study, it does not prove cause and effect but an association. And moreover, there is no relation between regular sugary soda drinks and waist circumference growth. My mom always blames my dad of drinking too many sugary and artificial flavors, which cause him to gain belly fat. And when people get older, too much sugar consume can associate with health issues, such as increased high blood pressure and obesity. But from the study above, it turns out that there is not even a relation between soda drinks and waist circumference growth. According to Calorie Control Council, it suggests that people might control their calories on diet soda drinks but let go on other food consumptions. That means my daddy’s gaining of belly fat can come from other factors, which could be the third variables, but not normal soda drinks since he never drinks diet sodas.

Second, I find a research about the usage of citrate, malate and total alkali’s concentration in diet sodas to help patients with hypocitraturic calcium nephrolithiasis or uric acid nephrolithiasis. Scientist conducted a research, calculating 15 diet sodas and a lemonade beverage from the perspectives of total concentration of respective anions, beverage pH, and citric and malic acid pK to find out which one is most useful for dietary therapy. The result for the lemonade beverage is 6.30mEq/l. And here are the results for some diet sodas: Diet Sunkist Orange 8.38 mEq/l, Diet Canada Dry Ginger Ale 6.88 mEq/l, Diet Mountain Dew 6.78 mEq/l and lowest total alkali (<1.0mEq/l) for cola based sodas. (Sciencedirect).

Koff studied 21 patients with kidney stones, of whom 11 with hypocitraturia were treated with lemonade and potassium citrate in a crossover design trial. Penniston examined 63 patients with hypocitraturia on lemonade therapy and 37 on potassium citrate plus lemonade by giving both low calorie lemonades. “Urine citrate increased by 81 mg daily in the lemonade group and by 184 mg daily in the potassium citrate plus lemonade group” (Sciencedirect). The result inclines to the conclusion that combined therapy change was significant but there is not enough evidence to prove the correlation.

So for the two researches, the first one starts in the negative perspective of diet sodas saying that diet sodas could cause belly fat while the result turns out to be there is no relation between diet sodas and the growth of waist circumference. The second one is on the positive site saying that diet sodas can help dietary treatment for hypocitraturia and low urine pH. Although only the combined therapy of potassium citrate plus lemonade had obvious change, the final conclusion states that there is not enough evidence proves any correlation between beverage pH and total beverage alkali content. So for the second research, I wonder if there could happen because of there were too few samples? Did the test result can differ from gender and age differences? Though in the studies, the conclusions are that there is no relationship between belly fat and diet soda consuming or diet sodas and treatment for hypocitraturia, further studies need to be conducted to find out actual clinical effects.

Remember how we learned earlier on in the course how worms inside the human body was making kids more stupid? Well, its turns out according to new findings that intestinal worms may actually be good for you. Not only are these worms not hurting you, but they could actually be benefitting you at the same time!

Intestinal worms are categorized as helminths, or parasites that feed on the body of the host, draining the life out of them. This is true for many helminths such as tapeworms and hookworms, which can cause disease and sometimes death, but it turns out that not all are so bad. Lab studies have shown that some helminths can be extremely beneficial to the host. One lab showed that the presence of helminths in pregnant rats can actually protect the brain of the rat baby from inflammation. Along with this finding, the biggest randomized trail ever performed found that of the 2 million children in India being studied, mass treatment with a worm killing drug did not increase body weight or survival. In other words, since ridding the kids of worms did not improve health, it seems that the worms were doing no harm at all.

It has been thought that the reason for increases in inflammatory disease such as multiple sclerosis in industrialized civilization was due to the hygiene hypothesis, or simply keeping our surrounding environments too clean. It turns out though that the real reason is due to the loss of biodiversity inside our own body called biome depletion. The absence of some mutualistic worms is a big part of this increase in diseases. These helminths have been found to protect lab animals from various allergies and autoimmune conditions as well as reduce some types of cancer. In some controlled studies with humans, helminths have halted the progression of relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis as well as treated many people with inflammatory dowel disease without any reported adverse side effects.

Because helminths have been a part of the ecosystem of the human body for so many years, they have become an important working part of that system. Mutualistic helminths can help regulate immune function, forcing the body to build more immune cells, as well as producing their own anti-inflammatory molecules. A study recently showed that adding helminths to lab rats changed the balance of the gut ecosystem, making the bacteria come out to a healthier balance. Because of these findings, people are starting to use helminths therapeutically to treat some illnesses. “Helminthic therapy” as its called,  is not approved by the FDA, but worms can be bought from various companies. People using these helminths such as the rat tapeworm, report that their conditions were treated more effectively and with fewer side effects than with pharmaceutical use.

So why aren’t helminths being used more frequently? Even though it all sounds promising, the safety and effectiveness of these worms have to be further evaluated. Along with this,is that these helminths have to be available, affordable, and FDA-approved in order to really catch on in the medical community. Therefore, it turns out that not as worms are bad and make you stupid. In fact, some intestinal worms can actually be quite beneficial, but even though it sounds like all good news, I think there still needs to be a lot more testing and experimentation in order for these helminths to become widely accepted. So even though some test have been done, more tests on the effectiveness, side affects, and safety of these worms have to be conducted. I think this finding sounds promising and with a little more research it could be a huge step forward in treating inflammatory diseases and even help with cancer!

Some worms can be good!

I have grown up having a dog or two in my family my entire life, and I always thought that there were many positives that come along with owning a dog. I always believed that having a dog made you happier, taught you responsibilities, and helped you be more active, but when I heard that owning a dog could prevent young children from getting asthma I was shocked! According to a recent study, children who spent their youngest childhood years with a dog in their house were less likely to develop asthma. I believe this new finding is wonderful and just adds to the list of positive things that owning a dogs adds to one’s life!

Fighting asthma one nap at a time!

“Earlier studies have shown that growing up on a farm reduces a child’s risk of asthma to about half. We wanted to see if this relationship also was true for children growing up with dogs in their homes.” This was said by the author of the study, Dr. Tove Fall, who explained the reasoning for doing the study. They conducted a correlational study, observing the medical records of all Swedish children who were born from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2010. They also took a look at the families’ medical histories, pet/farm ownership in the first year of life, and other potential factors that could lead to asthma. The team observed the rates of asthma among preschoolers and school kids ages 1 to 6. Results yielded that of the 1,011,051 children born during the study time period, 14.2% of the preschoolers were exposed to dogs and 8.2% of the school-aged children were exposed to dogs. The results of the study found that exposure to dogs and farm animals during the first year of life reduces the risk of asthma in children at age 6 by 15% compared to those who were not exposed to dogs. That is good to hear, but they also found from the study that dog ownership was associated with a higher risk of pneumonia and other lower respiratory tract diseases  among pre-school children.

I think this study was pretty well conducted because they had a large sample size and had access to nearly every medical file and background information on the kids, nearly eliminating confounding third variables. Of course there is always a small percent of chance involved. This is a correlational study though, so they did not necessarily found out why dogs had these effects on kids and asthma, they just know that there is something going on. This study is interesting to me because I love dogs and I will always have one so it is good to know how owning one could possibly effect your future family. I think they should continue to do studies on this topic because asthma is fairly common, and owning dogs is even more common, therefore it would be interesting to see what other effects a dog can have on a young child. In the end, you dog can help prevent asthma, but there may also be some adverse findings as well such as the risk of pneumonia. I think dogs are highly beneficial and that every family should have one because the positives, including protecting against asthma, hugely out weight the negatives!

Dogs will always be man’s best friend!

Here we are in todays world, where the amount of cell phone subscriptions is 6.8 billion; there are almost as many cell phone subscriptions as there are people in the world. People in todays world are “addicted” to cell phones due to the fact that their are many applications and other things you can do on a phone rather than just calling another person.  As the use of cell phones has been rising so has many concerns about the radioactive frequency being a possible cause of cancer. Before doing any research I had no complete understanding on this topic, so could not come up with a firm hypothesis.  This leads me to pose the question, can too much cell phone use have the ability to cause cancer?

This shows that the amount of cell phone users is almost equal to the amount of people in the world today.

Cell phones transmit radio waves, which is a way for a brain tumor to form; currently the primary concern in medical field regarding cell phone use.  “The largest case-control study to date” on the topic, The Interphone Study, had 5,000 individuals who were observed throughout this study.  These individuals were looked at over a decade to see if “frequency of calls, longer call time”, or greater cell phone use would have an influence over if an individual would develop a brain tumor or would be at higher risk for getting the tumor.  The study, though,  did not find a link between brain tumor risk and greater cell phone use.  This was an observational study, so some of the participants could have submitted information that they used their cell phone more than they really did or much less than what the case truly was. This is also less reliable due to the fact that the scientists could have looked at the participates cell phone records to find exact durations of time spent talking on the phone. Other third variables could have affected the study such as the participants could have already had health issues making it a higher chance for them to get cancer regardless of phone use, and also sometimes it could take longer than a decade for a brain tumor to show up due to cell phone use.  There was thought of possible increased risk of glioma, but not enough evidence and scientific data to back up if this is a real issue or not. Correlation here does not mean causation and more research would have to be conducted due to the limitations that this study withholds.

“In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), declared cell phones a Class B Carcinogen, meaning a “possible cancer-causing agent,'”  Two different kinds of brain tumors were thought to be formed from overuse of cell phones: “brain tumors (gliomas) and acoustic neuromas.” Dr. Lennart Hardell, a professor of oncology at University of Örebro in Sweden, analyzed data from two prior studies, one done from 1997-2003 and the other from 2007-2009. Of the patients, 1500 were brain cancer patients and 3500 were cancer free at the time of the study. Third variables were factored into their analysis to make sure that those factors didn’t have an effect on the outcome of the analysis, this included: age, gender, diagnostic year, and the chance of developing deadly brain cancer called glioma.   What was analyzed is that those who were on their cell phones for longer times were twice as much likely to develop glioma than those who were on the phone less.  Due to the fact that the patients logged their own cell phone hours, a bias could have been placed as people could have put more or less time spent on the cell phone than what was actually the truth.  Both the studies are having the biggest problem be that the patients are logging their own information about cell phone use.  If possibly, a single- blind placebo trial was conducted it could help with having third variables be an issue.

The patients on the two studies I have talked about were on the phone for long durations of time. This is what the brain looks like solely prior and post 15 minutes of cell phone use.

Although it shows more thermal heating post cell phone use(red color) does not mean that a brain tumor is going to then form.

Many studies have been conducted on this topic but no firm answer has been discovered.  Very inconsistent information has been found.  Why is this?

• Recall Bias– Error caused by differences in the accuracy or completeness of the “recalled”. If one got a brain tumor, one might say cell phone use was higher than what it really was. Could remember something different than what actually happened
• Inaccurate reporting- Say something occurred more or less than what actually happened.
• Mortality-  If participant dies the information they have about their own phone use dies with them
• Changes in technology- Technology is now digital rather than more analog, and many studies are regarding analog technological devices.

A team of 31 scientists from 14 countries concluded that too much cell phone use is “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”

“The biggest problem we have is that we know most environmental factors take several decades of exposure before we really see the consequences,” –Dr. Keith Black, chairman of neurology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

This issue, referenced from the quote above, shares insight that it takes a long time to see evidence regarding this issue, just like how it was initially hard to see a correlation between smoking cigarets and lung cancer.  But we shouldn’t be so “easy to accept the absence of evidence to be evidence of absence” discussed in class. Yes more evidence needs to be found and more studies need to be conducted, but their is still a sufficient amount of information out in the word for people to really start thinking about if cell phone use and cancer can really have this terrible link.

Currently, there is no clear cut evidence about whether or not cell phones cause cancer.  Cell phone use is still a fairly new activity in todays world, and I feel that as time progresses and cell phone use gets greater and longer that a clearer answer on this topic will form. My hypothesis did connect with evidence that the world has today, its all unknown as of now and continued to be questioned.  Things that cause cancer have consistently been a very controversial topic and hopefully one day many of the questions society has will be answered.

“Marijuana is quite possibly the finest of intoxicants. It has been scientifically proven, for decades, to be much less harmful to the body than alcohol when used on a regular basis”―Nick Offerman

Within the past century, smoking cannabis has become immensely popular within both the teenage and adult community. For some, the feeling of elation and euphoria produced from the herb is preferred rather than the “out-of-control” side effect from inebriation. Although marijuana “has been scientifically proven…to be much less harmful to the body than alcohol when used on a regular basis”, that does not mean that it is necessarily harmless. Many consider the link between smoking “herb” and lung cancer correlative; however, the possibility of a third variable is often neglected. It has been scientifically proven that smoking tobacco heightens the chances of getting lung cancer; on the other hand, can it also be said that smoking marijuana produces the same consequence?

Despite the legal implications of possessing the drug, a substantial amount of Americans still choose to smoke. In fact, according to Gallups Annual Consumption Habits Poll, marijuana use among Americans has risen 26% since 1973.

Graph taken from http://www.gallup.com/poll/163835/tried-marijuana-little-changed-80s.aspx

In order to determine whether developing lung cancer from smoking the occasional joint was fact or fiction, an observational control case study was conducted by the Cannabis and Respiratory Disease Research Group in 2008. First, the conductors of the experiment received permission from 324 lung cancer patients (age 55 or younger) to interview them about prior marijuana use. According to the publication of the study, “information on demographics (including ethnic group), smoking history, passive smoking exposure, recreational drug use, diet, occupation, income, education, alcohol consumption and family history of malignancy was collected” in order to rule out any possible third variables. Subjects who admitted to have smoked cannabis on 20 or more occasions were then asked to complete a more thorough questionnaire. The results revealed that out of the 324 controls, there were 79 cases of lung cancer that were believed to stem from the inhalation of marijuana. Data indicated that the risk of receiving lung cancer increased by approximately 8% for each “joint-year of cannabis smoking” after confounding variables such as smoking cigarettes were adjusted into the numbers. After 4 and a half years of monitoring their patients (January 2001-July 2005), it was concluded that long-term use of cannabis among young adults can, in fact, increase the risk of developing lung cancer.

If one was to abide by the previous control case’s data and believe that smoking weed causes lung cancer, it would be expected that the number of smokers and the number of lung cancer fatalities would have a positive relationship; however, between 1970 and 2008, statistics reveal that the number of lung cancer deaths among Americans actually decreased by roughly 7%.

Graph taken from http://www.clevelandclinicmeded.com/medicalpubs/diseasemanagement/pulmonary/lung-cancer/

This is good news for pot smokers; the data above advocates that their “high habits” aren’t as unhealthy as one might initially believe. What about the data, however? In the field of science, nothing is absolute; therefore, there is a chance that the conclusions of the control case study could have been a false positive. In addition, an article on LeafScience.com argues that “a new study confirms that smoking marijuana does not raise the chances of developing lung cancer.”

Researches from Canada, the United States, and New Zealand compiled and combined data from six other studies in order to resolve the mystery surrounding smoking marijuana and lung cancer. Compared to the other control case study, this experiment utilized more subjects…to be exact, there were approximately 2,000 lung cancer patients and 3,000 controls. The team, which included members from the International Lung Cancer Consortium, concluded that their “results from [the] pooled analyses provide little evidence for an increased risk of lung cancer among habitual or long-term cannabis smokers.” Furthermore, Donald P. Tashkin from the University of Southern California reveals even more positive information regarding the smoking of marijuana.

“The THC in marijuana has well-defined anti-tumoral effects that have been shown to inhibit the growth of a variety of cancers in animal models and tissue culture systems, thus counteracting the potentially tumorigenic effects of the procarcinogens in marijuana smoke.” -Dr. Donald P. Tashkin, M.D.

Among all the positivity surrounding the health hazards of marijuana, there happens to be some negative silver lining. Hal Morgenstern, PhD, a University of Michigan epidemiologist insists the smoke from cannabis contains many carcinogens that can be harmful to the lungs. In fact, a marijuana “joint” will produce almost four times as much tar inside of the lungs than a normal cigarette would.

So now let’s get down to the jist of it– there’s nothing about smoking weed that is good for you; however, according to the data presented before, a couple hits every now and then won’t kill you. It’s ambiguous as to whether smoking weed truly causes lung cancer, but in order to prevent it totally it is suggested to refrain from smoking all together. To quote Mark Twain, “I never smoke to excess – that is, I smoke in moderation, only one at a time.” So for all you stoners out there, I suggest you follow Mr. Twain’s advice about moderation unless you want to end up developing lung cancer……or will you?

Since I have arrived at college, I have built up a desire to go the gym a few times a week to lift weights. I have never been a huge weight lifter, but it serves as a nice way to reduce stress and fill up free time I have at night. I do have concerns about lifting weights though. Multiple older people have told me to not lift heavy weight because it will wear you down physically in the long run and I will regret it. The best example is my grandfather who exercised a ton his entire life up until 10 years ago when his body began to breakdown. Now, he can barely leave the house and ride in the car because he is physically broken down. I wanted to investigate into this issue to see if lifting weights will actually have a negative impact on my physical capabilities in the long run.

Image courtesy of http://smartonlinesuccess.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/arnold-schwarzenegger-bodybuilding-outside-arm-300×273.jpg

I will begin with the cons of heavy lifting. One problem is that the lifting weights can cause a temporary spike in blood pressure. If you have high blood pressure as it is, weight lifting can be very dangerous. Another problem is that people who attempt to lift too much weight and/or use improper form are likely to suffer from joint damage. This sounds like the cause for the effects my grandfather is currently having with his physical capabilities. To conclude, people often battle through pain and continue to lift weights which is a horrible idea. Pain implies there is something wrong with your body, and you should lay off the weights until the pain goes away. If you are not smart about weightlifting, which many people are guilty of, you will suffer the consequences in your joints.

Image courtesy of http://crossfitwilmington.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Broken-lift.jpg

There are rebuttals to the points stated above. Apparently, weightlifting causing joint pain is a common misconception. In fact, a study published in the Journal of Rheumatology found that 43% percent of people found a reduction in knee joint pain after performing weight bearing exercises. This is because the muscle around the joints increase in strength and provide more support in these areas. In addition, weightlifting has actually been found to decrease both systolic and diastolic blood pressure. According to the American Heart Association, you only need to lift weights 2-3 times a week to start to see positive results. Furthermore, weightlifting has the lowest injury rates of any other sport. Another common myth is that weightlifting stunts growth. In reality, the only possible way weightlifting can stunt your growth is if you let the bar fall on you and it damages your growth plates. Overall, it seems that all potential problems with lifting weights can be avoided if you respect the weight room.

Image courtesy of http://www.muscleandfitness.com/sites/muscleandfitness.com/files/styles/full_node_image_1090x614/public/Arnold-Lift-Heavy.jpg?itok=d6RPHXfX

My research shows that lifting weights is healthy for you as long as you use proper form and don’t let your ego get in the way. My concern is that it seems many people do not know how to properly lift weights. I believe gyms should start putting greater emphasis on proper weightlifting so that the unhealthy aspects in the long run are limited.

Sources:

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/high-blood-pressure/expert-answers/weightlifting/faq-20058451

http://www.muscleforlife.com/weightlifting-joint-problems/

http://dailyburn.com/life/fitness/weightlifting-myths-debunked/

http://stronglifts.com/weight-lifting-myths-debunked/

Binge-watching Netflix shows. I don’t think I can think of a better way to spend a rainy or lazy day. In fact, I just did this yesterday with The CW’s show Jane the Virgin (seriously ask my friends it was all I was talking about). I think most of us can say at least once in our lives we sat down to watch one episode and before we know it we’re ten episodes deep, and why would we stop there? But some recent studies have linked binge-watching to depression.

I’ll start out by saying this is a correlation not causation. Science.Mic distinctly points this out, making sure it is well-addressed that binging on your favorite show isn’t necessarily going to make you depressed. But UT-Austin researchers said that “the more lonely and depressed the study participants were, the more likely they were to binge-watch TV.”

Yoon Hi Sung, Eun Yeon Kang, and Wei-Na Lee chose to look at the subject because the word “binge” generally is referred to in negative senses, such as with eating or drinking. The trio polled 316 people between ages 18 and 29 on how of often they watched TV, how much of that was binging (which in this study was defined as two or more episodes of any length) and how regularly they experienced feelings of “loneliness, depression, and self-regulation deficiency.”
They found that depression and binge-watching were correlated. The more lonely and depressed participants felt, the more likely they were to binge. They even found that participants usually binged TV to avoid these negative feelings, similarly to binge-eaters and drinkers. The researchers did not going into looking at causation at all, just finding an association, as they told Today
.

Lee said that this is just one of many new experiments on the technology behavior front, citing this particular study as just “exploratory research.”

Psychologist Frank Farley said that only 10% of the time people binged because of these lonely or depressed feelings. The study didn’t look into why we binge the other 90% of the time or what the difference is between binging The Walking Dead and Friends, for example.

Binge-watching is a very grey area because there isn’t necessarily set standards as to what constitutes binging, making it sort of difficult to have a universally accepted definition. Nolan Feeney looked into the time aspect and came up with:
“binge-watch: (v) to watch at least four episodes of a television program, typically a drama, in      one sitting (bathroom breaks and quick kitchen snack runs excepted) through an on-demand      service or DVDs, often at the expense of other perceived responsibilities in a way that can            cause guilt.”

Science.Mic says that the last portion is key. This isn’t a national epidemic – yet – but it will be of interest to watch these behaviors as time goes on.

This observational and survey-based study does find a significant correlation. But as we learned, correlation is not causation. While binging may not be our best choice when it comes to TV watching, there isn’t really sufficient evidence at this point to cause an overwhelming amount of concern. So, as much as I don’t want to keep binging, I probably will…whoops.

The definition of magic is said to be “the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious forces”. As a verb, magic means to “move, change, or create as if by magic.” By these definitions, all of us should think we experience magic nearly every single day. We sometimes experience it as a force moving our hair. We sometimes experience it as a force to sting our cheeks or give us the goosebumps. We sometimes experience it in a more severe way, through damaged houses, fallen telephone poles, or missing objects…however, we’ve come not to call it magic. Instead, we call it wind. To most of us, it would probably make sense if it was still referred to as magic though. It’s literally an invisible force…coming from nowhere…from all sorts of different directions…with a temperature slightly divergent from the immediate climate. So one is reasonably left to wonder, what is wind? What causes it? Where does it come from and why is it so strong?

Explaining wind isn’t quite as simple as one may immediately expect. Obviously, wind is blowing air…but what exactly is the invisible, magical force blowing that air throughout the atmosphere? The answer can be summarized with one word: pressure. Atmospheric pressure is defined as the weight (or the mass) of air pressing down onto any given area. Ergo, the greater mass above a certain area… the greater that area’s atmospheric pressure. As intelligent individuals, it’s a given to assume that no area on Earth is exactly identical. And, in turn, it’s also a given to assume that the world does not have one uniform atmospheric pressure. But what’s this got to do with wind?

As college-level, intelligent individuals, it’s important to think back to our high school science education. Here, the natural phenomenon of homeostasis was perhaps stressed more than anything else. Put simply for the sake of refreshing memory, this is the constant quest of nature to reach ultimate equilibrium amongst everything- everything becoming the same temperature, everything becoming the same speed, or, in the case of the atmosphere, everything becoming the same pressure. Therefore, the Earth’s goal of reaching this equilibrium is what creates wind.

Just as equilibrium causes a drop of dye in a clear cup of water to spread and move evenly throughout the glass, equilibrium causes air to spread and move evenly throughout the globe. High-pressured air blows toward low pressure. Lower-pressured air replaces that high pressure. A perfect example is sea breeze. The sun (a confounding variable stimulating/altering the process) logically heats the Earth. By the ocean, it logically heats the ground more. This heated ground logically heats the air directly above it. This heated air is less dense and therefore, this heated air rises. This creates a lower atmospheric pressure immediately above the land. Meanwhile, however, the air above the ocean logically does not heat as fast. As a result, the density of the air above the ocean does not change. But since the density of the air above the land has, the colder, denser air blows toward the land to maintain equilibrium. This is why many of us feel breeze from the sea. As air moves from one area to another to equal out, over objects and through objects, and past us, we feel its movement. This is wind.

But high atmospheric pressure and low atmospheric pressure areas aren’t always as nearby as the land and the sea. And wind isn’t always as simple as a breeze. Winds (shifts in atmospheric pressure) occur on a much larger and much more complex scale. Entire hemispheres and whole portions of the globe consist of different pressures. Here too, the pressures are on quest to become equal and shifting air is its steed. Mass amounts of wind develop and move (so much so that some even have become named, predictable patterns). These winds move on such a massive scale that even the Earth’s rotation bids them affect- this is referred to as the Coriolis Effect, where air often flows clockwise in high pressure areas, but counter-clockwise in low pressure areas. It also tilts moving air in the Northern Hemisphere to the right, but moving air to the left in the Southern Hemisphere.

Also, as one intelligent individual would logically expect, the greater the pressure difference, the greater the speed/force of the wind. Unfortunately, as we’ve all seen on different forms of media but hopefully rarely in person, these quickly shifting winds can lead to the development of destructive tornadoes. However, thankfully, it’s beneficial to transfer the lessons of Andrew from the classroom into real life. The risk of any of us being killed here by a tornado is relatively minimal; despite a moderate hazard, the exposure is reasonably low.

Overall, wind isn’t considered magic once it’s understood- it’s merely the Earth trying to maintain equal atmospheric pressure. As air with different pressures moves to balance out, one feels it as wind. Temperatures and the rotation of the globe are all factors that come into play. And the greater the pressure difference, the stronger the wind.However, comprehending everything in this blog isn’t exactly a breeze.

But if you’re still feeling the pressure to understand, it’d be best to think twice before throwing it to the wind.

By: Isaac Will

Having announced her retirement from international soccer on Tuesday, Abby Wambach will go down as one of the greatest goal scorers in soccer history with an international record of 184 goals across her 15 year career. She was known for her ability to head the ball. In fact, 77 of her goals were scored with her head. So what goes into the mechanics behind heading to make a person as dangerous in the air as Wambach was?

On of my previously written blogs discuses the dangers behind heading. It references how learning the proper techniques of heading can decrease the hazard of heading even if the exposure is high. So just to start with some good fundamentals, one should keep eyes locked on the ball when it is in flights and make contact with the forehead. It’s also a good practice to follow-through as the header becomes more powerful and decreases the impact suffered on the head.

Now onto the actual aspect of a powerful header. A good header starts with core strength in the body. The best headers typically have strong necks, shoulders, and cores which allows them to propels there bodies towards the ball. A good header needs the entire body to be involved.

Believe it or not, good headers start at the knees and legs. Whether you jump to reach the header or not, bending of the knees and putting pressure on the legs starts the momentum that with follow up through the body to the neck and head.

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/39/suppl_1/i26.full

Movement in the torso and back is needed next to continue the power in the header. Arching your back is like winding up to make contact. It provides the initial power that is needed to drive the header.

All of this build-up leads to the neck. The neck is how the head makes contact with the ball and drives it downward. Snapping the neck is a little motion that encompasses all of the power built up through the body to effectively drive through a ball. Keeping the shot down is also effective for creating more pace on the ball and challenging the keeper more with a lower shot.

Finally, the last part of the header is making the right contact. The ball connecting with the head just north or south of the forehead makes the build-up to the header pointless. No power or accuracy can be created this way. To effectively head the ball, it must connect with the forehead. Keeping eye contact with the ball until it reaches the forehead is helpful in this regard.

What should the final product look like?

https://sites.psu.edu/siowfa15/2015/09/13/is-heading-in-soccer-dangerous/

http://www.soccerconcussion.com/5-tips-on-how-to-head-a-soccer-ball/

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/39/suppl_1/i26.full

Conversion therapy is something very interesting and horrifying at the same time. The idea of conversion therapy is that people’s sexual orientation and gender identity can be changed and made “normal.” The way they do this vary massively but the most recent case came from China where the main reversion therapy is electroshock. For this post I will focus on this case and conversion therapy in these two countries. Does this actually have any scientific basis and if it doesn’t why do people think it works?

Lets begin with the idea of reversion therapy done in America. According to the APA or American Psychological association, reversion therapy, at least in America, has little to no evidence of actually doing anything to change peoples sexual orientation. It does show evidence of causing massive harm like suicide, depression, and a number of horrible side effects. A number of practices actually involve electroshock by showing gay men naked men and electrocuting them if they get aroused. It makes sense but there is no evidence that it did anything. Additionally, the white house  even released a statement stating the practices after New Jersey made the practice illegal. They stated there was no scientific evidence that reversion therapy ever helped stating it only ever harmed people. The other really interesting part, China has deemed all reversion therapy completely illegal.

Why did they make these practices illegal? In America it started with the American Psychological Association declassifying homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1974. The thing was this was done due to the people’s changing opinions and not because of any tests or experiments. People just thought being gay was not a bad thing or not  mental disorder by that point. The was no science behind the change at all. The Chinese Psychological Association declassified the same thing in 2001. They also had no tests or anything to back up why they changed it. The two organizations both stated it was for the health and well being of the homosexual communities in their respective countries. They both just saw the change in society and went with it. It took longer in America after this point to make conversion therapy illegal but China did it almost right after homosexuality was declassified as a way to protect gay and lesbian citizens.

These conversion “treatments” are being done to people who are forced or pressured into it illegally by their families and society. However, the reversion therapy they do is much differently then America. They use basic electroshock therapy just like America used years ago. They do not do odd or obscene experiments, that we know of, they simply use an old common treatment. In fact, according to one meta analysis  electroshock therapy can actually help with depression by actually helping to change the biology of the brain. There are of course issues but in the end it seems to actually help people. In the end, being homosexual is not considered a mental disorder or considered any sort of mentally damaging aspect of a persons psyche in most countries. Even if these practices do some how change peoples sexual orientation there is no really point to it.

Conversion therapy is a deplorable and illegal in a large number of countries even those who do not have same-sex marriage or even LGBT protections. It has no science and no medical proof of doing anything positive for anyone. In the end, it just hurts people trying to change something that is just a part of themselves.

Sources

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/china-gay-conversion-therapy-report_561eb969e4b050c6c4a4194e

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/response-your-petition-conversion-therapy

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/ccp/62/2/221/

http://www.behaviorismandmentalhealth.com/2011/10/08/homosexuality-the-mental-illness-that-went-away/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/mar/07/china.johngittings1

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/3/e006966.short

Throughout the last several decades, there have been immense advancements in technology. Within the past 150 years, humans have invented televisions, cell phones, smartphones, computers, laptops, tablets, and countless other forms of technology. Today, it seems as though everyone uses some form of technology every day, and no one would last without technology. How has this changed our education systems? Is this drastic increase in technology use helping us, or is it hurting us?

Everyone has their own opinion on technology, and therefore answers to the aforementioned questions will differ depending on whom you ask. Younger generations who have grown up in the world of technology believe it to enhance our lives, while older generations tend to believe technology impairs our society. Effects of technology are heavily opinion based, and therefore we must analyze the consequences through the eyes of science.

National Math and Science Initiative expert Jeremy Posey has found numerous different benefits of technology use in the classroom. Through observational studies conducted in elementary classrooms, Jeremy Posey found that technology allows students to work more efficiently, and that technology saves time. Posey states that students will therefore focus on projects for longer periods of time since they will be able to find the necessary information at a faster rate. Posey also believes that technology “makes students more excited to learn.” Children love few things more than walking into their classroom and seeing that the teacher has rolled in a TV. I believe that Jeremy’s findings are reliable, especially since I can
relate them to personal experiences. In elementary school, I always found myself to work harder and more efficiently when a computer was available. Since the attention spans of elementary school children are limited, having access to computers is beneficial.

On the other hand, a survey of 2,462 teachers conducted by the Pew Research Center found that “nearly 90 percent said that digital technologies, such as computers and cell phones were creating an easily distracted generation with short attention spans.” In addition, another survey of 685 teachers, also conducted by the Pew Research Center, found that “71 percent said they thought technology was hurting attention span.” Even though students may begin using their phones or computers for educational purposes, it is not difficult to quickly become distracted by the other capabilities of technology. Teachers experience the affects of technology on students first-hand. Therefore, even though these conclusions are based on surveys, I think that the findings are valid. However, teachers’ experiences in the classroom are anecdotal, similar to the lecture we had in class about doctors killing people. While Teachers spend several hours a week with their students, they only experience bits of the population, and therefore from a scientific perspective, their findings may not be valid.

Even though technology aids us in many ways, it also causes a decrease in essential skills, such as critical thinking and creativity. Patricia Greenfield, a UCLA professor of psychology and the director of the Children’s Digital Media Center in LA has analyzed over fifty studies regarding learning and technology. Her work was published in Science in 2009. She has found that as technology increases, reading for pleasure decreases. As we know from class, correlation does not equal causation, though in this case, it is not unlikely that there is also a causal relationship. However, reading “enhances thinking and engages the imagination in a way that visual media such as video games and television do not.” Greenfield goes on to explain that “reading develops imagination, induction, reflection, and critical thinking, as well as vocabulary. Reading for pleasure is the key to developing these skills.” Since meta-analyses are composed of multiple studies, the likelihood that the findings are incorrect decreases with each additional study. As we learned in class, only 5% of the time will scientists conclude that a relationship is occurring when connections are nonexistent. Every study added will cause the 0.05 to multiply by a factor of 0.05. Having produced a miniscule number, refuting the data would be challenging.

Irrefutably, there are numerous advantages and disadvantages to technology. While technology can be beneficial by enabling us to research more quickly, it seems as though the negatives outweigh the positives. Distracted learning and a decrease in social skills could negatively impact us as a species. Within the next several decades, we will be able to find the effects of technology usage over a lifetime. Only then we will know the true costs and benefits of technology. I think that technology is a revolutionary milestone for our species, but like Oscar Wilde once said, use “everything in moderation.”

Some animals today are used for testing new medicines and things to see if they will be safe for humans to use.  If the test goes well and it seems like humans can use it safely the product passes.  If after testing an animal dies or is hurt or the product doesn’t work it fails.  This is where the question comes in of this all being morally right.  Harming animals so that we gain knowledge and do not harm any humans.  Even with these benefits to animal testing should we still do it?

95% of animals used in experiments are not protected by the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which excludes birds, rats and mice bred for research, and cold-blooded animals such as reptiles and most fish.  A 2011 poll of nearly 1,000 biomedical scientists conducted by the science journal Nature found that more than 90% “agreed that the use of animals in research is essential.”

In 1997, researchers Joseph and Charles Vacanti grew a human “ear” seeded from implanted cow cartilage cells on the back of a living mouse to explore the possibility of fabricating body parts for plastic and reconstructive surgery.   This shows how with animal testing we can discover things we would not be able to without.

My conclusion is that animal testing although may not be nice for some of the animals is a necessary thing that must be done to further science and make the world safer.

It was July 16th, 1945 in the New Mexican desert when the first atomic weapon was test by the United States of America.  This was the start of the Nuclear Age of weapons and the start of the competition to make nuclear weapons between nations.  The United States was the first nation to develop nuclear weapons, then the USSR, Great Britain, France, and The People’s Republic of China, in that order.  The Soviet Union (USSR) was the United States’ main competitor in this new arms race to make the most powerful nuclear weapons and the most of them.  The arms race lead to spying on one another, and the invention of new weapons and technological advancements for the world.  

The first nuclear weapons were developed by the United States in a top secret project called The Manhattan Project.  The Manhattan Project was so secret when it was developing and testing nuclear weapons that not even the Vice President Truman knew about it.  Joseph Stalin was informed about the project because of spies and since he knew about it he started up the USSR’s development of nuclear weapons.  By August in 1945 the nuclear weapons were ready for war.  The first atomic bomb was used on August 6th, 1945 on Hiroshima, Japan.  The type of nuclear bomb that was dropped was called the “little boy”.  It had an oblong shape and was parallel sided.  The Little Boy used uranium 235 as its fissable material.  The design had a large amount of uranium on one side of the bomb and a small amount on the other side.  A “gun” inside the bomb would shoot the small amount of uranium at the large amount which when all was together in one mass would cause the mass to become critical causing an explosion.  This bomb destroyed 60,000 of the 90,000 buildings within 9.5 mile radius of the blast.  60,000 – 80,000 people died from the blast, according to Ivor Mantanle.  The bomb dropped on Nagasaki was called the “fat boy”.  It used plutonium as its fissable material and relied on implosion for detonation.  Around

40,000 – 45,000 people were killed from the bomb and about 40,000 people were injured from it.  Today people are still being affected by the atomic bombs dropped on Japan 68 years ago.  The radiation and fallout from the bombs are causing radiation sickness, high incidences of cancer, abnormal births and more.  The full effect that the radiation has on genetics is still unknown.

Thermonuclear bombs, also known as hydrogen bombs were developed by the United States in the early 1950s.  They were similar to atomic weapons in that they still used uranium fission, but the hydrogen bomb also uses hydrogen fusion to increase the energy yield of the bomb.  Hydrogen bombs are more powerful than nuclear bombs because nuclear bombs have a critical mass amount to start the chain reaction of the bomb which limits its explosive force, but hydrogen bombs do not have an explosive limit.  

sources

http://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/arms-race

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/einstein/peace-and-war/nuclear-arms-race

So what kills more germs and cleans your hands the best, washing your hands with soap or using hand sanitizer?  Hand sanitizer says it kills 99.99% and to me that seems to be pretty good so does washing your hands do better.

The Center for Disease Control says that when you get the choice between hand sanitizer and washing your hands you should wash them.  Washing your hands with soap and water is the best way to clean your hands and kill germs.  Alcohol based sanitizers do reduce germs but do not kill all kinds and the sanitizer has to be at least 60% alcohol.  Also hand sanitizers are not good when it comes to hands with grease or visible dirt.  Hand sanitizers can also cause germs to develop resistance to the sanitizing agent which can make strong germs and virus’s that our medicine can’t protect us from.

Many studies show that hand sanitizers work well in clinical settings like hospitals, where hands come into contact with germs but generally are not heavily soiled or greasy.  This goes to show that there is a time and a place to use hand sanitizers but when you can you should wash with soap and water since this is the only sure wash to completely kill all the germs and clean your hands.

Sources

http://www.cdc.gov/handwashing/show-me-the-science-hand-sanitizer.html

My grandma used to always say that cleanliness is next to godliness, but are we so clean that we are damaging our immune systems?

Some theories suggest that our cleaner environments and heavier use of antibiotics basically make our immune systems lazy. Our immune systems used to have to fight all sorts of life threatening illnesses like smallpox, bubonic plague and polio. Now that we have vaccines and these illnesses are eradicated what are we left to fight? According to WebMD, our cleanliness is leaving our immune systems to fight “harmless proteins” like pollen, foods and animals. This could be one reason that the rate of food allergies increased 18% between the years 1997 and 2007[i].

So let’s compare, by looking at developed, developing and underdeveloped countries we can look for patterns and relationships between cleanliness and allergies.  According to the National Library of Medicine, 1 in 5 children from industrialized countries suffer from an allergy related disease.[ii] Developing countries have similar patterns showing, with more than 15% of children in the UK showing a tendency toward allergies. In underdeveloped areas the health standards are much lower and the children are already fighting serious illness but allergies are not an issue that they deal with often.

A study done by Hesselmar, Hicke-Roberts and Wennergren concluded that families that hand wash their dishes, as opposed to using a dishwasher, report fewer occurrences of allergies[iii]. They point to less effective sanitizing of dishes increases tolerance to exposure to outside infections.

Please understand, I am in no way saying that we should start eating off of dirty plates and not washing our hands. I am just saying that being OVERLY CLEAN could increase your risk of allergies and allergy related illness.

SOURCES:

[i] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db10.htm

[ii] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2841828/

[iii] Hesselmar, B., A. Hicke-Roberts, and G. Wennergren. “Allergy in Children in Hand Versus Machine Dishwashing.” Pediatrics 135.3 (2015): 590-97.

Violence in our world today has some wondering why and where is all this violence coming from, especially with things like school shootings and bullying going on.  Some are pointing the finger at violent video games to be the source of violence and factor in violence going on today.

With more than half of the top 50 selling video games being violent and more than 95% of kids ages 12-17 playing video games I doesn’t seem like the games will be going away anytime soon.  Not to mention the $21.53 billion domestic video game industry.  60% of kids who are in middle school and play Mature rated video games have hit or beat up someone.  A 2014 peer-reviewed study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that habitual violent video game playing had a causal link with increased, long-term, aggressive behavior.  More than 98% of pediatricians in the United States say that too much exposure to violent media heightens childhood aggression.  In addition, 66% of researchers agreed or strongly agreed.

Although it seems like video games with violence do cause aggression in kids playing there is some support and evidence saying that this is not the case.  Total US sales of video game hardware and software increased 204% from 1994 to 2014, reaching $13.1 billion in 2014, while violent crimes decreased 37% and murders by juveniles acting alone fell 76% in that same period.  This is showing that even with a ton more video games now, there is decreasing violence with the increase of video games.  According to Christopher J. Ferguson, PhD, a psychology professor at Stetson University, “matching video game conditions more carefully in experimental studies with how they are played in real life makes VVG’s [violent video games] effects on aggression essentially vanish.”

So although we may see sudden bursts of violence in society, crime and violence is at a low and I do not think it is video games causing people to be violent.  It is usually due to a mental illness why unnecessary violence is taking place.

sources

http://videogames.procon.org//

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/what-science-knows-about-video-games-and-violence

“An apple a day keeps the doctor away.”  We’ve all heard this saying a million times in our lives but is it really true?  It’s impossible for it to be true because this would mean that if someone actually did eat an apple everyday, they would never need to go to the doctors and would always be healthy.  There’s no way that could be true because there are so many ways you could get sick from other outside virus’s or diseases.

100 grams of apple is on average about 52 calories, .26 grams of protein and .17 grams of fat.  An apple is also 8% Vitamin C (4.6 mg) and 54 IU of Vitamin A which is 2% of it.  Apples are rich in antioxidant phyto-nutrients flavonoids and polyphenolics which help you stay healthy and fight off potential virus’s.  Vitamin C is a natural antioxidant.  Apples also carry a small amount of minerals like potassium, phosphorus, and calcium. Potassium is an important component of cell and body fluids helps controlling heart rate and blood pressure, which in turn, counters the bad influences of sodium.

A study found if you ate 25 grams of a white fruit like an apple every day then you are at a 7 percent less risk of a stoke for every 25 grams eaten each day.  Even with all these great health benefits that apples give, an apple a day can not guarantee to keep you healthy and the doctor away.  With this being said you should still eat as many fruits and vegetables as you can because of all the health benefits.  An apple will always have a good nutritional value, so eat apples and stay healthier than those who do not.

Sources

http://www.nutrition-and-you.com/apple-fruit.html

I started drinking coffee in high school but before that I never had a reason to.  Coffee helped me wake up and get my day started with energy.  A teacher I had in high school told the class he had a coffee addiction when he worked at his old job before becoming a teacher.  My teacher said that he would drink up to 15-20 cups in a day at work so he had to stop drinking coffee for good.  This is a pretty extreme example of a coffee drinker.

Here are some quick facts about coffee consumption in the United States.  54% of Americans over the age of 18 drink coffee every morning.  The average consumer drinks 3.1 cups of coffee daily.  Also about 18 billion dollars is spent on coffee in the United States annually.

Some current research being done at Harvard University suggest that to a moderate user coffee can provide the drinker with some health benefits.  The risk for type 2 diabetes is lower in people who drink coffee daily.  Also drinking a cup or 2 a day is completely fine for one’s health, it’s when people drink many cups when coffee can have a negative effect on someone’s health.  Another benefit to coffee is it can reduce the risk of developing gallstones, colon cancer, liver damage and Parkinson’s disease.  Drinking too much coffee can lead to heartburn and problems with one’s throat and windpipe.  The key for coffee is drinking it in moderation.  As long as you aren’t drinking too much of it you should be fine and have no bad health risks.  In fact you might even see some aspects of your health improve with coffee.

Sources

http://www.statisticbrain.com/coffee-drinking-statistics/

http://www.health.harvard.edu/press_releases/coffee_health_risk

http://www.webmd.com/diet/coffee-health-benefits-risks-directory

Phantom limb syndrome (phantom pain) is something that happens to a person who has lost a limb, but still feels as though it is there. Sometimes they feel as though the limb is in severe pain, but sometimes they may feel that it is still functioning, or sometimes even that something is brushing up against it. The question is, what could possibly cause it? And is there a way to prevent this from happening to us?

Left: A brain with phantom limb pain Center: Amputees’ brain without limb pain Right: Healthy control brain

Luckily we finally have the answers, but it actually took scientists about 400 years to figure out why something like the would occur. About 25 years ago, “neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran of the University of San Diego discovered that the brain’s ability to form new neural connections might cause the syndrome. Areas of the brain responsible for perceiving touch sensations from other parts of the body — the face, for example — appeared to be taking on the sensation from the missing limbs. When touched on the existing body part — in this case, the face — the patient feels the same sensation in the phantom limb” (Borel).  During MRIs or PETs of these patients, it seems to be that, although the limb is missing, the portion of the brain that “had been neurologically connected to the nerves of the amputated limbs” (obviously) is still there (Mayoclinic). So for a while, the brain might remain wired to that specific limb, even after it is missing, but after some time, it might rewire (remap) as explained earlier. This happens when areas of the spinal cord recognize that there is no longer any connection to the limb or receiving sensory information, the information gets sent to another existing part of the body.

Of course, some cases could be simpler than this, caused by “damaged nerve endings, scar tissue at the site of the amputation and the physical memory of pre-amputation pain in the affected area” (Mayoclinic).Unfortunately for all amputees, about 80% experience phantom limb pain, which is a fairly high number.

Luckily, they are finding ways to cure it! There is a treatment called the mirror box which is “a lidless box that is partitioned through the middle by a two-sided mirror. Here, the patient puts both the intact and phantom limbs through two holes cut into the side of the box, so that each sits on either side of the mirror divider. The patient looks into the top of box at an angle, so that the reflection of the real limb is visible in the mirror” (Borel). The mirror helps to trick the brain into thinking that the real limb is actually the missing limb, which allows it to regain a sense of control. Even cooler than this is with the use of an Xbox Kinect. People found a way to alter the gaming system to create a way for an amputee who is playing to have all of their limbs in a virtual room. This method, again, would trick the brain. Here is a link for a video of a patient using the mirror therapy.

It is good that researchers are finding these treatments, but I definitely think it is important to keep advancing the research, considering how many people are affected by this syndrome. But it is fascinating to see how the human body works, and what causes it to work the way it does. Perhaps if researchers narrow it down to a more specific cause and effect, they will be able to come up with a more effective cure.

I always wondered why people overused the term, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” Based upon my knowledge of the celebrity world, it seems that there tends to be a general idea of who is considered good-looking and who is not. But maybe I was wrong, and not as many people agree as I had thought.
Scientists believe that a person’s liking for a particular height or the build of a person’s body may be a genetic predisposition, but new studies are showing that our attraction to another face is determined by the path of our individual life. I found an article on Sciencemag, in which a new study is discussed to evaluate the nature versus nurture problem, and whether or not it really does play a role in how attracted we are to another person. In the study, “researchers asked 547 pairs of identical twins and 214 pairs of same-gender fraternal twins to view 200 faces and rate them on a scale of one to seven…one being the least attractive” (Burton). Along with these twins, there were 660 people who were not twins that took the same survey. Interestingly, the surveys that the twins (especially those in the identical group) took were not as similar as researchers expected them to be, leading them to believe that their preference did not have that much to do with their family environment.

So from this, they were really only able to think that it’s neither familial influence or genetics, but the path that a person travels throughout their life that makes them attracted to a person’s looks. The researchers feel, however, that they still haven’t done enough in this specific topic, so they actually opened up the survey to the public! If you’re interested in participating, here is the link: www.TestMyBrain.org.

I find this topic of research interesting, mostly because the nature v. nurture battle is such a controversial topic in the science world. I had never even really considered why I found someone attractive and others unattractive, while my sister would find the exact opposite.
I think in order to fix the original study (not including the part that is now open to the public), they should make the sample size more diverse. During this study, the participants were all from the same general region of the world, and were mostly all the same race. Although, at this point, the researchers were simply trying to find whether it was nature or nurture, I still think that to really know for sure, they should be testing a more diverse group of people, and maybe that will help them to better understand if it is familial influence, an individual’s path of life, or genetics! I believe that it is most definitely something to look further into, though, and do more research on because the more we know about ourselves and the reasons we think the way we do, no matter what the topic, the more we will be able to know about humans in every aspect.

In light of recent events in the U.S. the gaming community has been under close speculation. Not only is video game content under scrutiny, but how this content affects the over all attention span and focus of youth who play has also become an area of concern. There is just about no evidence, however, proving that gaming can cause attention disorders, mainly ADHD. While there have been studies which correlate hyper vigilance and ADHD-like behaviors to excessive video game use, there is no concrete evidence to prove ADHD is caused by too much gaming.

ADHD is short for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. This means individuals with this disorder not only have a hard time maintaining concentration, but also struggle with sitting still for long periods of time. Because video games provide constant stimulation, it is no wonder people with ADHD have increased focus while playing; there is no opportunity left for distraction of any sort. The debate begins here because children who struggle with concentrating become hyper focussed when gaming. This combined with the tendency for those with ADHD to lack self regulation leads to far too much screen time in youth with this condition. This may be why people are so quick to jump to the conclusion that video games cause ADHD and attention deficit behaviors.

Although the majority of studies pertaining to video games and ADHD lean towards the idea that excessive gaming can cause ADHD, the article on “learnignworksforkids.com” suggests that in the right amount, video gaming can actually decrease the effects of ADHD. Because of the stimulation the brain receives from gaming, it can actually be altered as a visual attention treatment. In current and recent research, it has become known that exercising the brain in a particular activity for long periods of time can change how the brain works and grows. Frequent video game use does just that when done is a monitored practice. This being said, there is no evidence that going on a video game playing bender will alter the brain’s growth and development. However playing a game to cater to a specific area of the brain when done with a purpose.

in conclusion, ADHD is not caused by over playing video games. The disorder may be influenced by too much gaming, but there is no evidence proving cause. There is proof that video games can be used as a method of treatment for ADHD by use of brain conditioning. By learning which method works best and not over using video games, a child can develop particular areas of the brain without developing ADHD.

Sources:
http://learningworksforkids.com/2012/07/video-games-and-adhd-a-cause-or-a-cure/http://www.childmind.org/en/posts/articles/adhd-and-video-games

Everyone needs a little bit of caffeine every so often. Some people need it more than others. With stores like Starbucks popping up at every corner, the preferred choice of caffeinated beverage seems to be coffee. However, tea has recently stolen my heart and heres why it should steal yours too.

First, tea has caffeine in it also. Black, green, white, and oolong tea have caffeine that can actually be beneficial to your health. One article discusses the long term positive health affects that tea can have. The article says that tea is thought to have serious cancer-fighting properties and it is filled with antioxidants. Not enough studies have been to to 100% prove this point but tea is thought to have medicinal purposes and a soothing effect on its drinker. This article also discusses how hot tea is better than cold tea because production adds sugar and other ingredients to cold tea that can be avoided in hot tea.

Also, the longer the tea brews, the more caffeine it produces. Caffeine content can also be based off of what temperature the tea brews at. While it is true that coffee has more caffeine than tea, that is not necessarily a benefit. Tea has many antioxidants that help the release of the caffeine into the body. This means that the caffeine will not result in a “caffeine crash” at the end of its cycle. It also means that the caffeine will have a gentler release into the drinker’s system. This article talks about all of this and also mentions that if you are looking for a decaf drink, self brewing will not successfully produce those results. It says that if you do a quick brew to try to take out the caffeine, you may get most of the caffeine out but also take the healthy antioxidants with it. If you want a guaranteed decaf tea, stick to herbal.

Unfortunately, caffeine overall is not healthy. It is a drug that can have withdrawal symptoms and other negative effects on the body. According to this article, caffeine can cause anxiety and sleep problems like fatigue, restlessness, and insomnia. It can also have negative effects such as spinal bone loss in postmenopausal women and can lead to stomach aches, heartburn, and high cholesterol. This article then goes on to say that it can have certain benefits such as decreasing the risk for Alzheimer’s, suicide, stroke, and oral cancers. So ultimately, drink it at your own discretion. My suggestion is that if you “need” to drink caffeine, drink the caffeine with the healthy antioxidants: tea.

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

Carbs

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

Case Against Carbs

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

Case for Carbs

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

Middle Ground

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

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