As most of you probably already know the freshman 15 is when freshman in college gain weight in their first year because they are restricted to campus food and fast food all the time. With no healthy home cooked meals, many people do believe that the freshman 15 does exist. Personally I don’t think we have this problem at Penn State because of how much walking people do every day and how convenient the gyms are. But is the freshman 15 or just a never ending myth?

Although not exactly 15 pounds, the freshman 15 is indeed a really thing. Being in college is also be free from rules back home, so many students go to the quickest and cheapest meals they could find which is normally the fast food restaurants that their mother always warned them off. Just because you’re in college is no excuse to slack off and use studying as an excuse why you can’t go to the gym. The gym is a great way to prevent the freshman 15. By eating healthy and working out you will get into a routine and your body won’t gain weight. Another factor in gaining weight is as a freshman you crave the college experience of always going out and drinking. Drinking is a direct cause to why freshman tend to gain a few pounds throughout the semester.

There are studies that show that a lot of people are beginning to think that the freshman 15 is myth. It is true that you gain weight while in college, but most times it doesn’t just happen your freshman year it’s all the years you’re in college. The Ohio State University  study found that students were (on average) just a half-pound heavier than their non-collegiate peers. According to the researchers, this may be because many 17 or 18 -year-olds are simply not at their full adult size (both in height and weight) before heading off to college. So while some weight gain might be the result of late-night nachos and keg stands, a significant part of the “Freshman 15” can be attributed to plain old-fashioned growth.

Depending on how you see it the freshman 15 is either a myth or the truth but the way I see it is, take precautions of the stuff that goes into your body, your stress level, and your exercise schedule and the freshman 15 doesn’t matter any which way.

I have heard the idea that dogs are colorblind quite a few times. However, I never really thought that much into it. I decided to do some research to see if this common thought has some truth to it or if it is false.

Despite the common belief that dogs only see black and white, they can see colors. However, it is not in the same way as humans. This is due to the fact that dogs only have two color-detecting cells in their retinas, as opposed to the three that humans have.

Jay Neitz, a color vision scientist at the University of Washington, conducted some experiments with canines. He found that the perception of color that dogs have is very similar to the way that red-green colorblind people see. They are similar because people with red-green colorblindness only have two types of cones to detect color, just as dogs do. Neitz’s research shows that dogs, just like colorblind people, use cues to distinguish among colors.

Along with this information, I was curious what colors dogs did see. Because dogs only have two types of cones, they see green and orange as the color yellow. They also see blue-green as white, and red as brownish-black.

For a dog, there isn’t much value in seeing every color that humans do. The American Veterinary Medical Association writes “Restrictions in color vision are probably of limited consequence in dogs, as it is likely that dogs react only to colors of biological importance to them.”

Unlike humans, it isn’t necessary or of that much importance that dogs be able to see all the colors that we do. So, it isn’t necessary to feel bad that your dog can only see black and white. The colors that they can see work to their advantage.

Salt is a part of our daily life nowadays. Salt is everywhere, in our food, in our water, even in our body. It is common knowledge that salt brings various benefits to our health. Salt provides many kinds of elements that helps us to control blood status and become healthier. However, obtain too much salt actually brings disadvantages to our bodies. Many researches have been made to testify what exactly consequences bring by having too much salt.

In this article from popsci, author illustrates the general information about salt including the advantages and dangers of salt, how salt changes our health level and what functions salt has. Then the author mentions that eat too much salt can leads to high blood pressure, dehydration, and even negatively affect cognition function. In order to prove these points, the author lists an experiment which scientists make conclusion from observation. Another hypothesis mentioned in the article is how salt brings on stomach ulcers, infections, and may even hasten stomach cancer.

Although this article is listed in the popular science section, there are lots of places that the article should improve in order to make it more convincing. When puts out the evidence that state too much salt leads to cognition function damage, the author only mentioned an observational experiment which lacks of data and can be easily affected by third variables or chance. The following paragraph started with “the evidence is clear” though shows the correct statements but the “evidence” is not as clear as described in the article. In conclusion, this article is not scientific at all for it lack of data and comprehensive experiments representation.

Compare with this, another article on science daily, the author shows an experiment made by scientists who find out the relationship between high blood pressure and over salt consuming by measuring people’s rate of sodium in the urine and their consumptions of salt. Although this experiment is still an observational one, but overall it is better than the other one. At least the basic data is provided to make it seems more completed and analysis as well.

In order to write a more scientific science article, one should provide as many details of the researches or experiments as he can to prove their hypothesis. In the first salt article, the author fails to do this which makes his argument less convincing while the second one is more trustable.

As the weather gets much colder and there is less of a need to go out for the night, many turn to Netflix or Hulu, and watch tv shows or movies for the night. Some even enjoy the show so much they begin to watch episode after episode and find themselves binge watching. Young adults or millenials should be careful when doing this, there was a study that linked cognitive impairment with young adult binge watching. Researchers analyzed data from a 25-year-long study of more than 3,200 18-to 30-year-olds and found that those who reported doing less physical activity and watching the most TV (more than 3 hours a day) had the worse cognitive functioning before reaching mid age.

Participants of the study with the most TV viewing, and less exercise were more likely to perform badly on brain performance assessments compared to their peers. Researchers expanded this study even further, by taking a look at different types of screening behavior and not limiting the study to just television. They looked at the time spent using computers, hand held devices, and videogames.

Looking at this study, I found this quite interesting and a bit alarming, just because many young adults watch Netflix, and many binge watch their favorite shows. I remember watching more than 10 episodes of “Breaking Bad” in one day just because it was such a good show and new at the time. However, I did not realize the damage I was causing to my brain and neutral functionality. Binge watching is indeed making us dumber according to science.

This would be considered a correlational study/observational study. This would be direct causation, but not reverse causation and there are third variables involved. There are possiblities that binge watching and not exercising can cause other conditions such as obesity, poor heart health, and depression. It is not just an effect on the brain. In summary, if you binge watch, remember to excersise and not binge watch shows often because unhealthy behaviors in young adulthood could lead to more serious behaviors or results in actual adulthood.

Works Cited:

http://time.com/4130883/tv-sitting-cognitive-decline/

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/tv-may-be-bad-for-your-brain/?_r=0

http://hellogiggles.com/binge-watching-making-us-dumb/2/

Google images

On par with ramen noodles, microwave popcorn is one of the top snacks consumed by college students. However, there is a serious condition associated with this microwave popcorn that you may not have heard of. It’s called bronchiolitis obliterans, but it is better known as popcorn lung.

Popcorn lung is an irreversible and severe condition. It is caused by inhalation of the flavoring ingredient, diacetyl. With popcorn lung, the small air sacs in the lungs become scarred. The early symptoms of popcorn lung are coughing and a shortness of breath. Later symptoms have been reported such as fever, loss of weight, and night sweats. Those with very severe cases may experience inflammation of skin, eyes, nose, and/or throat. If diagnosed early enough, avoidance of diacetyl may cause symptoms to decrease, but the condition is not currently reversible. Diagnosis of the condition is also very difficult. It is necessary to perform chest X-rays, lung function testing, and CT scans. An open lung surgery is also needed to confirm the diagnosis.

This condition first became noticed in workers of microwave popcorn factories in August of 2000. After more cases were reported, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) did in depth research on this condition and issued a report called NIOSH Alert: Preventing Lung Disease in Workers Who Use or Make Flavorings. They had found that these cases of factory workers getting this condition were all involved with flavoring. They cited a study done on animals that showed breathing in vapors from diacetyl caused damage to  air pathways.

The condition first became widely known to the public in 2012 when a man named Wayne

Wayne Watson, who contracted popcorn lung after eating 2 bags of popcorn every day for 10 years.

Watson sued popcorn manufacturer,  Gilster-Mary Lee Corp. for giving him popcorn lung. Watson was awarded a settlement of $7 million. Watson had reported eating 2 bags of microwave popcorn daily for 10 years. Popcorn lung had not been reported outside of popcorn factory workers because the condition is only brought on by large amounts of inhalation of diacetyl vapors.

But this story made headlines, and public outcry led the most prominent popcorn manufacturers to remove this flavoring agent from their recipes. But that doesn’t mean that diacetyl is removed from all popcorn brands. Unfortunately, the food labels won’t tell you if diacetyl is an ingredient in your popcorn. FDA regulations allow companies to list diacetyl as “natural and artificial flavorings” because it is deemed safe to use by the FDA.

So in conclusion, if you are eating microwave popcorn made by the popular companies such as Orville Redenbacher, Act II, Pop Secret, and Jolly Time you have nothing to worry about. These brands have removed the dangerous flavoring from their recipes. If you are eating microwave popcorn made by a smaller company, you may not be able to know if the product contains diacetyl. But if you eat popcorn in moderation, unlike Wayne Watson, you are also at a very low risk of contracting this condition. Although the hazard of contracting popcorn lung is very serious, the overall risk of contracting this condition is very low if you expose yourself to low levels of diacetyl.

An accurate representation of some of the people I see at the IM Building

One of the terms I discovered many Penn State students, especially freshmen males, use is “gains.” For those unfamiliar with the term “gains,” it pretty much means for an individual to put on muscle and to adopt a physical lifestyle. (There are other variations of the definition, but they are along those lines) Though I always wished to be physically stronger, I fear of developing a stocky build. In addition, the main reason why I had refrain from lifting weights is due to the many people in the past who have told me that weights stunt growth. I decided to investigate. Does the lifting of weights or heavy objects in general stunt my potential to grow? 

As I pondered looking for scientific studies, I came across this article that made made me ponder reasons why I even thought about this topic. The site explains the reasonable idea that “applying high force to the skeleton will cause the growth plates in the long bones to harden faster and thus not grow as much, lowering the final height that a person reaches.” (Jump Science) It sounds so common sense. However, athletic movements such as running and jumping all had greater force output than that of weightlifting. (Jump Science) If we consider running and jumping NOT to be activities that hinder our growth, why should weightlifting? That is almost like saying walking is bad for you but running is good. It doesn’t make sense.

In a meta analysis I found in this article, researchers in Germany studied subjects from the ages 6 to 18 for almost 60 years. In the 60 years, they gathered studies of children and weight training. Furthermore, the meta analysis’ objective was to “assess the effects of resistance training in different age groups and maturity levels.” (Michael Behringer) Virtually, it was what I was looking for! The meta analysis researchers made their conclusions based off controlled trials done before on children through “electronic bibliographic databases, key journals, and reference lists of reviews, book chapters, and articles.” (Michael Behringer) From the databases, they were able to find two studies that tested the resistance training, also known as weightlifting, and its effects on subjects younger than 18 years old. Another thing to note, they excluded cardio and quick twitch muscle testing, which is great, for we are looking to find resistance training. After rooting down 46 studies that was relevant to the topic, the researchers found a 1728 sample size to which they were labelled by their stages in puberty, gender, and activity. Obviously, observational studies were NOT chosen for the sole fact that they do not manipulate variables. Also, it is better to have control trials for this. One of the main “filters” I believe that made this meta-analysis much more credible was the fact that they eliminated a confounding variable: activity. As mentioned earlier, the researchers did not include endurance tests. Though I do not want to be too quick to judge, since they did not include any tests to which supports to null hypothesis, this is not an example of the Texas Sharpshooter problem! Lets carry on with the meta analysis. As stated in my previous paragraph, each study consisted of children and weight training. Though the researchers from the meta analysis did not quite change the putative causal variable, the studies were required to have changes in the amount of weight training. The training programs itself consisted of a typical workout. “Duration, frequency, intensity, volume (sets × repetitions), and type of exercise.” (Michael Behringer)

So what does it mean? Despite the concern that resistance training is bad, the conclusion from the meta analysis was that “a greater number of training sessions per week is associated with higher strength gains after resistance training and that long-term interventions are more beneficial than short ones.” (Michael Behringer) All in all, they are saying that lifting weights is beneficial. Personally, I believe that the scientists made a false positive as to assuming resistance training was helped the growth of the subjects. However, I believe there was no report of texas sharpshooter problem. Not only were these 43 separate cases of individual studies, these were randomized control trials! The randomization limits confounding variables such as genetics and child’s prior knowledge in lifting weights. Because of that, I am quite convinced. You will not stunt your growth. However, the children were supervised. If the children were not supervised, can bad form actually stunt growth? If I had to conduct a study, I would make height the only dependent variable. Considering the studies were not geared towards just height, I would have to conduct a separate experiment.

This article I found made me think why we thought that weightlifting stunt growth in the first place. The author emphasizes that the risk of injury is correlated if the person is using proper form. If the technique is right, less of a chance you will get injured! Injury can definitely cause a stunt in growth. Whether it is online or in the gym, trainers always stress the importance of proper form, but why? Maybe it’s because injury can lead to permanent changes to our body. (in which stunt growth can be labelled as) Also, another thing to consider is a fracture to the growth plate. Though personal anecdotes are not credible, I found many stories online where people shared how they could have been 6 feet, but blamed the bad form.

Growth Plate Fracture // From: http://orthoinfo.aaos.org/topic.cfm?topic=A00040

Take home message: Weightlifting does not stunt your growth. However, there is a possibility that injury from weightlifting is the main culprit. If you are worried about the weights stunting your growth, do not fret. Just be sure to have supervision and proper technique! To everyone at Penn State: lets start making some “gains”.

Works Cited

• (Michael Behringer) http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/126/5/e1199
• (Jump Science) http://jump-science.com/lifting-weights-stunts-growth/
• (Gretchen Reynolds) http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/phys-ed-the-benefits-of-weight-training-for-kids/
• http://www.niams.nih.gov/Health_info/Growth_Plate_Injuries/default.asp
• http://www.strengthsensei.com/the-importance-of-proper-form/

Think about your name for a second…is it common? is it easy to pronounce? These are questions that can ultimately predict your future. Parents spend months thinking of baby names for their unborn child. Do they do this to help them get a job 20 years later?

Studies show that your name is part of your success. Over the last 70 years, researchers have tried to gauge the effect on an individual of having an unusual name. It is thought that our identity is partly shaped by the way we are treated by other people – a concept psychologists call the “looking-glass self” – and our name has the potential to colour our interactions with society. Depending on the community you live in and the maturity level of your parents your name can sometimes fit with the status quo. Living in the “ghetto” many people think you will have a ratchet name like bosheda, bonquisha, yessica and other ridiculous names. This also plays into the role of the parents often times when a child is named bosheda it is because the parents were probably young and immature.

That isn’t the case for everyone, I was born in low income part of Brooklyn known has Bedstuy do or die. But my parents realized that 30 years down the line when I need a job and can’t get one because my name is shaquida it would be their fault. So they decided to play it safe a name me Kristen Lauren McKenzie, very common but I won’t have to worry about my future.

Aside from being from a different country and having different religions and views many people reading resumes will skip over your resume if it fits the category of ratchet. It’s sad that many of the names that are defined as ratchet are black, so it puts them a at a disadvantage at times when competing for a job. Sweeny found that searching for people with distinctively black names were 25% more likely to produce an ad suggesting the person had an arrest record. This statistic alone shows that the world is judgemental on a person’s skin color and name alone. Although Roland Fryer suggest that a name has nothing to do with your economic status most people will assume that “Mary” is from an affluent neighborhood while “Tyrone” is from the hood.

As black unemployment is twice as much as whites, researchers can make a correlation to the names of the black employers and the unemployment rate.

For those of us who celebrate Christmas, it may just be the happiest time of the year. The carefully strung lights, decorated Christmas trees, time spent with family, and even presents as an added plus! Who could hate such a fun holiday? Believe it or not, there are quite a few people who do, each with their own variety of reasonings. There are even widely known movies about them, the best examples being How The Grinch Stole Christmas and A Christmas Carol. Which leads me to wonder if there is any scientific explanation on to why some people can be such a Scrooge during the holiday season.

Although the Grinch is a fictitious, non-human character, neuroscience explains just why the Grinch stole Christmas. Dr. John Cacioppo, a pioneer in the field of social neuroscience, says it is because of his social isolation. Because the Grinch is stowed away in his cave far away from human life, he has become lonely and bitter. With Christmas comes the perception of happiness, and because the Grinch does not understand, it explains his actions. This was all found in a study done by Cacioppo in which while in an fMRI machine,two groups of subjects viewed a series of images (human subjects that is) in which were all varying. Some of the images showed positive connotations (people having fun) and others posed negative associations (human conflict). The area of the brain that recognizes rewards showed the greatest response in the non lonely subjects in comparison to those who were lonely. It was also discovered that the people who were lonely responded very strongly to unpleasant images to people rather than unpleasant images of objects, suggesting that lonely people are especially drawn to human conflict. Non lonely subjects showed no difference between human or object. Thus, people who are isolated appear to have a reduced response to things that make most people happy, and a greater reaction to human conflict.

That study leads me to believe that How The Grinch Stole Christmas may have an underlying non-fictitious plot to it. Maybe the people who hate Christmas in fact are just very lonely, and hate to see all the merriness around them. I decided to look further into the matter, and stumbled upon a post from a real life Scrooge/Grinch. It is emphasized in this blog post about the stigma of religion that is put on this holiday, and how for a non-religous person it is offensive to be forced to partake in the customs associated. Not only that, but what makes it worse is that Christmas always comes way to early, considering right after Halloween (and sometimes even before) decorations and advertisements are out for the holiday, even though Christmas may be two months away. Some other notable points were how the Christ in Christmas has seemed to be lost, and that the whole gift giving notions tend to go to people’s head. Although I myself am a Christmas lover, I do believe there are valid points in the post.

So yes, maybe some people hate Christmas solely because it is yet another overhyped holiday for people to get all worked up about. Although in my research, I found an interesting article from Psychology Today, which says that according to the National Institute of Health, Christmas has the highest incidence of depression out of the entirety of the year.In fact hospitals and police officers reported high incidences of suicide and suicide attempts, while psychologists and psychiatrists reported a notable increase in complaints of depression from their patients. One North American survey even projected that 45% of Americans dread the holiday. So why are so many people depressed during and around Christmas? Some get depressed because of their annoyance with the commercialism revolving around what is supposed to be a religious holiday, while others get depressed because they are focused on gifts and the perfect social activities. People also get depressed because the holiday seems to be a big trigger to engage in excessive self-reflection , because they compare their lives to other people (based on presents etc.). Anxiety is also increased very much so because of the feel to need to spend a lot of money on gifts and activities for the holidays, which only further worries people about debt and what they do not have.

All in all I think there are a variety of reason why some people hate Christmas, and it can not be broadly pinpointed without going through each person individually (because there are way too many third variable causes to count). Although I did not find any research on it, I believe experiences from past Christmas’s, can definitely affect the way people feel about the present holiday. If they associate a very bad memory, or tough time with the holiday, it would make sense for them to feel a type of hatred towards it. So hate it or not, Happy Holidays!

I am a firm believer that a positive attitude is a good trait to carry with you and that a positive mindset will take you far. You are more receptive to ideas, you get along better with others and you just have a more optimistic outlook on things in general.

I read an article once about someone who lived to an incredibly old age and they believe that the reason that they had lived as long as they did was because of their great outlook on life. I would like to believe that I could be that person one day.

Positive thinking can impact your life in a variety of ways. First, positive thinking helps manage stress and can improve your health.

According to the Mayo Clinic, there are quite a few health benefits that positive thinking may provide. Some of these benefits include increased life span, lower rates of depression and distress and greater resistance to the common cold.

That article states that it is unclear why people who are positive thinkers reap these benefits. It is thought that positive and optimistic people tend to live healthier lifestyles (ex. physical activity, healthier diets and not engaging in excess drinking or smoking).

In another article, Dr. Terry Grossman states, “Negative emotions are a natural part of normal living but, if prolonged, they can lead to increased risk of many disease processes and can even shorten your life.”

Another doctor, Dr. Howard S. Friedman, a psychologist who has studied personality traits that correlate with longevity said, “It is definitely the case that certain people who are psychologically healthier live longer, but the explanations are usually complicated.”

I don’t necessarily believe that people who smile daily will live longer, but I do think that these studies raise good points about happier people adopting healthier life choices which then results in them living longer.

Work Cited:

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/stress-management/in-depth/positive-thinking/art-20043950

http://www.everydayhealth.com/columns/grossman-a-healthy-longevity/positive-thinking-can-increase-your-longevity/

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/19/science/power-of-positive-thinking-extends-it-seems-to-aging.html?pagewanted=all

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-heart/201309/optimism-may-increase-longevity-0

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-r-hamilton-phd/positive-people-live-long_b_774648.html

It’s ironic that I’m sitting here about to write a blog on how important sleep is while i’m loosing vital hours of sleep. It is common knowledge that sleep is highly important to our health, but it sleep that important that we should be prioritizing it above stuff like school work or a job?

While you sleep your body works to support your physical and mental health. Lack of sleep motherly known as sleep deficiency can eventually leave people with chronic health problems if not taken care of. In addition lack of sleep can negatively affect how one interacts with others, learns, thinks, and reacts. The brain is severely affected because while one rests the brain is able to heal itself and renew itself for the next day. Without sleep almost every aspect of one’s well being is negatively affected.

Sleeping not only heals and repairs your brain but it also does this to one’s vital organs like the heart and blood vessels. Due to sleep’s effect on our bodies vital organs like the heart lack of sleep can eventually be a result of many heart related issues like high blood pressure, heart disease, and kidney disease. In addition to heart health lack of sleep is a major cause of weight gain. One study conducted on people demonstrated that for every hour of sleep an individual lost their chances of eventually becoming obese increased. This is because sleep balances hormones and specifically the hormones that make people hungry and full which are called gherlin and leptin. When one loses sleep they become more hungry because the hormone gherlin increases and the hormone leptin decreases leaving one very hungry. If these negative effects of sleep don’t convince you of sleep’s importance than the benefits definitely will.

If one is able to get a good nights sleep every night the benefits are plentiful. One benefit of sleep is a better sex life according to the Nation Sleep Foundation, “According to a poll conducted by the National Sleep Foundation, up to 26% of people say that their sex lives tend to suffer because they’re just too tired. There’s evidence that in men, impaired sleep can be associated with lower testosterone levels — although the exact nature of the link isn’t clear.” In addition to a better sex life sleep can also help people who experience chronic pain, or just general pain which is most likely the result of sleeps ability to repair the body mentally and physically. The bodies immune system is stronger when the body is well rested which enables the body to fight off colds and flus.

The negative affects were enough to encourage me to prioritize sleep a little bit more, but learning about the benefits has me heading up to bed right about now.

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/sdd/why

http://www.webmd.com/sleep-disorders/features/9-reasons-to-sleep-more?page=2

For years, scientists have been exploring the idea of one day inhabiting (Earth’s neighboring planet) Mars. Throughout the history of our world, humanity has faced many challenges. From natural disasters, over population, and economic issues to destruction caused by humans. To some Mars could be the answers to our problems.

Aside from Earth, Mars is the most studied planet. Since 2004 two robot rovers (Spirit and Opportunity) have been patrolling the surface of Mars. To this day, these rovers are sending communications back to Earth. There have been many different conspiracies of life already existing on Mars. Ideas of using the reddish-brown planet as a back up place to go (in case the apocalypse happens). There are currently 8 active missions on Mars that have potential to answer some of the questions that have been lingering in the thoughts of many people. Eventually humans will have to find somewhere else to live, so why not look to the planet right next door?

There are many reasons leading people to think that human life on mars is possible. The human body is capable of adapting to the temperature and the gravity of Mars. Enough sunlight reaches the surface for humans to use solar energy as resources and there is still a thin atmosphere that offers protection from radiation from the sun. There is also water in the ground that is frozen and could be extracted for human use.

Recent space imagery was received by NASA on Sept. 28, 2015 from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. The imagery showed that there are downward slopes (on the surface of mars) that was formed by contemporary moving water. There have been other signs of water on Mars before, but this time the conditions could possibly be thought of as more habitable. Even though the water on Mars would have to be pretty salty (to keep it from completely freezing on the cold and desert planet), this is still some helpful evidence towards hypothesis’ that were built on colonizing the planet.

This however, is just another stepping stone in the mission to Mars (for there are so many variables that need to be factored in) and correlation does not equal causation. As of now, there isn’t a way of actually being able to tell if Mars can support human life. With so many elements making it difficult for scientists to study Mars it could be years before we find another piece of evidence but there are many ongoing projects continuously trying to fulfill the questions we have.

For starters let me begin by listing everything I’m allergic to. All types of nuts, chocolate, anything with citrus, shellfish, tomatoes, wheat and dairy. Now it is probably difficult to think what I possible eat and the answer is literally nothing. So I figured with all my allergies there has to be way to eventually grow out of your allergies.

Allergies occurs when your immune system tries to fight harmless substances. When functioning correctly, your body’s defenses attack foreign invaders, like viruses. With allergies, the immune system mistakenly targets pollen, pet dander or certain foods, for example, sending molecules called immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies to orchestrate a “defense says livescience. But in most cases doctors have yet to figure out how people outgrow their allergies. Many theories show that your body just got accustomed to the allergen eventually releasing its not as big of a threat as the immune system thought. Because doctors have yet to find a reason for why allergies “disappear” it is a mystery of science. Doctors strategies with food allergies by giving small doses at a time to increase the exposure to the immune system. This is a dangerous approach when people like me are deathly allergic to nuts or any other type of food. recent study by doctors at Johns Hopkins University showed that the majority of kids won’t outgrow allergies until much later, possibly as late as age 16. Doctors say many allergies are hit or miss, sometimes you will grow out of them but more times than not you’re stuck with it for life.

For centuries women have played the maternal roles in society in America, it was not until recently that this social norm has begun to die. More and more women are entering the work place and taking over powerful positions. Due to women’s late entrance into the working world, women have definitely experienced many challenges. Despite the  obstacles women continue to persevere through the discrimination they face. When thinking about my own future I already consider the difficulties I may face as I begin to look for internships and jobs in the next couple of years. I know that young women across the country just like me have the same insecure thoughts as I do. This realization of mine brought me to conclude that women must have to focus strongly on their demeanor in the workplace especially because in some situations their every move is being watched. If all women including me were more confident about themselves, I feel that women would be more successful.

Over the course of the past ten years research has shown that women continue to have less self confidence than men and this lack of confidence is impending on women’s success. Claire Shipman an author of The Confidence Code shares that there is a large confidence gap between men and women. Shipman goes on to say that one is not born with confidence, they learn it, and with this she gives three recommendations on how to achieve confidence in the image below.

These three tips definitely sound helpful but exercising these skills in real life would be challenging.

The tips given to women trying to be more confident always connect to masculinity and achieving the level of confidence and assertion that men have. Shipman’s research has found DNA testing results and brain studies that highlight the differences between women and men that cause men to have a higher confidence level than women. One study proved that women’s brains are wired more to worry than males brains. Thus explaining why men are able to take more risks in the work place than women. Also studies have found that women are mainly raised to follow the rules while men are taught to be overconfident. Not only are women and men taught this at a young age but society also implements these societal norms through media. Transferring the findings of Shipman’s studies into the business world it can be assured that with more masculine traits women might be able to achieve more career wise.

The Standford Graduate School of Business recently published a new research using surveys, interviews, and observational data to determine how a women should act in the business world to achieve the most success. This study found that women who are able to have and control their aggression, confidence, and assertion, receive more promotions than most other women and men. This control of behavior is known as self monitoring, which is when an individual regulates their behavior to accommodate a certain social situation. Olivia O’Neil an assistant professor of management at George Mason University states, ”Women may have a ways to go, but their ability to be flexible in how they behave is leading to some extraordinary results. Some women are starting to go very high in the managerial ranks using this strategic approach.” O’Neil’s statement lines up with the findings of the research which were that self monitoring, masculine, women recieved, “1.5 times more promotions than masculine men, and about two times as many promotions as feminine men, regardless of whether the men were high or low self-monitors. They also received 3 times as many promotions as masculine women who were low self-monitors” (Rigoglioso, Marguerite). This behavior pattern clearly majorly benefits women in the work place. Although the last fact proves that in able to successfully use this behavioral pattern women must be both self monitoring and masculine.

From these studies I can conclude that with the balance of confidence, aggression, self monitorization, and assertion, women can definitely improve their behavior in the workplace to help them to be their most successful self!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anjali-varma/is-confidence-the-key-to-_b_7637504.html

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/researchers-how-women-can-succeed-workplace

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/researchers-how-women-can-succeed-workplace

Soylent, a “simple, healthy, affordable food”. Or is it? According to their website, Soylent is a “staple food” that can be a whole meal.  Some avid Soylent users use it almost exclusively for all their meals while others use it 2-3 times a week. So far there have been mixed results about this nutritional drink/meal, but first… whats the deal with Soylent?

Soylent comes in two forms: ready to drink ($34 monthly) or powder ($64 monthly). The ready to drink is made of soy protein, algal oil, isomaltulose, and “vitamins and minerals”. The powder includes brown rice protein, oat flower, sunflower oil, and “vitamins and minerals”. These meals are also vegan, lactose free, and nut free as well as being compliant of FDA guidelines. These drinks claim to give you the nutrients your body needs to be healthy but makes no claim to be a weight loss supplement.

Because it is a relatively new product, there aren’t many experiments being run on it but I did come across many personal blogs about the Soylent experience. Though I did find a blog that swore the chemical ridden products in Soylent would do terrible things to you such as give you diarrhea  ?. However, the woman who made this claim had never tried the product itself so she’s not the most reliable source.

Other blogs sang high praise for these meal drinks. The said they felt healthy and full and had no cravings for real solid foods. As impressive as that is, the results were even more impressive. One man lost 10 pounds over 30 days. According to his doctor, the weight was lost in a healthy way and his body fat dropped a whole percent. Another woman had many tests run before and after and all results yielded were great improvements from before the 30 days on Soylent.

Are these firsthand experiences enough to commit to such a life altering way of eating? For now, its impossible to say.  There should definitely be more experiments done to see what real benefits can be obtained from Soylent and products like it. It costs about a third of the average monthly spending americans do on food, so it might be a good alternative for poorer countries to avoid malnutrition and keep costs low. A double blind trial might be beneficial for this to ensure it is not due to the placebo effect of just from keeping people from eating terrible foods. Perhaps the results are due to a third confounding variable. Food and restaurants promote more and more eating, but by drinking their meals, consumers felt they had more time and energy.

This morning on the Blue loop I uncomfortably squeezed in between two people to grab the last open seat. The second I sat down I instantly noticed a stench coming from the man sitting right next to me. I began to move closer and closer to the women on the other side of me. This unfortunate situation led me to think about scent and attraction. Obviously when someone smells good it is more attractive than if a person smells bad, but can your own individual scent attract a specific person?

I found that the answer to this question is yes. Each person has an individual scent that is made up of genes that make up their immune system. The, “‘Odor print’ is part of a region of genes known as the major histocompatibility complex (MHC)” (Dove, Laurie). The major histocompatibility complex’s of mens are different from our own and we are attracted to the, “odor prints”, of men who have different immune systems than us. For example if I had a really weak immune system I would be more attracted to men with an “odor print” or scent that represented a strong immune system.

In a recent study , that looks further into scent and attraction, a group of males wore told to wear the same shirt two days. These shirts were then randomly assorted and given out to a group of women. The study found that, “Women were most attracted to men with an MHC most dissimilar from their own, while T-shirts worn by guys with similar MHC profiles tended to be rated as ‘fatherly’ or ‘brotherly’ but not sexually attractive” (Dove, Laurie).

The findings of this study prove that opposites really do attract.

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/13/the-power-of-smell-in-picking-sex- partners/

http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/men/sweating-odor/attractive-man-smell1.htm

Ever since studying history in middle and high school, I have been fascinated by World War II. Not only do I think that it is such a remarkable part in history, but I wonder how a. some people to cease to believe/admit that it ever happened and b. how Hitler managed to get all of these people to follow these systematic mass murders and help him execute them.

There has been a lot of research done of conformity in society and I remember that being something that was talked about when I was younger. You dress like your friends, you talk like your friends, etc.

We also all have our own sets of beliefs; we believe what comforts us and prevents us from feeling pain.

Hitler, in WWII, developed large-scale propaganda that he thrust upon Germany and his allies. He also created youth camps, known as Hitler Youth, where young boys were brainwashed in training camps.

The propaganda played a large role in facilitating this brainwashing during both WWII as well as in the 1950s in Korea. At the camps, Hitler had boys of the Aryan race shave their heads, march and showed them all propaganda. The children in these youth camps were taught to focus on “enemies” such as Jews and communists.

In this article, peer pressure convinced people that they were wrong. I think that this may have been what occurred in WWII; Hitler told people that they everyone aside from the Aryan race did not deserve to live and people slowly started assimilating to that idea.

In that study, researchers stated that 70% of the time participants changed their recollection of the film to match others in the group. The researchers conducting this study called these “socially induced memory errors”.

Scientists in the study said that this is not always a bad thing (key word being always). If this is indeed what happened or a social explanation for what transpired during WWII then it certainly came at a cost.

Work Cited:

http://www.naturalnews.com/038716_brainwashing_social_conformity_peer_pressure.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/weekinreview/06weiner.html?_r=1&

http://www.master-of-education.org/10-disturbing-pieces-of-nazi-education-propaganda/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2558424/Inside-Hitler-Youth-camps-youngsters-brainwashed-Nazis.html

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/effectiveorganization.aspx

We’ve all seen the countless horror movie scenes of headless bodies running around and lone blinking heads, but how much of it is actually scientifically accurate? And thinking beyond physical capabilities, would one still remain conscious post-decapitation? First, let’s define the conscious experience. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines consciousness as the “normal state of being awake and able to understand what is happening around you.”

According to molecular biologist Francis Crick (pictured to the left) in his novel, The Astonishing Hypothesis, consciousness is simply the result of “electrical activity in our brains.” This activity comes from neurotransmitters, which basically send signals to the brain from a plethora of neural networks. When living things experience physical or mental stimulation, these networks alert the brain, and we are able to understand sensations from our surroundings. Therefore, as long as electrical activity coming from these neurotransmitters are functioning in the brain, one could assume that the entity is experiencing consciousness. This activity can be observed through advanced technology, such as the electroencephalography (EEG) which looks at the brain waves.

Since decapitation is a frequently used procedure in putting down lab rats it is the perfect platform for testing said electrical activity, as well as the morality of the method. In 2011, a research group from Radboud University in the Netherlands performed an experiment in which they connected a sample of lab rats’ brains to EEG machines. After measuring each of their electrical activities, the researchers proceeded to decapitate the rats and measure the following changes in activity. The study found that the rats were in a state of cognition for about 4 seconds after their heads were removed, displayed by their brain activity being “between the 13 and 100-Hertz frequency band.” The Cleveland Clinic defines this state as the ability to mentally process things, meaning that the rats were able to think for a short period of time following their euthanization.

Despite this conclusion, scientists are still unable to discern whether or not the effect is the same in humans. However, it is very unlikely that we will every truly know, for human decapitation is not morally sound; therefore, further scientific research on the topic will be hard to continue. There are a few cases of past beheadings in which the moments following the procedure were recorded, particularly after undergoing the guillotine. The first case of a respondent severed head was in Francein 1793 where Emily Corday’s facial expression changed numerous times in the few seconds after it had been chopped off. Since the guillotine provides a clean sever, the brain undergoes no trauma, and will continue to retrieve signals until blood loss kills the entity. In 1905, Dr. Beaurieux conducted a study upon the execution of convict Henri Languille, where he recorded Languille’s activity for 30 seconds following the beheading. He noted that the severed head was able to open his eyes and focus them on the doctor when Beaurieux said his name. Even though further research on the topic in relation to humans is limited, scientists can gather research from prior cases of human decapitation and animal testing.

With gun control being a hot topic in America lately, I began to wonder if owning a gun affects your safety or risk of being involved in gun violence. Many people who own guns do so for supposed self-protection, but what are the statistics on the subject? Are gun-owners actually safer than those who go without?

More than 1/3 of U.S. citizens, or around 300,0000 people, live in a household in which someone owns  gun. In a 2014 gallup poll, 63% of Americans said they felt that having a gun in the house makes it a safer place. However, according to a 2014 meta-analysis published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, those with household access to guns are 3 times more likely to commit suicide and 2 times more likely to be victim of homicide.  Another national study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology stated that “regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.”

So what exactly are the risks and benefits of owning a gun? The American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine broke this issue down in a 2011 study. Between 2003 and 2007, 680 Americans were accidentally or unintentionally killed by firearms. 2/3 of those deaths occurred in home according to data from the National Violent Death Reporting System. In suicides between 2003 and 2007, an average of 16,790 per year were committed with guns. In the same time period, 12,045 homicides per year were committed with guns. With so many deaths being caused from guns in households, how many times have they been used in self-defense effectively? The Violence Policy Center said that in 2012, there were, “259 justifiable gun-related homicides, or incidents in which authorities ruled that killings occurred in self-defense.” The LA Times published an informative article in which it compared this number to the 1.2 million violent crimes that were committed in 2012, making the number of actual utilizations of weapons for self-defense pale in comparison.  Essentially, having a gun in your home means that a weapon in more accessible to anyone who enters- whether that be you or a family member or a complete stranger. While some people will always swear by keeping a weapon for self-defense, there are other methods of self-defense which may be as or even more effective. A study on the effects of victim action on the outcomes of crimes showed that people who used any type of self-defense method other than a gun were less likely to be harmed than those with guns.

The scientific community has come to the consensus that currently for the average person, the risks of owning a gun outweigh the possible benefits. Other factors such as the area you live in can affect your risks, however, so this advice is not necessarily true for everyone. Ultimately, it’s still up to the individual whether or not they chose to purchase a firearm and keep it in their home, but you can’t deny the statistics.

If you’ve ever people watched at the library, which you probably have considering any sight is better than the work in front of you, you’ve probably noticed that the majority of people have headphones in. Personally, I can’t do school work without listening to my current favorite music, but I know that “studying music” varies from person to person. I am currently sitting at the library right now listening to “Circle Down” by Ayer wondering if the catchy lyrics are distracting me from writing this blog. I know that I need music to do work, but would listening to music without lyrics or no music at all improve my ability to focus and or the quality of my work? This definitely isn’t the first time I’ve asked myself this question so I decided to look into the effects of listening to instrumental music, music with lyrics, or complete silence while studying.

According to the University of Phoenix, listening to music with lyrics can be distracting while you read, study, and write. The study found that your brain can struggle to process musical lyrics and do school work simultaneously. Doing these two actions at once is considered multi-tasking and research has found that multitasking can decrease your IQ by ten points.

In addition to this study researchers at the University of Wales Institute in Cardiff, United Kingdom found that students were able to study more efficiently in quiet environments than in environments with music playing. The study involved twenty five participants who were given a list of things in order to memorize. Participants were then tested on the list they had to memorize. It was found that those who listened to complete silence while studying did the best while students who listened to music while studying did the worst. Researchers concluded that the changing notes and words of music while memorizing an ordered list impaired one’s cognitive abilities. It makes sense that listening to music with lyrics hinders your minds ability to study as efficiently as it can without music. How can one resist repeating their favorite songs lyrics in their head or out loud as they jam along to it while studying, but singing those lyrics can easily distract one from the current material their studying. Imagine listening to “What do you mean” by Justin Bieber while memorizing terms for a bio exam, are you going to be focusing on the bio terms or remembering all the good times you had listening to this song? This led me to the last option besides silence; classical music.

In an experiment done by Macquarie University Professor William Forde Thompson, and his team played Mozart piano sonata while two groups of students read a passage. One group of students listened to a slow version of the Mozart piano sonata and the other group listened to a fast version of the Mozart piano sonata. Forde concluded that the student’s comprehension was only affected if they were in the group listening to the fast music. Forde proceeded to note that he thinks, “The reason why music doesn’t impact our thinking as much as it should is because music has the ability to put us in a better mood, which therefore increases our IQ.”

There are clearly various different opinions on listening to music while studying, but I think that the general take away is students should do what works best for them, whether its listening to silence, classical, or music with lyrics. Maybe if you feel your grades could potentially be better try switching up your background noise.

http://education.seattlepi.com/listening-music-doing-homework-affect-grade-school-1365.html

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/27/music-may-harm-your-studying-study-says/

http://www.spinedu.com/listen-music-studying/#.VhsZ3Xg-Dq0

When people say “ You guys have such great chemistry” it is not just a play on words. There is a difference between romantic love and love, love is being extremely close with your partner to where you become selfless. But romantic love is where the science comes in play, where things don’t just happen for a reason. Unfortunately I have yet to be in love, but when I talk to my parents about they always describe it as a “feeling” that just makes them love so strong.
There are many factors that play a role in romantic love. Physical appearance is one of those factors alongside social status. In the aspect of chemistry there are four chemicals in your brain that play the largest roles in deciding compatibility: dopamine, estrogen, serotonin and testosterone. Dopamine is a chemical released by nerve cells to send signals to other nerve cells. The brain includes several distinct dopamine systems, one of which plays a major role in reward-motivated behavior. Estrogen and testosterone is what gives women and men a sexual appetite. Estrogen is sex hormone of childbearing women, it is responsible for female characteristics and sexual functioning. Testosterone is the principal sex hormone responsible for the development of reproductive function in male vertebrates. The hormone also promotes the development of sexual male characteristics during puberty such as voice deepening and the growth of armpit, chest and pubic hair. Serotonin is a type of chemical that helps give off signals from one section of the brain to another.

Studies show that these chemicals are released when spending time with your loved one or sharing an intimate moment. There has been no experiments to determine that this is a fact but the “feeling” you get when your with the person you love isn’t just butterflies; it’s your brain becoming active. When you fall in love many chemicals are released such as oxytocin which has to deal with intimacy, sexual reproduction of men and women and childbirth before and after. Vasopressin is another chemical that is released after sex and is a hormone for long time commitment. There is science to love, you feel a certain way when you’re with someone because your brain is sending signals to the rest of your body. So there you have it! There is some science to love!

We have all had a craving for raw cookie dough from time to time, or we want cookies but are too lazy to actually bake them. Hearing that it is unsafe to eat in its raw form has been repeated over and over by everyone, but what is the reason for this?

Raw Cookie Dough

Eating raw cookie dough alone is not automatically dangerous. A great deal of valid sites advise against consuming it in its raw state, predominantly cookie dough that is homemade. The explanation behind this has to do with essentially only one additive that is usually in homemade cookie dough but not always in the cookie dough you find on the shelves– raw eggs. While overeating any kind of cookie dough in the raw may cause you nausea or a stomach pains, it will not cause you any real harm unless it has raw eggs. Overall, raw cookie dough should be intended for baking in your oven, not your mouth.

Cookie Dough Ingredients

So what is the factor that is so dangerous within eggs? Salmonella, the harmful bacteria found in raw eggs, is one of the most prevalent causes of food poisoning in the United States. Generally, symptoms occur 4-7 days and most people recover without any treatment, but in some cases this illness can require hospitalization. But, Salmonella can cause more serious illness in older adults, infants, and persons with chronic diseases. Salmonella is killed by cooking and pasteurization. Symptoms of Salmonella include diarrhea, fever, abdominal cramps, and vomiting; all things people generally do not desire.

Unfortunately, Salmonella does not create noticeable symptoms from the hens that then lay the eggs we consume. This, in turn, explains why eggs containing Salmonella go through hen houses undetected and onto our grocery store shelves. When the reoccurring complaints of ailments such as nausea and vomiting began to lead to hospitalization, people began to realize what was causing their sicknesses.  “This is what occurred in the 1980s, when egg-associated salmonella outbreaks in the northeastern United States killed dozens of people and sickened hundreds of others.” After these outbreaks, hen houses began to follow protocols to avoid the transmission of salmonella. Pennsylvania, particularly, helped in extinguishing this illness most of all by creating The Pennsylvania Egg Quality Assurance Program. This is a program that obligated farms that were participating in this movement, to test all of their baby hens for salmonella, and increase the sanitation in hen houses by stopping their hens from ever coming in contact with any rodents or other animals that may possess the bacteria, as well as refrigerating eggs at all times to prevent the multiplication of bacteria.

The Pennsylvania Egg Quality Assurance Program

Now I’m sure you are all wondering the same question: how likely is it for me to get Salmonella from raw eggs? In the 18 years since the The Pennsylvania Egg Quality Assurance Program began, the percent of harmful hen houses has decreased from 30 percent (from 38 percent to 8 percent). “In 1992, 26 percent of samples from Pennsylvania hen houses tested positive. Today, that’s down to 1 percent.” The risk of Salmonella from one egg was always very low. “just 2.6 per 10,000 eggs from infected flocks tested positive for salmonella in 1992.” In the present due to the help of this program that number has decreased over 50 percent (1.2 eggs in 10,000). And even so, within this 1.2 eggs many of the infected ones are found before placed on shelves for consumption.

So overall, the chance of Salmonella from raw cookie dough, or any other product containing raw eggs, is really low. You should still take precautions when going for a spoon full of cookie dough from the tub, but the chances of contracting Salmonella are very low. To stay on the safe side, I would recommend baking your cookies before you eat them… It tastes better and is safer.

Baked Cookies

When you look at another individual, what is the first thing you see? I know I always look at peoples smile, and most importantly their teeth. Good teeth can completely change a person’s appearance, and white teeth makes a great impact on how you look. So we all want to look attractive, but at what cost? Does whitening your teeth damage them? Are millions of dentists lining you up for financial disaster by whitening your teeth and then filling your cavities? Will you need to install crowns or veneers to hide damaged deteriorated teeth due to teeth whitening? I hope not, this information will be helpful when and if you take the plunge to whiten your smile.

White teeth make a difference

Let’s face it; you want family and friends to experience your true beauty every time they see you. First off, whitening your teeth is safe when used as directed. The American Dental Association suggests you consult with your dentist before whitening, but I always think that dentists would like to take your hard earned cash before buying cheaper products from the store, let’s face it, it’s a business being a dentist. You can pay hundreds of dollars for a professional to whiten your teeth or you can use an “at home kit” that can cost $15 to $80. Here’s what you can expect as far as side effects or complications from teeth whiteners, this goes for at home whiteners or products applied or bought at the dentist’s office. As mentioned in an article from the Cleveland Clinic, two common issues related to whitening your smile are mild gum irritation and tooth sensitivity. People often ask if whitening their teeth can damage enamel, and if used as directed, the answer is no. Most teeth whitening products work in minutes or even days, you can look at www.powerswabs.com or http://crest.com/en-us/3dwhite to see how whitening is quick and easy for any consumer.

A clinical trial was done to evaluate a light-enhanced in-office tooth whitening system in order to assess tooth color and safety, and they determined that after the treatment was completed, the use of light enhancement for in-office whitening leads to immediate color change, along with moderate-to-severe tooth sensitivity during and after treatment. There was increased tooth sensitivity during the treatment and for a short period following the treatment. There was no sign of any safety hazard, when used in small portions, although many people experienced sensitivity.

So go get that pearly white smile, walk down the street and show off your bright white choppers, because in the end, when you smile, it’s proven you improve your own mood and make other people smile back, making everyone who sees you happier.

Be Happy With a Bright White Smile