For many years now, there has been a claim that cracking your knuckles leads to arthritis in the future. Although this is a common belief, I still question if it is actually true. I’ve cracked my knuckles for years, despite my mom constantly telling me not to. My mom even went as far as to tell my doctor to tell me to not crack my knuckles. To my surprise though, my doctor said that cracking your knuckles has no correlation with arthritis. Although that made me happy to know, it made me question why such a common idea that arthritis can be caused by knuckle cracking was so easily rebuked by my doctor.

 

 

First of all, let me explain why people crack their knuckles and what they are actually doing when they crack them. Amanda Montell, author of the article The Real Reason You’re Addicted to Cracking your Knuckles explains that cracking your knuckles is basically a way to relieve pressure. After sitting in a position for a while, you want to stretch, and this is just a way some people do it. It’s similar to stretching your entire body, but instead it’s your joints. It gives the person a nice feeling, making it habitual and sometimes addictive (Montell 2016).  That nice feeling is felt when the person stretches their bones apart, popping the bubble of fluid that builds up between the bones according to Harvard Health Publications’ article called Does knuckle cracking cause arthritis?

 

If cracking your knuckles is a pressure reliever than why do people associate it with such a bad thing like arthritis? That made me wonder whether if the correlation with arthritis is actually causal or not. There are four possibilities:

1. Cracking knuckles directly causes arthritis.
2. Arthritis causes one to crack their knuckles (reverse causation).
3. There is a third variable that causes both arthritis and the cracking of the knuckles. For example, having a family history of arthritis might cause your arthritis and also stress you out, causing you to crack your knuckles.)
4. The correlation between knuckle cracking and arthritis is due to chance alone.

 

According to Steve Mirsky, author of Crack Research: Good news about knuckle cracking, Donald Unger published a study in 1998 to see if knuckle cracking really causes arthritis. He cracked his left knuckles in his hand twice a day for fifty years. He used the right hand as the control. After all those years, he found that both of his hands were fine, despite the difference in knuckle cracking. This study that he conducted earned him an Ig Nobel Prize (Mirsky 2009.) This study ruled out the direct and reverse correlation between knuckle cracking and arthritis. He established that there is no correlation between the two. Here, Unger failed to reject the null hypothesis, that nothing was going on. Similar to smoking, a person might not smoke but still get lung cancer. Having it only being tested on one person can make the results ultimately due to chance alone. Still though, it is possible that a third variable could cause arthritis and knuckle cracking in another person. Although Unger’s study was long, it was only experimented on one person, himself. If he had conducted it on more than one person, he may have had different results. That being said, although this was experimental, it wasn’t large enough to 100% conclude anything.

That being said, after researching more into this topic, I found a study conducted in 1990 by Jorge Castellanos and David Axelrod. In the study, they gathered 300 people 45 years old or older. They took into consideration third variables like evidence of possible muscular diseases, making sure no participants had them. Of the 300 tested, 226 did not crack their knuckles habitually and the other 74 were knuckle crackers. They took into consideration sex, smoking history, strength and other factors. After taking in all the factors, they concluded that there wasn’t a greater chance of arthritis in the habitual knuckle crackers over the non-knuckle crackers. They did do a further study that found habitual knuckle crackers had greater hand swelling, less strength, did more laborious things, were more likely to be smokers and drink alcohol. They did find that more non-knuckle crackers bite their nails (Castellanos, Azelrod 1990). The fact that non-knuckle crackers were found to bite their nails more may indicate that biting their nails is a way to relieve stress in imposition to relieving stress by cracking their knuckles. This study was observational because they didn’t ask certain people to crack their knuckles, but instead they just observed the effects.

Since the studies above are either observational or experimental but lacking enough evidence, I would want to conduct my own study. The study would be experimental, allowing me to manipulate the x variable. In the experiment, I would randomly select 1,000 students from Penn State. Each of the students would be asked the question, “Do you habitually crack your knuckles?” Based on that question, I would allocate the students into two groups. I would record the students age, history of arthritis, gender and muscular strength. I would then have them crack their knuckles every day for the next seven months. After the seven months, I would record the students hand strength again and also see if there are any possible signs of arthritis. I have to take into consideration though that not all the students may follow the instructions completely. Also I must keep in mind that signs of arthritis will probably not show up, that’s why I will make sure to look for decreasing muscular strength and any swelling that may appear in addition. Although this study is not perfect, you must keep in mind that the correlation between knuckle cracking and arthritis is like cancer and smoking. You won’t see any of the effects right away. That being said, it’s extremely hard to conduct an experiment over many years with many participants. You can’t trust that all the participants will follow the experiment’s rules or even stay in the experimental study for its entirety.

From these studies, I can conclude that knuckle cracking does not directly cause arthritis. Although reverse causation is unlikely, it is still a possibility. There isn’t enough information conducted to conclude that reverse causation is not possible. Both arthritis and knuckle cracking also may be both caused by a third variable like family history that indicates arthritis. Although this has been concluded, I still think that if one can, stopping or decreasing knuckle cracking is a good idea. Although knuckle cracking does not cause arthritis directly, it does cause other things. In an article by Mr. Mercola called Is Cracking Your Knuckles Harmful? he mentions the 1990 study mentioned above. He further explains that knuckle cracking can lead to swelling in the hands and essentially a decrease in grip strength (Mercola 2014). If possible, I think it’s best that one chances their habits to avoid hand issues in the future.

Sources:

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Source 4

Source 5 (make sure to click the PDF on the right side to view)

Photo Sources:

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

 

For those of you that do not know, Adderall is a popular drug among college and high school students that allows them to focus for a long duration of time. The drug requires a prescription from a doctor and is not an over the counter medicine. A bulk of its users are teenagers with ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) or ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder). The drug is not easy to get because one would have to be prescribed in order to buy. With that being said, the drug is so popular that it makes its way around high school and college campuses, and is being taken by people who are not even diagnosed with ADD or ADHD which raises concerns on its health benefits. In this blog I will discuss how the drug affects the human body.

First off, Adderall serves as a central nervous system stimulant which helps one study, control behavior, and pay attention which is why the drug is so widely used by students. An article posted by www.livescience.com summarizes how the drug stimulates the nervous system which can cause dilation of the pupils (In your eye), increased heart rate and blood pressure, and lastly increased sweating. Now what does all of this mean?

Due to how the drug stimulates the nervous system, Adderall can cause a wide range of affects, some more serious than others. www.Livescience.com reported  that Adderall affects can lead to; nervousness, restlessness, headaches, vomiting, loss of appetite and loss of weight. The more serious affects include; shortness of breath, slowed speech, faintness, seizures, hallucination, aggression, rash and hives.

Snorting Adderall also negatively impacts your respiratory system. This can lead to the ruination of your nasal and lung tissues, can cause your heart to have an irregular heartbeat, causes problems with circulation, and can lead to increased aggression and toxic shock. Snorting Adderall has been proven to be less affective and can cause long term damage to your brain. Next time you think about taking Adderall be cautious for you know now the damage it can do to your body.

 

Links:

http://www.livescience.com/41013-adderall.html

 

 

 

Age old phrases like “Do what you love, and love what you do” or “If you love your job, you’ll never work a day in your life” can be frustrating. Obviously, it’s easier said than done to find your passion. As college students, we face decisions everyday that challenge us to find our passions. Soon, we may even approach a decision as to whether we want to turn these passions into a career. We want to commit to something that excites us, inspires us, and motivates us – something that we love to do now and hopefully will love long term. Scientists are intrigued by the curiosity of where passion comes from, and how someone uncovers their destined passion. While countless theories exist and definitely no perfect process has been discovered, exploring a variety of hypotheses may allow us college students to find some direction as we explore the options of our future.

So, where does passion come from? According to this Fulfillment Daily article, passion is genetically rooted. This is mostly due to the fact that we usually are more inclined to love what we’re good at, and our innate skills are a product of our genes. The article discusses a study done at University of California that found between 22 and 36 percent of the variance in creative successes are potentially due to our variance in genetic skills. In simplest terms, it is scientifically established that being good at something can be partially attributed genetics. For instance, if someone is naturally athletic, they’re more inclined to enjoy playing sports. This scientific journal states that natural athleticism has proven to be associated with two specific genes, ACE I/D and ACTN3 R577X. This discovery was shaped by a meta analysis of 23 studies that statistically investigate the association between the ACTN3 gene and sport performance, which ended up being a positive association. Thus, an example where genes clearly contribute to the talent that would catalyze passion. In addition to genetics, the article brings forth the counter idea that environmental influences could be a somewhat confounding variable. Scott Barry Kaufman, the author of the Fulfillment Daily article discussed above, shares that he is passionate about music. While he attributes this passion to his natural musical talents, he also mentions that he grew up in a musical house. Along the same lines, people usually follow in the direction of parental influence in terms of their career choices. While this data is somewhat anecdotal, there has been countless studies of the “nurture vs nature” argument that would determine the true source of one’s passions. In my opinion, passions stem from a complicated combination of both genetic and environmental factors.

In addition, motivation also plays an integral role in what generates passion. We have all heard the age old question “what motivates you?” Apparently, the scientific answer is dopamine. When we partake in an activity we enjoy, our brains release dopamine to stimulate our motivation towards that activity. This Forbes article discusses an experiment done with rats that found rats with higher levels of dopamine were more likely to tackle the obstacle of climbing a fence to reach an edible award than rats with lower levels of dopamine. Therefore, if we’re naturally motivated to do something, we are most likely passionate about it too. This concept ties back to our genetically gifted stills as well, think about it in terms of the naturally athletic person example… if someone is naturally athletic, they’re probably highly motivated to practice and play.  

Here’s the catch: We obviously can’t see our genes, and we have a somewhat subjective view of how our environment has truly shaped us. We generally know what motivates us, but sometimes it’s hard to pinpoint. Thus, how does one find their passion? In terms of career passions specifically, this blog claims that an answer to this question could be the Self Determination Theory. This well acclaimed and popularly verified hypothesis states that passion is built on autonomy, competence, and relatedness. One will be passionate about something if they have autonomy, or the ability to control their involvement in the activity. Next, the competence relates to the ability to do something well (which ties back to our inborn abilities and environmental experiences). Finally, the presence of relatedness, or the ability to collaborate and connect with your co-workers and community. An activity or career that meets these three criterias sufficiently is a good sign that this could be a passion worth investing in.  

I believe these three principles that make up the Self-Determination theory are valuable and valid tools in finding one’s passion. They encourage self-reflection, which is necessary in finding something that fits you best. However, I am skeptical of the fact that there can only be ONE passion that someone can commit to for a career. For instance, someone can be passionate about money, which could lead to many careers. However, they could be passionate about teaching, which only would lead to one. This variance in the implication of a passion makes a single commitment challenging, which is I agree with implementing the theory presented in this Psychology Today article into one’s journey to their passion. The article presents a multi passionate approach, encouraging people to see every aspect of their life with “positive passion energy.” This is the act of creatively building the connection between yourself and a given activity to create passion, almost a manual release of the dopamine that would motivate you to enjoy something. Obviously, I recognize it is unrealistic to love everything you do, but I feel like having this sort of attitude will highlight your primary passions while making everything underneath them a little more enjoyable.
In your search for your own passion, remember that science has found that passions can stem from a variety of origins, such as your genes, environment, and motivations. In order to discover these passions, self reflection is vital. In addition, it is important to pay attention to how much freedom you feel while partaking in something, and how rewarded you feel afterwards. Most importantly, whether you’re set on a passion or you’re still searching, it is proven to be beneficial to see the world like you’re capable of being passionate about anything. An open-minded and positive outlook will illuminate the things you truly love to do.

According to biblical legend, humans in a time before our time at one point attempted to build a tower so tall and magnanimous as to reach the heavens. Hundreds of thousands of men worked on the tower, known as the Tower of Babel; but God, despising humanity’s ambition to reach his abode, laid a curse upon the people so it would all come crumbling down: He cut the entire project by its roots by destroying its very foundation, the organisation of the workers. God made the men speak different languages from each other, creating chaos and confusion, ultimately bringing down mankind’s dreams of reaching heaven forever. This, according to Abrahamic mythology, is the origin of the many languages spoken today, and why some people can’t understand each other even though they may look alike and live in the same land.

This myth was inspired by the thousands of years old perception that languages, while useful to communicate with those who understand you, can create problems with those who don’t. Language is the mother of culture, and different cultures have been fighting for dominance over those they see as foreign or inferior for ages – the word “barbarian” itself has its origin in the ancient Greeks, who said the languages of the non-Greek savages were no more than grunts and sounded like “bar-bar-bar-bar”. Language barrier is so potentially divisive that whole empires have fallen because of it, and even today, in a deeply interconnected world, it causes misunderstandings and factionalism. Recently, however, the always ambitious Google has announced a tool that may be the first generation of what could one day end the language barrier altogether: the GNMT System.

The GNMT, an acronym for “Google Neural Machine Translation”, is a new technology that uses Artificial Neural Networks (something Google has been using for quite some time now) to learn the connection between an input phrase (a sentence spoken in language A) and its related output (a sentence heard in language B). While older tools such as online translators break up sentences into individual words and rearrange them into a roughly equivalent sentence in the desired language, – very often creating nonsensical constructions – the Neural Machine considers the entire phrase as an unit of translation to output something that would make sense in the target language. This behaviour mimics how humans perceive language; while machines tend to process everything in units (in this case, words), the human brain processes context and ideas to create meaning.

It also aims to solve a big problem in modern translation: namely, the infamously mismatched pair that is English to Mandarin Chinese and vice-versa. As of the public announcement of the new technology, Google has been using the GMNT System in their translator, raising the quality of the roughly 18 million translations made everyday in the two languages.

It is not, however, perfect. The GMNT still suffers from many issues that plague digital translation, such as disregarding context in paragraphs and focusing on the phrases themselves and mistranslating uncommon terms or proper names, but it is a massive step in the direction of universal translation. By applying a loose interpretation of Moore’s law, it’s safe to say that the next generations of Neural Translation software will become incrementally more refined and sophisticated, possibly even generating flawless translations by the end of the century. While the new system still isn’t even accurate and fast enough to be used for every language in Google Translate, only time will tell what its equivalent will look like a mere twenty years from now.