I spend more time then I’d like on Facebook. In the morning, while trying to get up out of bed, I’ll check Facebook. While waiting in any line, I’ll check Facebook. While I’m at home writing a blog post, I’ll check Facebook. I check Facebook a lot. I’d honestly like to use it less. I think it’s a waste of time. In the interest of science, I decided to check if it was actually a waste of time. As it turns out, it is actually beneficial.

The original face book.

I found a study from Elsevier titled “Social networking sites and cognitive abilities: Do they make you smarter?” At first with that title I assumed I’d find a study confirming our parent’s negative attitude towards millennials- that we are wasting our time on Facebook and should be doing our homework. But, the abstract confirmed that the opposite was true.

As it turns out, social networks not only increase levels of social connectedness (duh), but people who use them they tested higher in working memory, verbal ability, and spelling, but not math. At first I was surprised by these results. How could mindlessly scrolling through wedding pictures, vacation pictures, angry posts about Donald Trump, kindhearted statuses about people’s days, you get the idea… how could that seemingly useless task I use to pass the time, be helpful? I decided to look at the study through a fine toothed comb.

First, the researchers found a UK high school they felt was nationally representative- essentially they looked at test scores, to determine general intelligence, and free school meals- to control for socio-economic status. They selected 104 of these high school students (I assume in a random sample because it doesn’t say) between the ages of 12 and 18, and tested them. They were tested using various attainment tests (essentially like every test you took in high school) and an IQ test (which the study concluded was unaffected by Facebook use). The attainment tests tested verbal ability, working memory, learning outcomes, and a social connectedness scale. Afterwards, they were surveyed on their tech use, specifically on how long they used social media and YouTube.

The average UK high school.

This data was then used to answer three questions about social media use as it relates to cognitive ability and social connectedness. They compared the results of those who had been using Facebook longer and found they did better than those who had been using it for less than a year. They also compared frequency of specific Facebook activities to related scores on the various tests and found that no specific Facebook actions, like posting or chatting, had significant effect on test scores. It was using Facebook as a whole that contributed to the higher scores.

This study was full of data. At first, I was concerned by the number of people in the study. 104 is not a lot. I was also confused by the results because they seemed contrary to what made sense. But I thought about it. Some schools are not that big. The school they found may have been small, but nonetheless a good random and unbiased sample of UK school kids. I also considered the results. The results indicated there was no difference in IQ or math scores. Which makes sense. There is no math on Facebook and doing any simple activity is not going to affect your IQ. All that did increase were skills directly related to what you do on Facebook.

A typical user hard at work.

The paper itself admitted that a working memory activity was very similar to using Facebook. In a working memory activity, a participant has to process and manipulate information and use it to guide their next action. The same is true of Facebook. A user sifts through a lot of information and processes and manipulates it to decide whether to comment, continue reading, or move past it. Based on this, the fact that YouTube (which they essentially used as a control) had no real effect on anything, and the knowledge that overuse of Facebook eventually has a negative effect on GPA, I was satisfied with the study.

I am now happy to know that Facebook, while seemingly mindless, has a positive effect on those that use it. So, it is not a complete waste of time and in a way it does make people smarter. Moving forward, I wonder what the results of a larger study would be. Would Facebook still be seen as helpful? Furthermore, how would Facebook use compare to websites like Reddit or Tumblr? All I know is, it seems probable that every waste of time may have some benefit after all.

Sources: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tracy_Alloway/publication/257171372_Social_networking_sites_and_cognitive_abilities_Do_they_make_you_smarter/links/545f91cf0cf27487b450a7ed.pdf

Photo Links: http://bespokebug.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Necronomicon-dead-skin-mask-book-cover-975×1204.jpg

http://az616578.vo.msecnd.net/files/2016/07/01/6360301337384476291643848570_hogwarts%20.jpg

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1143446/images/o-FACEBOOK-USER-NUMBERS-facebook.jpg

The question of hair in general has always intrigued me, well, truthfully, it has often grossed me out, quite frankly. I come from a rather large family with one older brother and younger twin sisters.  We all shared one bathroom growing up and I was disgusted when I took a shower after my sisters, who have very long hair. The drain was constantly filled with masses of hair that they left behind for me to clean. As you may imagine, there were many screaming matches that ensued. Too Much Information possibly, but cleaning out hair that is more than 12 inches in length is just too much to handle early in the morning. So, why does hair on all other parts of your body stay short, while the hair on your head can grow very long?

I’ll start with a few fun facts about hair provided by the American Academy of Dermatology How Hair Grows are; that the only places hair doesn’t grow on our bodies are the soles of our feet and the palms of our hands; hair you can see is actually dead, which is why you don’t feel pain when you get your haircut; and, we lose anywhere from 50 to 100 strands of hairs a day!

To get to the answer to the question, it is important to first understand the science in hair growth. Every human is born with about 5 million hair follicles, the small cavities from which hair reaches the surface of our skin. Anagen, defined here, is the growth cycle and the first phase of hair growth. It occurs when blood flow enters into the hair follicle and feeds oxygen to stem cells.  When these stem cells divide they form keratinocytes, defined here, which are the building blocks for the root of a hair. As keratinocytes continue to divide and push towards the surface of the skin, they die and form keratin, defined here, which is the protein that holds a strand of hair together. This process continues until the strand, which is then dead, pops through the follicle to the surface of your skin. The second phase of hair growth is called Catagen, defined here, or the regression phase, which lasts for up to two weeks. About 3% of our hair is in this phase at all times. In this phase, the blood supply gets cut off at the bottom of the follicle which stops the creation of keratinocytes. This phase stops the growth of hair in that follicle and the follicle shrinks and pushes the strand to the surface. The third phase is called Telogen, defined here, or the resting phase in which hair does not grow any further. About 8% of our hair is in this phase at all times. It is in this phase that the hair that can be seen above the skin falls out. This is the phase in which we lose those 50-100 strands of hair per day.

The answer to the question of why does the hair on all other parts of your body stay short, while the hair on your head can grow very long is in the Anagen, or the first phase of hair growth. Hair grows at a rate of about 1 cm every 28 days.  The hair on our heads grows continually for 2 to 6 years in this phase as compared to other parts of our body like our eyebrows, eyelashes, arms and legs, which only grow for up to 45 days. Interestingly, hair on different parts of our bodies grow at different rates per month. For example, eyebrows grow at a rate of only 4.2mm per month.

In conclusion, scientists have figured out the way in which hair grows and the speed in which grows. They are, however, still trying to conclude how the Anagen phase is driven for each body part.  Genetics play a role to some degree distinguished by different hair types. Chemical growth signals directed by stem cells in the skin is the most current determination as to how our hair grows. While we might not know exactly how each body part knows not to allow hair to grow too long, we can all be thankful that certain areas don’t grow hair like the hair on our scalps.

Sources:

https://www.aad.org/public/kids/hair/how-hair-grows

http://www.zmescience.com/other/science-abc/how-fast-hair-grows-042394/

Images:

http://www.belgraviacentre.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Hair-Growth-Cycle-White.jpg

http://cdn7.connery.dk/image/box/236158/1290/10000.jpg?

oversize=1http://images.agoramedia.com/wte3.0/gcms/pg-baby-skin-conditions-bare-baby-feet-full.jpg

http://www.theseedofhope.com/assets/content/Fotolia_5208645_M%20hands.jpg

Any time I think of any cleaning supplies I automatically remember the heinous smell of bleach. I used to work in a daycare and whenever someone had an accident the teachers would use bleach and the room would wreak of poison. The other teacher’s in my classroom did not mind the smell of bleach, and they actually got excited because they felt a lot cleaner while teaching around such a germ infested environment.With such a strong smelling scent I couldn’t help but wonder if the smell was harmful to breathe in for the children and for the adults.

From an article on Science Direct , a study was conducted to determine the indoor effects of different cleaning products. California Air Research Board conducted this experiment using three different cleaning methods: a general cleaning spray, a degreasing product and a scented-oil freshener that would typically be plugged into a wall. The objectives studied in the experiment was mainly the amount of ozone that would be formed in the air and the volatile carbonyl reaction products formed with the use of these cleaning supplies. The scientists tested the air quality with each of the products. The conclusion of the experiment that the use of certain cleaning products inside a space that already has indoor ozone inside of it can contain secondary air pollutants that the people in that room are exposed to. The study determined that air fresheners are not as strong as cleaning products such as bleach because when they are plugged in they take longer to emit the chemicals. Even though these products take longer to emit, they contain a harmful organic compound called terpenoids. These harmful organic compounds create secondary pollutants which can be dangerous for someone to breathe in.

I think that people like the idea of using the cleaning products with such potent smells because they believe that they work stronger to kill the germs. I recommend not using strong cleaning supplies frequently and to use different products that are known to be environmentally friendly. Some recommendations that can be substituted for these harmful cleaning products are baking soda which can be used with a sponge and MoSo natural air freshener. These two products can be used without harming the environment and your body.

Sources:

Science Direct :http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231006006364#bib37

Non-toxic Air Fresheners: https://gimmethegoodstuff.org/safe-product-guides/air-fresheners/

We’ve all been there. Sitting in a dead silent classroom, focusing on the exam, when suddenly you hear this loud and unsettling roar coming from your stomach. Really? You do this now? I think to myself.  Though I’ve always despised bodily noises in general, they’re natural and a commonality in all of us. But what makes our stomachs growl? That’s what I’m here to investigate today.

TV Tropes

What I found

To my surprise, there were a lot of articles and/or professionals reporting on this matter, so I’m glad I’m not the only one hung up on stomach growls (though I’m sure I could utilize my time for more important matters)!  Also, to my surprise, just because your stomach is growling does not necessarily mean it’s seeking food. Let’s dig a little deeper.

How your systems works

Mark A. W. Andrews, a professor of physiology at Lake Eerie College, breaks it down for us: Basically, the rumbling stems from interactions between the stomach and small intestines as they break down and process a mix of food, gas, and liquid, this concept is known as “borborygmi”. These interactions go on constantly, they just tend to be more noticeable once there is a lack of food.  The muscle cells in the stomach and small intestines actually work in a small rhythm, 3 and 12 times per minute, to be exact.

So why is my stomach making noise?

According to Sonia Gulati, the interrupting growls can stem from numerous reasons, not just hunger. For instance, being as your digestive system is working 24/7, most of the time it is still digesting from your previous meal(s). Muscle contractions called peristalsis move the food along, turning everything into what’s called chyme. However, the grumbling doesn’t just come from digestion; by merely breathing, gas gets into our system and is also a contributor. Another factor could be incomplete digestion, meaning foods like lactose, gluten, etc., may not be able to be digested properly, leading to an influx of noise in your tummy. Lastly, the obvious, hunger. Basically, hormones in your body tell your brain, “hey, it’s lunch time!”, which releases gastric juices and muscle contractions in the stomach. This is often the loudest roar because your stomach is empty, so the grumbles echo and cause the classroom disruption.

Meme Center

Is there anything I can do?

Dr. Michael Kessler released an article noting the tips and tricks of avoid overactive stomach rumbles. He suggest drinking more water and eating a healthier diet. Diet can have a huge influence on your digestive system. He suggest eating meals with more fiber, and eating smaller meals more frequently, so your tummy is constantly full and busy digesting. Also, he advises to get a good night’s sleep – who knew sleep could even play a factor in your digestive system?! He suggests other remedies like physical activity, stress management, and good hygiene. So, though they won’t “cure” your stomach growling, it may assuage the discomfort for the time being.

Conclusion

To sum it up, you’re stuck with your overactive stomach growls for life, sorry about that. However, now you know that just because your stomach is growling, doesn’t mean you’re hungry! You can also give Dr. Kessler’s tips a try to try and limit the embarrassing moments in a quiet classroom. If I had to offer a piece of my own advice, I’d say keep a couple of small snacks on you at all times! I have a stash of granola bars at the bottom of my bag at all times in case of hunger emergencies (like in class).

Pinterest

Sources

“Why Does Your Stomach Growl When You Are Hungry …” Scientific American. N.p., 21 Jan. 2002. Web. 20 Oct. 2016.

Gulati, Sonia. “Borborygmi: What Causes Those Stomach Noises?” Symptonfind. N.p., 27 June 2014. Web. 20 Oct. 2016.

Kessler, Michael. “8 Natural Remedies for Stomach Gurgling.” Doctors Health Press. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2016.

A very controversial  topic in the world of science is animal testing. I believe that animal testing is crucial for the day in age that we live in. Animal testing is the use of non-human animals in order to research and develop pretty much anything from food and drugs to experiments on certain parts of the body. The most common animals used in animal testing are rats and rabbits I would assume because they are very fast at reproducing. Animal experimentation is looked upon by some as a perfect way to explore studies and test drugs; unfortunately others see it as animal cruelty.

Animal testing has been practiced for over 2000 years, and over 26 million animals are tested in the United States every year. According to the California Biomedical Research Association, ” Every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted from some sort of animal testing” if true that is very critical in the argument that animal testing is indeed a huge benefit. A perfect example of Animal testing being a success is with the polio vaccine, according to Animal-testing.org in 1988 there were 350,000 cases of polio, the vaccine was tested first with animals to see if it would work, in 2012 there was 233 cases in the United States. For the people who are against animal testing, there needs to be an alternate to testing on animals, there currently is no alternative. Even if we were to test humans there is a chance we wouldn’t be as good of a test component because we live so long; the shorter life cycles of animals is better to deal with in an experiment.

Then there is people who are against Animal testing for various reasons most people could understand. Animals being forced into chemical testing doesn’t sound like something that is very appealing to us. Even though there are many great discoveries that have come from Animal testing there is still some factors that people need to know about. Stated on this website it mentions something along the lines of the body make up of animals is so different than humans that many things that work very good in animals actually fails more than 80% of the time once it is tested in humans. Obviously animal rights activists are not big fans about animals being apart of prolonged lab tests but I would say that all in all Animal testing need to continue on considering all of the breakthroughs that have come from it.

In conclusion, Animal testing is good, here is a video on how the polio vaccine had such an impact on society. The pros absolutely out weighs the cons, they are aiding research for sickness at rapid rates that the science world has not ever seen before. Countless people have been cured through medication founded through animal testing and through our lives many more huge breakthroughs are on the way.

link

link

Photo Courtesy of Brigham Young University

In class Andrew discussed some possible methods for preventing phone use in classrooms. Most people can agree that using phones and technology in the classroom might bring on some distractions. People just cannot wait to see why their phone vibrated and who just posted something on social media. I am no exception to this habit. Some students call themselves “multitasking masters”. They claim the ability to multitask by doing schoolwork and using technology to socialize with friends all while efficiently completing their work. My friends constantly boast about their multitasking abilities so I wanted to find out whether they could be justified in their remarks. The first study on the topic I considered was published by Elsevier with ScienceDirect. The main goal of the study was to examine the relationship between multitasking and academic performance, particularly in terms of GPA. I know that I personally am not as efficient while multitasking, however it would be an anecdote to simply say that since I cannot do it, other people must not be capable of doing it either.

The methods for the study involved a sample size of more than 3800 U.S. college students. The students were asked numerous questions regarding their study habits as well as use of technology in the past two days. They were also asked how much time the student uses ICT while doing schoolwork at the same time. The study accounted for a huge number of third variables including ones such as gender, ethnicity, parents education, and much more. The student’s high school GPA was used as a control variable in this case.

The study found a linear regression that using technology for social media and unrelated topics have a negative effect on a student’s GPA. The proposed mechanism for why multitasking with technology and schoolwork is not effective makes a lot of sense. The study brings up the point that because the human brain cannot focus on two things at once, it will take you more time to get the same amount of studying done if you are getting distracted by technology and social media. When students try to multitask they end up not processing their schoolwork which is likely why there is a negative correlation between “multitasking” and a student’s overall GPA.

Photo Courtesy of Powerofpositivity.com

Neuroscientist Earl Miller explains that it is truly impossible to multitask (NPR). However, even though we can’t multitask we can still switch tasks at an astonishing speed.

While this study does seem to be rather convincing, there are some concerns that might arise from the results. First of all, using student’s high school GPA’s as a control variable could lead to incorrect conclusions. In my opinion, you should not compare high school and college GPA’s to make conclusions about one’s multitasking abilities. Another possible confounding variable is the method in which students multitask. Some students might check their phone every 15 minutes, while others are constantly looking at their phone or other technology. The most serious limitation to this study is that it cannot accurately rule out third variables and failed to rule out reverse causation. Is multitasking causing a lower GPA or is a lower GPA causing multitasking, or maybe it is a third variable that causes both.

Even with the many flaws, the study was able to provide some key data that helps to configure a conclusion on this topic. Other studies provide evidence that multitasking while doing schoolwork is not as efficient than if a person was not attempting to multitask. Although you still may think you can multitask while doing schoolwork, it’s probably a good idea to put your phone away and log off of facebook so that you do not get distracted. When I do work I have to turn off my phone to avoid getting distracted. I find myself much more focussed and efficient without the distractions.

Works Cited:

Hamilton, Jon. “Think You’re Multitasking? Think Again.” NPR Research News, National Public Radio, 2 Oct. 2008, www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95256794. Accessed 19 Oct. 2016.

“The relationship between multitasking and academic performance.” Elsevier, vol. 2, no. 52, Sept. 2012, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036013151100340X. Accessed 18 Oct. 2016.

Weimer, Maryellen. “Students Think They Can Multitask. Here’s Proof They Can’t.” Colorado State University, old.biz.colostate.edu/mti/tips/pages/Students-Think-They-Can-Multitask—Here’s-Proof-They-Can’t.aspx.

Have you ever taken a deep breath and pulled in a smell that brought back a passed relative? Or smelled a hoodie of someone you loved and just knew it belonged them? My dad still smells his dad throughout our house on old shirts. Smell is very powerful. My favorite smell is the smell of my grandparents’ house. Every time I enter that house and smell the memories in that house, it changes my whole day.

The olfactory nerve, the nerve that brings smell from your nose to your brain, runs along the same path within your brain as your memories. Therefore, it is very easy for smells to provoke memories. Psychology Today and Penn State’s Dr. Lewis explains how the olfactory bulb is directly associated to both the hippocampus and the amygdala. Both of these are strongly tied to emotion and memory. There is nothing better than running into a great old scent that brings back days worth of great memories. What is not so great is when smells bring back negative memories and emotions for people such as those with PTSD.

Another negative effect of this connection is a new study being done including smell and pain. In online Science Advances, it was seen that mice that slept in the same bedding as those mice that were in pain tended to be more sensitive to pain themselves. Neurologist Andrey Ryabinin had a goal to study through mice, whether pain could be sensed through that same olfactory bulb.  The mice within this study specifically were mice suffering from alcohol withdrawal. These mice in pain had developed a very low pain tolerance and were very sensitive to the touch of an extremely thin fiber. It was very evident within its cagemates that the same mice that were completely comfortable and healthy up until this point became equally as sensitive to the touch of the fiber. Ryabinin and colleagues tested these mice otherwise through several other tests. These showed quick reactions such as pulling thier tails out of hot water and licking thier paws after been given shots.

Neuroscientist Christian Keysers does a good job at looking at third variables. He states how he believes the data is strong enough to prove that scent can transmit pain, however he also looks at the other senses of the animal noting that sight and sound could very well be the causal variable. While the scent could be bringing the sensitivity, its very possible that the other senses could be working as the causal variable and creating the dependent variable, the sensitivity.

The overall claim however of the study is that the causal variable, scent, is creating a sensitivity to pain that only animals are able to sense. Because humans lack the olfactory skill that animals do, we are unable to experience this for ourselves in order to clarify this study. The dependent variable is seen as the sensitivity or lowered pain tolerance. Its possible that reverse causation could be at work here. In order for reverse causation to be influencing this study, we would have to be able to say that the sensitivity is causing the smell. This is very possible. If the mice feel overly sensitive to pain, this may cause them to feel weaker and to almost wear away. Referring to anything that usually rots or wears, a bad smell may or may not be a part of the outcome. Although this is unlikely, it is a possibility.

As stated above, Keysers does look into possible third variables. There are several different variables that need to be taken into consideration. The simple fact that the mice under test are suffering from alcohol withdrawal is a huge part of the experiment that makes us question the existence of  third variables. Mice that have been under the influence of alcohol, could have aquired some mental difficulties that cause them to be ultra-sensitive to touch or pain and could rule out the scent’s influence. Additionally, we need to look at the type of mouse. Studying with a single breed of mouse makes it hard for scientists to know whether or not the reaction truely was based off the smell or if that specific breed of mouse tends to be sensitive in general.

Another difficulty I see with this study is how they measure the pain of the mice. When they tested the mice by dipping their tails and giving them shots, could the reactions simply be the third variable of a natural reaction? This is something that needs to be addressed. It seems as if correlation does not equal causation when it comes to these mice.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/mice-smell-share-each-others-pain

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brain-babble/201501/smells-ring-bells-how-smell-triggers-memories-and-emotions

I have always had lingering questions of whether I was born with fears or not? Everyone has different things that scare them more than others. For me it is heights and the thought of running into dangerous animals. Nothing is worse than climbing a tall building or structure to see the amazing views they may facilitate and as soon as you reach the edge you feel like your stomach just drops to the ground.
Maybe even worse having the occasional thought or dream that an alligator is going to bite our leg off, while we casually swim of the shore of the Florida coast. What triggers us to have these fears when we may have never even seen an alligator before?

Visual Cliff

In 1960 two psychologists named Eleanor J. Gibson and R.D. Walk from Cornell University, set out to test the depth perception of humans and animals. They made a device that was partially connected to the table and partly free hanging. They placed a table cloth over the table and then a piece of Plexiglas over the entire structure. It created the illusion that there was a four foot drop from the table to the floor, but in reality the piece of glass creates a stable surface area over the entire apparatus. They then placed infants who have reached the crawling faze and recorded their reaction in regards to the “visual cliff”.

Null Hypothesis– Humans learn to have the fear of heights

Alternate Hypothesis– Humans inherit the fear of heights from potential danger

The babies mother or caregiver would stand opposite the baby in the attempt to encourage the baby to cross over the visual cliff. According to the study, out of the 36 infants that were placed inside, 27 of them crossed to their mother. The 9 that did not cross were described as being “confused” about the drop between them and their. Even though some of them acknowledged the glass by hitting it, they still refused to cross. Being that 3/4 of the babies crossed and the other 1/4 had a fear while acknowledging the glass, enough to reject the alternate hypothesis? There may have been a third confounding variable that was unrecorded. If the babies see approval from their mother, they may lose the fear and recognize it as acceptable if their mother approves of it. The visual cliff was also tested on various animals such as kittens. In the test with kittens they recognized the cliff and potential danger, so they moved as far away into the corner they could. In this case we would be able to accept the alternate hypothesis saying newly born kittens already had the fear of heights without a third confounding variable of a mother there.

According to Nation Post, in a more recent study done by the researchers at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta they used mice as a subject. They would administer the smell of blossoms along with a slight electric shock. They used this so the mice would fear the smell of blossoms, because they expect to get shocked. They then used the offspring of those mice to what would happen. In fact, the study found that when the blossom smell was released for the offspring the had an increase in fear even though they had never been shocked themselves. I think this is pretty conclusive evidence but as always correlation does not equal causation.

Sources: Source 1 Source 2 Source 3

Like most of the population on Earth, I am guilty of sleeping with my phone. Everyone is guilty of sleeping with their phone because let’s face it, we all look at our phones before we go to bed. Whether we are on the internet, refreshing our social media feeds or answering some text messages we are on our phones unaware of the dangers it possesses.

According to this article, sleeping with our phones on our night stand causes us to experience things such as nightmares, the inability to sleep and even waking up several times in the night. The reason why is because cell phones are still connected the base connections with radio transmissions. Meaning that cell phone’s constantly radiate electromagnetic waves into the environment making us catch all of the waves. Experts on this subject believe that you should keep your cell phone at least three feet away from you when you sleep. They also offer alternatives to making sure that we have a restful sleep. One way is to turn your phone off at night, this means that you can still keep it on the nightstand, or another unpopular option is putting your phone somewhere in your house, like the kitchen or living room. The reason why this is unpopular is because people like to keep their phones near them in case of emergency. If this is still a problem you can keep your phone on and next  to you at night, just turn off the wifi or internet connection.

Recently the biggest problem with sleeping with your phone is actually sleeping with your phone under your bed. People across the world have slept with their phone charging under their pillow. You can set your pillow on fire from doing this. From different reports, people have stated that when they wake in the middle of the night to their phone burning they are most likely to find their sheets scorched and their phone melted. This is extremely dangerous to our health, and you can even get severe burns from sleeping on it. The boy in the article received a radiation burn from sleeping on his phone after returning home from work.

Finally the last reason to not sleep with your phone is because you have the chance of getting cancer. When we are sleeping the electromagnetic radiation pumps out of your phone causing you to get all of it. Too much of this can cause us to get cancer. The Huffington Post stated that the electromagnetic radiation coming your phone is possible carcinogenic. It also suggests that you keep your phone away from you when you sleep or have your disconnected from the Internet or on airplane mode. In short, the best way to make it so you do not have to buy a new phone, pillow or pay hospital bills is to keep your phone away from you and off.

Sources:

Girl awake with phone picture is found here.

Girl with many electronic devices picture is found here.

Girl asleep with phone picture is found here.

My mother is the biggest advocator for moisturizing. For as long as I can remember, she has been constantly trying to find the best moisturizer for her skin.  Her moisturizer obsession has rubbed off on me. I use a combination, which I can thank my mother for discovering, of an unscented vitamin E lotion and regular coconut oil to moisturize my face and body. Using both these products everyday, I got to thinking, what are these products actually doing for my body? My mom always told me to moisturize and keep my skin young for as long as possible and prevent wrinkles. I wondered, does moisturizing actually prevent wrinkles?

Wrinkles are slight lines or folds in the skin of the face. They occur when the collagen fibers in the skin break down. Stress, aging, and environmental factors, such as sun exposure or smoking, cause wrinkles. Some of these factors like sun exposure, hydration, smoking, and drinking are controlled variables and can be altered by the individual. Others like stress and aging are confounding variables that cannot be altered. Genetics and skin type can also play a role in susceptibility to wrinkles. People with oily skin typically have less wrinkles because the excess of oil being produced also acts like a built in moisturizer. Drier skin accentuates wrinkles on the face. According to this article, moisturizing does not get rid of wrinkles, but it can help in prevent or conceal the severity of them

A moisturizers job is to prevent dry or oily and hydrate skin after it has been cleaned. Moisturizing can help prevent tearing or bruising of the skin. A moisturizer works to improve the appearance of a wrinkle by making the wrinkle less deep. When moisturizer is applied, the skin absorbs the moisturizer. The skin puffs up and lessens the appearance of the wrinkle. This effect is only temporary.

So why can the wrinkle only temporarily be lessened? To get rid of a wrinkle in the skin, moisturizer would need to penetrate through the epidermis and enter the dermis to repair the broken down collagens. But there is no moisturizer that is strong enough to do that. This article explains that any product that could get rid of a wrinkle would be considered to be a medicine. Moisturizers do not have any medicinal value, which is why they are considered to be over the counter cosmetic products.

The effectiveness of moisturizer reducing wrinkles has been proven in a study funded by Olay. The study was led by Dr. Greg Hillebrand and the results were published in the British Journal of Dermatology. A sample of 122 females ranging from ages 10-72. Each woman had their picture taken in a neutral face and  the hydration levels of their skin were measured. Pictures and examinations happened again eight years later. The concluding observation made from the study is that wrinkles can be delayed by daily protection of the skin with moisturizer and sunscreen.

Moisturizing may not get rid of wrinkles, but it can definitely prevent and improve them. I’ve concluded that hydration, sun protection, and moisturizing is the key to healthy and youthful looking skin. I will stick to my mother’s preachings, and continue to moisturize everyday and I recommend that you do to.

sources:

pic 1

pic 2

pic 3

http://www.webmd.com/beauty/features/how-life-affects-aging-skin#1

https://www.quora.com/Does-moisturizer-get-rid-of-wrinkles

http://www.livestrong.com/article/324363-does-moisturizing-prevent-wrinkles/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6498421.stm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/beauty/article-1284498/Back-basics-Nothing-keeps-wrinkles-bay-better-moisturiser.html

I have a friend back home who has an addiction I really can’t reason with.  She drinks at least three Cokes every day, including one bright and early in the morning when most people would be having their coffee.  Personally I can’t even drink half a Coke without my teeth feeling grimy and/or getting a stomach ache.  Now, my friend seems to be doing just fine, but there have to be some long term effects of this constant soda consumption that are detrimental to her health.

My first thought was that this has to be decaying teeth in some sort of way.  What I found is that soda contains citric and or phosphoric acid, which is harmful to the enamel, or outer covering, of the tooth.  Soda will also cause an excess of plaque buildup on the teeth which ultimately leads to either cavities or other types of problems.

Another way soda, particularly diet soda, has been known to visibly affect you is through weight gain.  According to Time, this past May a study was conducted on 3,000 women who were pregnant.  When looking at the infants of mothers who regularly drank soda compared to those who did not, they were twice as likely to be extremely overweight at around one year old.

Now besides simply focusing on the physical downsides of soda consumption, I am also interested in ways our body could be affected without us even knowing.   According to WebMD, those who drink diet soda regularly are nearly 50% more likely to have a stroke or heart attack. With that being said, there is no know mechanism to directly link that diet coke causes strokes.  There have also been studies conducted at the University of Miami which back up this information further.  After controlling some confounding variables such as smoking, they found that in a study done on people ranging from about 59-79 years old, those who drank soda regularly were about 60% more likely to experience a stroke or heart attack than those who did not.

Overall, what seems to be the trend with these soda studies is the fact that there are many correlations between regular soda consumption and heath issues, but no real causations can be made.  It is important to keep these things in mind when filling up your glass with a sugary drink, but ultimately it won’t directly kill you.

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Brad Lidge and Carlos “Chooch” Ruiz celebrating the final out after the 2008 world series

The above picture was one of the greatest moments of my life. As I danced around my living room much more sillily than a 13 year old should have been and high fiving my father. The moment will be etched in the history of me and my father’s relationship. We like sports for the moments that are created by them. These moments are no better than the underdog upsetting a goliath in the playoffs. The shortened playoff season offers opportunities for these upsets to take place under the “on any given night” theory. There have been a history of mathematically inferior teams in all sports overcoming superior teams and getting to the top of the mountain. It confirms the scientific idea that chance is always possible. This Harvard Study conducts the standard deviation, means, and z scores on test runs by the SRS scales and Pythagorean Win expectation, which is a study calculating how many games they should win and how much they should win by. The results are posted in a table on the Harvard study. The saltiness is alive in this Harvard article because the 2008 and 2012 super bowl games in that the New York Giants upset the New England Patriots who were heavily favored in both of the the games. The 2006 St. Louis Cardinals  won the World Series being ranked in the bottom third of the league after sneaking into the playoffs on the last day of the season due to the loss of another team. If this teaches us anything that chance is always at play when it comes to open competition, especially in the playoffs when the sample becomes smaller and the chance of upset is higher.

Relating to my previous post about tiredness and yawning, the constant lectures we endure as students put strenuous work on our mind, some of which is hard to grasp on an inattentive mind. Just as the majority of students, I grab an energy drink with caffeine every now and then before my class, because I need the extra energy boost, and believe that it helps me maintain focus through lectures. I also drink them when I am doing homework, because I firmly believe that it helps increase my productivity. I am not the only one either, as many other students are seen drinking coffee and other caffeine filled energy boosters throughout the day. So, although we continually drink caffeinated beverages, do they actually help us focus on our studies?

What is caffeine? Where can it be found?

Caffeine is a stimulant. Fueling the body’s central nervous system, and increasing the brain’s production of dopamine, which has been accepted to affiliate with the ability to maintain concentration. This can give a person energy, mainly short-term, which is why people use caffeine to jumpstart their day. You can find caffeine in many of the drinks you may see, including energy drinks, soda, and most importantly for a student in the morning, some coffee or tea. It can also be found in pill form and powder form at many supplement stores, as athletes and gym-goers often use the substance.

Picture Source

So, can caffeine help you focus?

When we discuss the effects of caffeine on the ability to focus within our studies, we must look at ending performance and productivity. We examine such through cognitive tests, and physical performances. Within a study conducted by Division of Psychology at Northumbria University, caffeine was used in randomized double-blind and placebo controlled trials. 24 participants consumed caffeine within their beverage, and 24 received the same beverage without caffeine. After a series of tests to assess cognitive skills both before and after ingesting the drink, it was concluded that there were significant differences in tests measures, indicating improvement from the caffeine-given participants.  Reaction time increased, memory of various sentences and ability to verify sentences improved, and fatigue was stated to be abridged within the caffeine-given subjects, when compared to the non-caffeine subjects. This is useful information for us as students, showing that energy attained from caffeine may assist us on homework, classwork, and even tests.

Caffeine is often considered necessary given the amount of sleep deprivation students endure. Personally, I know that a maximum of 7 hours of sleep can be considered a good night. I also am an active student, participating in many sports and activities. Additionally, some of us students are athletes, and therefore our studies are not the only thing we need to focus for. We need to maintain focus on our physical activities as well. In another study conducted by U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine 68 U.S. Navy Seals were randomly separated into three groups and given different dosages of caffeine after three days of sleep deprivation. Cognitive and motor skills tests were given both after the sleep deprivation, and after caffeine was administered. The study concluded that caffeine improved their memory and reaction time from both types of tests. However, this isn’t saying that caffeine is the solution to sleep deprivation, as sleep is the only true answer. As active students at such a big, prestigious school (though we are now Navy Seals), can relate to strenuous work that is portrayed in other professions.

Picture Source

Caffeine studies should not suffer from the file-drawer problem, as many experiments have been conducted and examined to show that its effects are supported with significant evidence. Though it can be used to help both physical and mental performance, whether on a test or on the field, caffeine’s stimulation is relatively short term, and has many other side effects, that may outweigh the benefits.

For me as a student studying the effects of caffeine, however, I firmly believe in its benefits. I try to use caffeine when I need to get a lot of work completed in a short amount of time. With the help of caffeine, I can better focus on easier concepts. However, it has a side effect of jitteriness that does not support my focus on either reading or critical thinking. Caffeine is known to be one of the most mass produced substances within our world given that there is significant evidence supporting its ability to help people focus, in addition to other reported benefits.

Sources:

http://www.healthline.com/health/caffeine-effects-on-body

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-3010.2007.00665.x/full#t2

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1356551

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15678363

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12424548

Americans have long struggled with obesity. According to the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, a division of the National Institutes of Health, in 2010, 74% of American men and 64% of American women were either overweight or obese. This number has been multiplied by more than two since 1962, a fact that leads many to label this trend as being an epidemic, the cure for which is unclear on a large scale.

On a much smaller scale, people can choose to use diet and exercise to lose weight. Many people consider this to be a goal they are currently pursuing. It’s something that always comes up in conversations about New Years resolutions, especially ones that people quickly abandon by January. But why do people have such trouble with this concept? It should be just a simple process of eating less calories than you need to function. But sometimes this is difficult, as it is hard to tell how many calories are in each specific foods, or even how many are needed for daily functionality, which is why many people turn to fad diets that promise quick results.

Some people choose to go the traditional route, however, and in the digital age, there are several apps that can help people in doing this. Apps such as MyFitnessPal allow users to input the foods they eat into the app, which will in turn calculate what foods are highest in calories, and total their calories for the day. This is to help users keep track of how many calories they need to cut to lose weight. That is, it’s supposed to in theory. But does it really?

A study was recently conducted figure out if these apps had effect made on the weight lost by young people. The study was conducted as a randomized control trial of adults aged 18-35, who were deemed suitable for the study if they were considered obese or overweight and had a cellphone.  From this criteria, the researchers were able to obtain the participation of 365 people, who were broken down into three groups.

The first of these groups was the group using the weight loss app to help keep track of the calories they consumed. The second group was given access to personal coaches that would give the students recommendations on what kinds of foods to eat, and help them stay on track in their weight loss goals. These coaches would perform a similar function to the apps, but with the difference being in that they were able to create a human dialogue with the participants about their weight loss, a dialogue that the app could not reproduce. The third and final group was the control group. Each group had an approximately equal population, at 120-123 people.

The null hypothesis of this study would be that weight loss apps do not contribute to the successful loss of bodyweight The alternative hypothesis of the study, however, would be that weight loss apps do in fact contribute to the successful loss of body weight.

Each of the three groups was measured in their weight at the begining of the study, and then again at 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months. 86% of participants responded al the way until the end of the study, making the end result mostly representative of the original sample.

At 24 months, the subjects who had access to the personal coaches, designated as PC on the graph above, has lost an average of 2.45 kilograms. The control group had lost an average of 1.44 kilograms, and the users of the weight loss app, designated on the graph as CP, lost an average of .99 kilograms.

The conclusion of the study would be forced to accept the null hypothesis of the study, that weight loss apps do not contribute to the successful loss of weight. The data supports this hypothesis, as those using the app lost less weight than even the control group, who had no guidance on how to lose the weight. This data makes sense when one considers how these apps work. Users have to input the foods they eat manually, and then the app calculates how many calories are in each food. This could prove to be inaccurate, however, as users may not input a specific enough food, or the correct amount of servings, causing the app to calculate a different amount of calories than they actually consumed. These incorrect calorie counts could lull users into a false sense of security, fooling them into thinking that they can eat more than they actually should.  In short, the app could suffer from user errors, causing calories to reported incorrectly.

The false sense of security provided by inaccurate calorie counts is probably what caused the app users to lose even less than the control group. With a personal counselor, these kind of errors are a little less likely, as people have the ability to discern when the subjects make mistakes, unlike the app.

The results of the study could still be due to third or confounding variables, such as the determination of each individual person to lose the weight. The study’s design as a randomized control trial, however, certainly makes this less likely, as participants in one category are probably no more likely to be more determined than another due to their random divisions. Another possible problem in the study could be found in the relatively small sample size of only 365 participants.

This study seems to be one of the first of its kind, although its likely that other studies in the field may have suffered from the file drawer problem, especially due to the negative nature of the results. Previous studies may have held off on being published due to their similarly negative results. Further studies, or meta analyses, of this one could be conducted, and probably should, to verify if this study does in fact hold true. A possible improvement could be made by adding more participants to the study to get a larger sample-size, and thus a clearer picture. For now though, there seems to be no reason to rely on weight loss apps to support you on your weight loss journey.

Picture One Source

Picture Two Source

Study Source

NIDDK Source

Obesity Epidemic Source

MyFitnessPal Homepage

As a skateboarder I spend a lot of time on my skateboard which eventually leads to me falling off of my skateboard. Falling is inevitable in skateboarding so it was in my best interest to learn how take the falls without letting them hurt too much. After years of skateboarding most minor scrapes and bumps don’t really bother me too much and I generally keep skateboarding if the injury is not too bad. I’ve also noticed that the pain of an injury is usually worse if I keep thinking about how it hurts, whereas if I tell myself that it doesn’t hurt that bad then it almost immediately starts to feel better. This lead me to the hypothesis that pain we feel after an injury is mostly in our mind and based on how bad we think it hurts. Another example I can think of that I’m sure many of you can relate would be when you hit your shin on a coffee table; While this hurts a lot initially, as long as you didn’t chip or break your shin bone, in theory the pain should subside very shortly after because no major damage was done. But sometimes the pain from hitting your shin feels like it lingers around for another minute or two after it has made contact with the coffee table. Based off my personal observation again, the pain from an incident like this goes away much faster if you think that it doesn’t hurt that bad versus thinking something along the lines of “My shin hurts so bad… This pain won’t go away”. I believe the placebo effect plays a big part in how we perceive pain and how bad an injury hurts.   

Source – https://openclipart.org/image/2400px/svg_to_png/218053/Pain_Scale__Arvin61r58.png

A recent study published in the journal Pain found that patients who knowingly took a placebo pill for their lower back pain saw more improvement in reducing their back pain than those who were given traditional treatment alone. 97 patients suffering from chronic lower back pain were given a 15-minute explanation of what the placebo effect is before they were given their pills so they are well aware of what a placebo pill is. After they were given the explanation the patients were then split randomly into two groups; Treatment-as-usual (TAU) group or open-label placebo (OLP). Participants in both groups were taking anti-inflammatories before this study began and were instructed to keep taking the anti-inflammatories if they regularly take them and not to make any other major lifestyle changes such as starting a new exercise regimen or take a new medication, which could impact their pain levels. The patients in the OLP group were also given a medicine bottle labeled “placebo pills” and were instructed to take two pills per day. The pills contained no active medication for pain relief. After three weeks the OLP group overall reported 30 percent reductions in both usual pain and maximum pain. Usual pain being the amount of pain that is normally felt on a daily basis and maximum pain being the worst amount of pain they feel overall. Those numbers compare well to the TAU group which reported 9 percent reduction for overall pain and 16 percent reduction for maximum pain. The placebo group also saw a 29 percent reduction in pain-related disability whereas the TAU group saw little to no improvement in that category. That is an amazing difference for a pill that does nothing at all to help with pain.

Source – http://www.roboticstrends.com/images/wide/pills.jpg

This experiment strongly correlates with the idea that pain is mostly in our head and we can make it go away with our own thoughts. When patients are being tested and given pills from doctors, it may make the placebo effect even stronger because the patients believe the doctor’s pills and instructions truly will make them feel better. I believe that this was a key part of this experiment working so well. 

Study Source – http://thescienceexplorer.com/brain-and-body/knowingly-taking-placebo-pills-reduces-pain-study-finds

Not many things make me upset anymore. I am over my fear of the dark. I have never been afraid of heights or horror movies. I am not afraid of snakes, spiders, or insects. The one thing I am truly petrified of is going to the dentist. I absolutely hate the dentist. When my mom tells me I have a dentist appointment in a couple days, my stomach drops. It has not stopped since I was a little boy either. As I continued to get older, I began to hate the check ups more and more. The day of an appointment I will wake up with a sick feeling in my stomach and will act like a little girl once I get there. A particular bad memory is when the assistant was digging in the back of my mouth, and after I told her to take a break, I vomited all over her. It was a truly traumatic experience. So the question is… why is it that going to the dentist is so commonly hated amongst people around the world? The people are all nice, and they do try and treat their patients with care so why do they receive so much hate?

Personally, I am the only one in my family that has trouble with the dentist. According to Jelly Share, many reasons why people hate the dentist is due to the anxiety of maybe having a cavity, or having to get a tooth pulled. Some other reasons are fear of needles and drills. Dental care related fear is very common, affecting 10 to 20 percent of adults in the United States, causing sometimes complete avoidance of dental care in general.

Recently researchers have hypothesized that the reason why children have fear and anxiety over the dentist is mostly due to their parents. It is an obvious fact that a child is going to be influenced by their parents behavior. My dad is not afraid of the dentist, and whenever he would bring me for my appointment, I would feel much more comfortable knowing that he was only right outside. My mom on the other hand was totally different. Like myself, she despises the dentist and gets nervous when she gets there. This could be where my fear comes from.

CB049506

According to the article on Science Daily, psychology researchers at the University of West Virginia found that part of the reason that there is anxiety due to dental care is because of genetic influences inherited from parents. This is the first study that could suggest that fear of the dentist could be due to genetic factors. Cameron Randall and Daniel McNiel later in the article reported that the genes that influence for of pain likely also influence fear caused by going to the dentist. This finding is important to better understand what the causes dental fear and phobia. Clearly, the anxiety that goes along with going to the dentist affects many people from all ages. The more studies and research that is done concerning this issue, the more we can learn what the best way is to make people like me not fear the dentist anymore.

Sources:

http://www.agenciasinc.es/en/News/Fear-of-the-dentist-is-passed-on-to-children-by-their-parents

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161013111707.htm

Picture: http://www.stepbystep.com/how-to-overcome-fear-of-the-dentist-23794/

As young adults in the 21st century, I think that we can all relate to just how distracting cell phones are. I know that I find my cell phone to be most distracting in class. It is easy to become bored and checking my phone seems to satisfy that need to be entertained. Just as I, and many other students find cell phones to be a major distraction, a new study reports that parents are becoming distracted by their devices from parenting.

Dr. Jenny Radesky, a professor of developmental behavioral pediatrics, conducted interviews of 35 families and learned that the use of cellphones at home had begun to negatively impact family life. Therefore, Radesky and her colleagues decided to perform a study. The participants of the study included: 22 mothers, nine fathers, and four grandmothers. Radesky had all of the participants watch over kids of varied ages from toddlers to young children. After watching the children, the participants had stated that they enjoyed the use of cell phones while watching the children as they felt as if it alleviated the boredom associated with watching children. For these participants, the cell phones acted as a source of entertainment. While the phones acted as a distraction, participants found that they paid less attention to the children. Furthermore, they found that the cell phones impacted their mood. Hence, if a participant had seen bad news on their phone, they would not be in a good mood around the children thus creating a negative environment.

The null hypothesis of this study is that the use of cell phones would have no impact in how the participants interacted with the children. On the contrary, the alternative hypothesis is that the use of cell phones would have an impact on how the participants interacted with the children. The alternative hypothesis proved to be correct in this observational study as the participants found that they paid less attention to the children who they were supposed to be watching and the use of cell phones impacted their mood.

All in all, just how cell phones pose as a distraction for students in classrooms (like me), they are also a distraction to parents too. To avoid this, one must show self-control and not allow technology to get in the way of relationships. It is important to live in the moment, and not through a screen.

Image

We’ve all heard it before: Breakfast is the most important meal of the day! Personally, breakfast has always been my least favorite meal of the day – I dislike eggs, cereal, bagels (for the most part), and fruit only fills me up for so long. So, after years of them drilling the importance of breakfast into my head, I decided to actually investigate the research behind it.

Bplans

Hypothesis

The hypothesis is that eating breakfast positively effects cognitive performance. However, chance is always still a factor to be discussed, as well as null hypothesis (or that there is no correlation between eating breakfast and brain performance).

Science Fair Projects

About the study

This is a widely known and studied concept, so the studies you come across are endless. I stumbled upon a study conducted by David P. Wyon , National Institutional of Occupations Health, Denmark, and colleagues. In this experimental study, they focused primarily on the energy intake at breakfast, meaning plentiful breakfasts would impact the children’s energy performance during the school day.

How the study was conducted

To start, Wyon and colleagues reached out to parents of 10 year-olds across five schools, asking if they would change their child’s breakfast routine for a period of 4 days. After responses, they sent out breakfasts to 195 families; however, the breakfast varied in energy (high or low). The breakfasts were randomly assigned to the children throughout the duration of the experiment. The children then underwent performance tests, to see how the energy at breakfast effects their performance throughout the rest of the day. Side note: teachers conducting the tests were blind to the procedure details (aka which children had been given what breakfast).

The results

Children that received 20% more energy packed in her breakfasts than recommended tested drastically better physically and creatively, contrary to the children in which received breakfasts which 10% less energy recommended. The children receiving the higher energy breakfasts also reported less issues (i.e. fatigue, hunger, etc.).

Other Studies

I also came across one conducted by the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing. In this study, they looked at the correlation between eating breakfast and IQ scores. In this study, they took 1,269 six year-olds in China, and compared children who ate breakfast regularly vs those who did not. Those who did not eat breakfast scores 4.6 points lower on IQ tests than those who did. Granted, these are 6 year olds we’re talking about here, so there could be a ton of third confounding variables that the study did not explore. However, the point of experimenting on 6 year-olds, was because childhood is a crucial period to learn habitual routines. These routines learned at a young age can carry into teenage years and even into adulthood, and can have other implications along the way. So maybe if my mom had force fed me breakfast as a child I’d have a higher IQ now… Thanks, mom. 

What can we do with this information?

In the studies above, each result demonstrates the importance of a hearty breakfast in the morning. However, chance could still play a factor in these studies; however, many experiments have come to similar conclusions, making it very unlikely.  So, nothing new or fascinating here in this blog post. Sorry to disappoint, the doctors were right. Breakfast is the most important meal of the day. I guess I have to start liking eggs now.

Memes Happen

Sources

Wyon, David P., Lillemor Abrahamsson, Marja Jartelius, and Red J. Fletcher. “An Experimental Study of the Effects of Energy Intake at …” Taylor & Francis Online. N.p., 6 July 2009. Web. 21 Oct. 2016.

University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing. “Can breakfast make kids smarter?.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 5 February 2013. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130205143334.htm>.

Personally I’ve never been afraid of heights to a great extent. Sure, the uneasiness of being at the top of a roller coaster or the edge of a rocky mountain makes knots in my stomach, but it’s nothing anxiety provoking. However, a fear of heights is nothing to joke about, as it is a real phobia that some people have, and I have always been very curious about it.

Acrophobia, the scientific name for this extreme fear of high up places which is often ongoing. As all phobia names are, this name comes from the Greek language, and the beginning part of the work “Acro” means height- translating to height fear.  This fear has always been existent throughout human history, however people first started noticing it when they aged, due to their balance wearing off, so this pattern was what helped discover this phobia. So since this fear usually pops up so late in life, what causes it? According to Steven P Wickstrom, something when you were younger probably set you on a track to be afraid of high up places (ex: a horrific event or something you watched happen).

Since this phobia can be debilitating to a person’s life, how can it be cured?

There are a few steps to overcome Acrophobia. In the moment, positive thoughts, counting, and deep breathing can be effective to suppress the anxiety. However, for the long haul, Hypnosis and learning about the phobia itself are key ways to tackle it as to recoil your mind.

Have you ever had a dream regarding a fear of heights? Or even a falling from a high place dream? These can often be connected to a feeling of low confidence or a similar situation that resembles the one the person dreamed of. According to the Dream Symbolism dictionary, dreams can be seen as metaphors for real life, so if a person dreams of falling from a high up place or being scared of heights, they may subconsciously have this fear.

Some ways to recognize if you truly have Acrophobia are that you may experience panic
attacks or the urge to go off of high up places (although not in a suicidal way). Additionally, if the
symptoms worsen sometimes CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy) can be  used to treat the phobia. CBT is a psychological therapy that is used for changing people’s thinking, actions, and feelings all together.  

I was curious to learn more about the details behind a person’s fear of heights, so I hope this helped somebody else on this blog learn more too.

Nearly every morning, my regular routine consists of waking up at 8:30, and leaving around 8:50 for my 9:05 class. Following the 50-minute class, I will walk right over to the HUB, and immediately hop in line at the cafe to grab my daily toasted cinnamon raisin bagel with cream cheese. At this rate, my weekly consumption rate of bagels is 4-5 per week. In fact, I look forward to my daily bagel, as breakfast boosts your metabolism, and often sets me up for a great, productive day. Little did I know, however, is that bagels are often debated as being highly unhealthy for you. I decided to investigate this topic, and see if I really do need to switch up my morning routine.

The Ingredients

My first step was to research what exactly a bagel consists of, and which ingredients can be considered unhealthy. According to one professional writer, Carly Schuna, who specializes in food, cooking, nutrition, and fitness writing, one plain bagel contains around 360 calories, 14 grams of protein, 2 grams of fat, 3 grams of fiber, and 70 grams of carbohydrates, if the bagel is 4 1/2 inches in diameter (Schuna). A whole wheat, oat bran, or whole grain bagel doesn’t make these statistics much better, still retaining significant calories. In fact, Schuna even discusses how a plain bagel actually ranks at 69 on the glycemic index, on which anything ranking 70 or higher is considered to have a “high glycemic index score”, a rather disturbing statistic (Schuna). Oftentimes, as food expert Joy Bauer points out, classic white bagels are often extremely starchy, and made with refined wheat flour, a type of flour that lacks all of its original, healthy nutrients and fiber (Bauer). Additionally, they have some of the worst sodium contents of all foods. A traditional plain bagel can sometimes contain 443 miligrams of sodium, a significant chunk of one’s daily value, according to one editor of FitDay.com. To worsen the situation, this refined wheat flour is condensed into a high-calorie bagel, equal to about five slices of caloric white bread, as she discusses in her article (Bauer). Especially when paired with a high-calorie extras such as cream cheese, they are a recipe for disaster, as they can often induce constant weight gain, as Schuna points out. It’s clear that bagels don’t have the greatest track record, and have a dark side to them that may be taken into consideration before I buy my next one tomorrow morning. However, even scarier than their caloric content is the potential dangers these dense breads pose to your body.

The Dangers of a Bagel

As NBC News reporter Maggie Fox discussed, it has been found that consuming food and drink that contain a high glycemic index rating can increase one’s risk of lung cancer, on account of the cell-stimulating components of high-glycemic foods (Fox). As I previously stated, bagels contain a significantly high glycemic index rating, giving it suspicion in the cause of a number of cancers. A number of studies have attempted to reveal a link between a food’s glycemic rating and a range of different types of cancer, ranging everywhere from pancreas to colorectal to ovarian, however, according to Fox, these studies have often resulted in inconclusive findings (Fox).

A Comparison: Are Donuts Healthier?

According to a few sources, even donuts can be considered slightly healthier in the long run, despite the initial widespread belief that they would far outweigh bagels in cons as a healthy breakfast option. Donuts, which also contain a rather high caloric and carbohydrate count, are of course unhealthy. A classic glazed doughnut contains 229 calories and 25 grams of carbs alone (FitDay). However, studies have actually found that bagels, although possessions fewer calorie counts, actually are considered more unhealthy as they contain a greater sodium content, as well as carbs (FitDay). I found this absolutely shocking, as, if given the choice between a donut and a bagel for breakfast, I would nine times out of ten choose the bagel, being under the impression that it has a greater health value. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that a bagel is always the worse choice. There are a variety of options to help make the bagel just a little bit healthier, if you choose it as a morning snack.

Alternatives and Solutions

Of course, the easiest solution is to simply not choose a bagel as your choice of breakfast. A number of different, similar options can provide a world of good to your body in comparison. These include English muffins, sandwich thins, or even just a slice of toast. However, if you must have your morning bagel, it is always better to choose a variety that is not pure white bread. Some alternatives include oat bran, whole wheat, or whole grain, as Bauer points out. Another great option is to instead ask for a mini bagel, which will right away cut down on the unhealthy parts of the bagel as the serving size is smaller. According to Tanya Zuckerbrot of Fox News, switching to mini-bagels can save around 200 calories daily, or nearly 24 pounds of extra weight you would avoid over the course of one year (Zuckerbrot). One final common alternative is to scoop out some of the filling inside the bagel, and add a thin layer of a healthier topping, whether it be a light or non-fat cream cheese, a low-fat cottage cheese or peanut butter, hummus, or nut butter, as both Bauer and Zuckerbrot suggest.

Final Thoughts

Overall, it is apparently clear that bagels are not the healthiest breakfast option due to their high counts of non-nutritional ingredients, and the condensed amount of pure bread contained. Often, even donuts can be considered a healthier option, something both shocking and alarming. However, there are lots of healthy alternatives and solutions to make your morning just a little bit more nutritional, whether it be scooping out a little bit of filling, switching to a healthier topping, or scrapping the bagel altogether for a healthier food. All I know is that, next time, I’ll definitely think twice before reaching for that bagel in line after class.

Sources:   Source 1   Source 2   Source 3   Source 4   Source 5

Images:    Image 1    Image 2    Image 3

My mother has always told me, “don’t put junk in your body.” I always thought muscle-building supplements fell into that category, which is probably accurate to say. Nevertheless, creatine may be the outlier. A few weeks ago, I was shocked to find out how many of my friends took creatine. I thought, like the majority of other muscle-building supplements, that creatine would make people appear stronger than they actually are, but would damage the body over time. After researching the matter, I was surprised to find that creatine is a little more complex than I originally anticipated.

Before I explore the pros and cons regarding creatine, it is important to understand its history, how it has developed over time, and why it has become so popular as of late. Chevreul, a french scientist, recognized an undiscovered component of skeletal muscle in 1835, and decided to call it creatine. Scientists first noticed that creatine is necessary for muscle activity when they learned that wild animals contain about ten times more creatine than domesticated animals do.  According to the Mayo Clinic, oral consumption of creatine supplements became popular in the 1990s as people wished to be stronger, look stronger, and gain an advantage in athletics. To this day, creatine is still very popular in the US due to how effortless it is to take and its multiple benefits.

According to Iron Man Magazine, creatine is the number one sports supplement. This, in part, is due to studies showing that 80 percent of people using creatine have found it effective. Moreover, according to Health Research Funding, creatine decreases the time needed to regenerate ATP, which gives muscles energy. As a result, creatine is expected to improve performance for brief, but intense workouts by 5 to 10 percent. According to Mark A. Jenkins, several double-blind, placebo experiments have been conducted, where half of the participants were given about 20 grams of creatine each day for 5 to 6 days, while the other half were given placebos. After these 5 or 6 days, each study made the participants do a certain exercise for a short period of time. The studies all concluded that the group of people taking creatine performed better than the group that took the placebo. Surprisingly, creatine might make the heart stronger and healthier. According to Penn State Hershey Medical Center, a few studies were conducted of people with heart failure. Similar to the other studies, this one divided the participants into two groups, half taking creatine and half taking a placebo, while both groups received standard medical care. The results of the studies showed that, in general, those who took creatine could do more exercise before becoming fatigued than those who took the placebo. On top of all these benefits, creatine is also cheap and easy to use, making it the most popular sports supplement in America today.

Like any supplement that people put in their bodies, there will always be side effects, but is taking creatine worth these possible consequences? As supplemental creatine has only been popular for a few decades, there are not many studies on how it can harm the body. Obviously, too much creatine can be unsafe. According to MedlinePlus, some research indicates that creatine could also damage the liver, kidney, and the heart. Still, not enough studies have been completed in order to show a significant correlation between taking creatine and these side effects. According to WebMD, other outcomes such as irregular heartbeats and skin conditions are possible effects of creatine, but, yet again, there is not enough research to see if there is a relationship between them. However, studies have shown that five to seven percent of people who take creatine will get either diarrhea, stomach aches, or both, according to Men’s Health. Additionally, creatine does not work as well for meat and fish eaters because these people already have high levels of creatine in their muscles. Some studies have indicated that creatine could cause kidney problems for people with high blood pressure or diabetes, for those on anti-inflammatory drugs such as ibuprofen, or for people over the age of 40. Despite this evidence, unsurprisingly, there have not been enough large-scale studies conducted in order to see a distinct correlation between creatine and these side effects.

Possible Side Effects of Creatine

All in all, making a decision on whether creatine is bad for people or not, at this moment, would be unjust. There are simply not enough large-scale studies out there to figure out if there are correlations between creatine supplements and the long list of possible side effects. From my own research, the only study where a negative conclusion could be clearly stated claimed that five to seven percent of people will either get stomach aches, diarrhea, or both if they take creatine. Nevertheless, five to seven percent is not a very high chance. Furthermore, these side effects are not terrible consequences and are only short-term problems.

The file drawer problem could also play a part in this lack of information on the side effects of creatine. Body building companies have performed studies on the effects of creatine, yet a majority of the body building websites claim that the side effects are, to the most part, all myths. It is hard to believe that websites like webMD, Men’sHealth, and MedlinePlus have all concluded that there is not enough information on the side effects of creatine supplements, yet body building websites have done enough large-scale studies to conclude that these side effects are all misconceptions. I find it more likely that body building websites are only publishing studies with positive results, while hiding studies that show a correlation between supplemental creatine use and certain side effects. Hence, the file drawer problem could exist in this case. Therefore, in my opinion, I believe there is not enough evidence to say whether creatine is bad for people, in the short-term and especially in the long-term. Personally, I don’t see the advantage in taking creatine supplements until more studies are conducted on the matter as people could be in risk of serious side effects.

How many times have you been stressed this week, let alone this semester? Almost all college students will have that moment where they feel like their world is crumbling and they can’t do anything to stop it. This could be caused by having multiple exams on one day, forgetting about an assignment, or not knowing what to write your eight-page research paper about. I have three test on Monday so of course I am feeling stressed now, but that got me wondering how stress is going to affect me and my grades.

Stress can be a very detrimental feeling to a person, especially a college student. It can keep them up at night worry, make them lose their appetite, and not sleep. These factors make me believe that stress can affect a student’s grade and overall GPA.

There was a study done by the University of Minnesota where they looked at close to 10,000 students over 14 different schools and monitored their stress, amount they drank, and smoked. After they collected their data, they separated the students who were just stressed compared to other students who were stressed and drank or smoked. About 70% of the surveyed students reported to being stressed during the school year, and close to half of them said that stress was affecting their academics.

Out of all the students, students who were stressed out more than eight times in a semester seems to do significantly worse than students who were not stressed or as stressed as them. The students who became stressed ended up having a 2.72 average GPA compared to the non-stressed students who averaged a 3.3 GPA. That is a .6 difference, and as we all know in school, that is a huge amount.

There was another study done where a lecturer from the School of Education followed five students throughout a school year to see how they acted in school. What she found out was that students become stressed due to grades, parents, or another variable and that leads them to cheat. They do not care about the topic they are learning as much as the grade they will receive. This study was done in high school where the consequence of cheating is not as harsh as college. Never the less, this study showed that when people are stressed they tend to cheat and college is somewhere that everyone becomes stressed at one point. Cheating in college can lead to major consequences and even expulsion.

My last thought on how stress affects us is how it affects our brain. Stress is about as common as anger, but for some reason stress seems to have more of an emotional and physical strain on us. According to the Harvard Medical School, the main part of our brain of our brain that deals with emotions, the amygdala sends a signal to the part of the brain that communicates with our body, the hypothalamus. Once the hypothalamus is contacted it starts to send adrenaline through our body. This makes our lungs open up more so our brain can get as much air as you need, which is why you might breathe more heavily when you are stressed. The adrenaline also makes your heart beat faster; which could be why you feel like your chest is about to explode when you are stressed.

These are all good things for when you are in a situation that needs you to take action quickly, but when it comes to school…. it doesn’t help as much. Our body sees stress as something more of a fight or flight situation, which doesn’t really help when you are overwhelmed with schoolwork. By relieving your stress as soon as you start to get it makes your body relaxed more and gets it back into its normal state. Once you are back to normal, you will be able to accomplish your work more efficiently than when your body is flowing with adrenaline.

Stress is a very harmful thing and has been found to damage students and their grades. There are various ways to overcome stress so that you can do well in school, and even avoid cheating. This website shows different ways on how to get rid or lessen your stress.

http://www.healthnews.com/en/news/How-Stress-Affects-Academic-Performance/2wJiMoIl1ErOCym8JC9lWD/

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/february23/cheat-022305.htmlhttp://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/understanding-the-stress-response

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/145855.php

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/217583

Have you ever wondered why almost all the fast food chains use the same color scheme for all their logos? McDonalds, Wendy’s, Chic Fila, and many more all use the color red and yellow in their logos. Could this just be by chance, or is there a correlation between them.

While researching this topic, I found that there are certain colors that make people un-interested in eating, such as blue and purple. You may wonder why a blueberry doesn’t look as appetizing as a strawberry does and you can blame your ancestors for that. In this article , it is said then when our ancient ancestors were searching for food, they would avoid the colors blue, black, and purple because they associated those colors with mold and being spoiled. For example, when Burger Kings came out with its Halloween themed burger which consisted of black buns, my first thought was that it looks disgusting. Maybe that is because I am used to golden brown buns on burgers, but it could also be related to our primitive instincts to stay away from those colors. This could be a reason why most fast food companies tend to stay away from those colors when advertising their food.

In this same article, they explain why so many fast food companies use the combination of red and yellow for their advertisement. From what Rohm and Haas Paint Quality Institute stated, the color red seems to increase our heart rate, which then makes us feel more energized and passionate. It’s a no wonder why the color red raises you heart rate, sine that color is associated with evil in many places. They also found that the color yellow makes people feel happier. So you can only imagine why food companies would choose these two colors, one makes you happy and the other makes you passionate.

I started to wonder why only fast food companies use these certain colors but companies like Starbucks and Dunkin Doughnuts don’t. Psychologist  explained that the colors orange and pink (Dunkin Doughnuts) are associated with enthusiasm and love. While the color green (Starbucks) makes people think more about the earth and serenity. It is weird that companies who serve basically the same product use such different colors, but still tend to do just as well as each other. That got me thinking that maybe color does more than just affect your mood, maybe it could affect your taste as well.

It turns out that your brain is actually affected by color when tasting something. This article tells us that there is a condition in our body, which is called synaesthesia which to put in simple terms, makes us assume a taste or feeling before we actually eat or touch it. For example, if you were given a drink red drink, you would assume it is fruit punch before you even taste it. This can affect the way taste things based off prior experience. There is a study where a teacher made her student put 3 different colors in water bottles, and then give taste test to other students to see what “flavor” they enjoyed more. All the water was the same and had no other flavoring, yet students still seemed to pick the blue colored drink. They said that they enjoyed the blueberry-flavored water the best.

This study perfectly shows how people will assume a taste just because of the color it has. The interesting thing about this study is that blue was the favorite flavor, even though as I just stated, blue is a color associated with mold and people tend to stay away from that color when eating.

To conclude, there seems to be a correlation between the colors fast food companies used and the popularity of their store. The more yellow and red a company seems to use, the more popular it is. The darker colors seems to dis-interested people from eating, but in some cases such as Starbucks, it actually attracts you to drink their product. So if you want to open a restaurant, think about using red or yellow lettering and stay away from colors such as blue.

http://www.colormatters.com/color-and-the-body/how-color-affects-taste-and-smell

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/how-color-affects-your-appetite.html

http://www.colorpsychology.org/pink/

http://logos.wikia.com/wiki/Wendy’s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s

Today in my hospitality management class, we were beginning to go over the next concept; Travel & Tourism. The slideshow showed photographs of different destinations that are often visited by tourists, and I remember seeing a picture of Switzerland on there. The kid a couple seats down whispered to her friend how pretty the picture of Switzerland was and how badly she wanted to visit. The friend responded by agreeing about how beautiful it was, then proceeded to say when she visited before, she noticed how everyone and everything there seemed so happy and stress-free. Then that got me thinking: What makes a country happy? Which countries are the happiest? My first assumption was Canada because they get free health-care, but I decided to expand that assumption. Here are my findings:

According to the 2016 World Happiness Report, Denmark takes number one as the happiest country. Following Denmark, Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, Finland, and Canada are at the top of the list. The distribution of happiness report was written by John Helliwell from Canadian Institute for Advanced Research and Vancouver School of Economics at the University of British Columbia, Haifang Huang of University of Alberta Dept. of Economics, and Shun Wang, of KDI School of Public Policy & Management, Korea. The main purpose to decide the happiness was decided upon individual evaluation. To tie into that, additional variables were taken into consideration: social support, GDP per capita, freedom, kindness, life expectancy, as well as issues being present or not.

The results came from data of surveys conducted between 2012 and 2015. The data was retrieved from 157 countries, with a sample size of 3,000. Elements that were measured were life evaluation and a series of questions asked based on life purpose. After conducting the surveys, the data was spread from all countries and showed the impacts on each variable taken into account. The regression table showed that variables Freedom to make life choices (p=.039) and Generosity (p=.032) made the most influence on positive effects of the individual’s happiness.

In terms of measuring the ranking of countries, the data regression table also had a column that measured average ladder score (the average reply to the questions asked from the survey) for every country. Then each country’s data was divided by bars on the table which represented each of the 6 variables measured, as well as a 7^th bar to represent the sum of life evaluation & the life evaluation prediction error. Based on these measurements, European countries ended up with the highest results of happiness. Life expectancy, generosity, GDP per capita, and the other variables measured the highest for Denmark (score of 7.526 out of 10). Naturally, this makes sense as Denmark and the following countries are all European. These results are fascinating to me because the same top countries have been the happiest for years now, but it’s a matter of the countries swapping places within the top of the list as each year goes by.

After learning what goes into ranking the happiest countries and which ones were the happiest, I also began to wonder some additional factors. For example, the results show that for years, European countries have been at the top of the list, and those top countries switch rankings each year varies-but what makes the switches occur? A source from LiveScience infers that researchers found that the yearly changes happen from averaging sample size. So, the main variables measured (GDP per capita, generosity, life expectancy, etc) remain the same, but it is a matter of how many people are measured for each country to determine which country gets the number 1 spot. Another remark from the article caught my eye, which stated how researchers found that the population tends to be happier if they live somewhere where there is an even spread of happy people. An article from The Telegraph explains how Denmark’s taking #1 comes from the same variables stated from the 2016 World Happiness Report, but it also includes some more interesting information. It describes how other crucial factors add to the decision, such as the welfare and healthcare systems-which has led to Denmark’s wealth gap very small compared to other countries. An additional source claims results from another article that gives more factors that are believed to have been part of the formula why Denmark was #1, such as their culture, their level of volunteering population, and the fact that a large portion of their population bikes (which leads to a longer life expectancy as they are more fit). These are all elements that I had not thought about, but it all makes sense when it all adds up. Thinking about it, The United States has an obesity issue, and adding other factors measured, I’m not surprised that Denmark is #1 and America isn’t.

Next time I think about traveling somewhere outside the country, I’ll highly consider thinking of somewhere in Europe from the top of the list to not only get an amazing experience being in Switzerland, The Netherlands, Denmark, etc, but to experience what a genuinely happy country looks like.

I took a glance at the World Happiness Report for 2015 to see any differences or similarities, if you also wanted to check it out!

Photo Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/

Home

We’ve all experienced the horrible pain of stubbing a toe, jamming a finger, hitting a funny bone, etc. And I’m sure we all said the same thing when we experienced these things… “WHAT THE #$%&”!!!!! But do we ever wonder why we curse when we feel pain? It seems to ease the pain a little, doesn’t it? That must just be in our heads though, right? … WRONG!

A study done by Richard Stephens at Keele University in England involved 67 students dunking their hands in freezing cold water. Each student dunked their hands twice, once during which they could only call out general words and the other during which they could curse the entire time. Results found that the students felt less pain and were able to keep their hands in the water for an average of 40 seconds longer when cursing.

Picture Link

How is this so, do you ask? Well, since cursing is such a common reaction to pain, researchers assume there must be some underlying cause of it. There is still much research being done, but it is thought that cursing is somehow linked to emotion. Cursing seems to activate the amygdala, the part of the brain that controls emotions, and that often leads to an adrenaline rush that increases heart rate and lessens sensitivity to pain. Researchers involved in the study at Keele University did, in fact, make note that the heart rate of the students increased when they cursed. Steven Pinker, a psychologist at Harvard University compares the reaction in the brain of a person cursing and a cat being sat on. He says the two display the same defensive reflex against the thing that attacked them (in this case the attacker may be a door, a hammer, a kitchen knife, etc.).

If you don’t know what an adrenaline rush is, watch this video to find out.

Stephens warns, though, that if you overuse curse words, the pain-relieving effect of them will stop to work because you will build up a tolerance. According to this article, this is because cursing activates the brain’s natural pain-relieving chemicals, just as pain-relieving drugs do. So, just like people build up a tolerance to those drugs, the same happens with cursing.

So, as Stephens suggests, curse if you get hurt. It’ll make the pain just a little more bearable!

Picture Link

Sources:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-we-swear/

Why Swearing Sparingly Can Help Kill Pain