As I grew up as a child, I was often forced to read books and novels that were assigned for homework in school. I was never really a big fan of reading because I never really enjoyed what I read and would fall asleep fairly quickly after starting. After every page, I would yawn and get sleepier the longer I read. I started wondering why. Whether I was engaged and enjoyed reading or distracted and bored of reading, I never failed to fall asleep. This problem made me start to think… Why did I get so tired every time I read before bed? Was it because I was bored or does reading make the average person more sleepy? Perhaps both these factors may actually be true.

I began to research this topic and discovered that I might not be the only individual who experienced this issue. For the most part, there are two main reasons why people read. Either one reads for fun and entertainment, or for education purposes; for example, to succeed academically by gaining knowledge to write research papers. New studies have perhaps uncovered a new reason to read. Aside from strengthening your IQ or reading for entertainment, reading before bed may help you sleep.

An article from the website, “The Telegraph,” states that reading is one of the number ways to relax your mind and reduce stress. Other standard previous methods of reducing stress include: listening to music, walking, drinking tea, meditation. However, after putting all these methods to the test, neuropsychologist Dr. David Lewis concluded that reading was the best way to reduce stress levels which ultimately leads to a more sound sleep. It reduced stress levels of up to 68 percent while the other techniques could only mitigate these levels by a maximum of 61 percent. These statistics help indicate that reading effectively allows one to fall asleep in a faster, more efficient manner.

Where does science come into this?

X Variable: Whether you read before bed or not.

Y Variable: The amount of time it takes to fall asleep.

Experiment type: Experimental

Null Hypothesis: Reading has no effect on sleep.

Alternative hypothesis: Reading helps an individual to fall asleep.

Reverse Causation: Falling asleep causes an individual to read.

Third cofounding variables: Setting, interests

Chance

According to the research I have performed, I would accept the alternative hypothesis and reject the null hypothesis because the studies implied that if an individual read previous to bed, their bodies would calm down, and allow themselves to plunge into a slumber faster than if one had not read.

We can rule out the reverse causation by using common sense because, for the most part, when the average person begins to feel tired, they generally attempt to go to bed, rather than challenging their bodies ability to stay awake by reading.

There are also other factors that come into play that make this theory one of the best. Although I agreed that reading is the best preparation when attempting to fall asleep quickly, cofounding variables can take part in why reading causes us to snooze so rapidly. When reading a piece of literature during the night, there is a high possibility that this task is performed in bed. Most individuals tend to dim the lights, change into pajamas and get into a comfortable position while preparing for bed. When these actions take place and one attempts to read, the likelihood of falling asleep increase due to the setting in which they are in. Of course we can always consider “chance” being an option in determining why the results came out the way they did; however, it is not likely considering the statistics and data strongly point towards the correctness of the alternative hypothesis.

All in all, based on the researched, backed by scientific experiments, I concluded that the theory of reading before bed does assist the average person to fall asleep more speedily than other methods. Boredom and other cofounding variables could alter the results, favoring this theory; yet these factors are part of what makes reading before bed the most efficient method out there.

While researching I discovered alternative ways to destress before bed that may allow you to get a sound sleep. If reading isn’t your favorite activity, check out the following website: http://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-14226/10-tips-to-get-great-sleep-no-matter-how-stressed-you-are.html

Sources:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/5070874/Reading-can-help-reduce-stress.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/27/stress-less-challenge-sleep_n_3157927.html

http://elitedaily.com/life/reading-bedtime-can-help-sleep-dream-better/1002744/

I have noticed that ever since I have started my college career, I have been cracking my knuckles more and more. At this point, I could state that my knuckle cracking has developed a bad habit of mine. It’s just that I feel extremely content whenever I experience that pop. The only thing that bothers me about this habit of mine is that I have constantly been told how damaging it is. My grandmother would always yell at me whenever I did it because “Cracking your fingers will give you arthritis!”. I grew up consistently hearing that, but never truly knew if it was valid, or just another old wives tale. Is this satisfying feeling of cracking my fingers going to cause the development of arthritis down the road?

The sound of cracking knuckles is a byproduct of the stretching and collapsing of muscle joints. When a muscle joint is stretched, gas fills the space, and creates an air pocket. When the muscle joint later collapses, the air pocket bursts, resulting in the popping noise.The sound is generated when then the muscle joint returns to its resting position after being stretched. The common belief is that this constant cracking damages/destroys the tendons and ligaments and causes arthritis. Arthritis is the inflammation, and stiffness caused by the deterioration of muscle joints. If the cracking of muscle joints does cause arthritis, the results from several well-conducted studies will show that the muscle joints are in some way being damaged. We must find a study that shows on the overall affect of stretching and collapsing our muscle joints over an extended period.

After searching the internet, and reading multiple studies, I concluded that knuckle cracking has no long-term negative effects on muscle joints. I came to this inference after reading an article conducted over a span of 60-years, and another conducted validating an experiment recently conducted by a different scientist. By far the most interesting study I had stumbled upon was conducted by a doctor, named Donald Unger. His mother constantly warned him as a child about the apparent dangers of knuckle cracking, and one day decided to conduct an experimental study on himself to find out the truth. He conducted this experiment by cracking his knuckles in his left hand twice a day, and never his in right hand. After doing this for 60-years, he concluded that it was harmless. He never observed any signs or symptoms of the development of arthritis. Although this experiment is anecdotal, and only had one subject, his experiment did provide him an IG Nobel Prize and was widely accepted.

A more reliable experiment that supports Dr. Donald Unger’s data was conducted by a radiologist, named Robert D. Boutin. His experimental study was conducted with 40 healthy participants. He started by gathering information on roughly how frequently each subject had cracked their knuckles through the span of their lives. He then had each person crack the base of their finger under an ultrasound machine. The alternative hypothesis was that cracking your knuckles would cause damage to the muscle joint. The null hypothesis was that cracking your knuckles had no effect on the muscle joint.

Robert D. Boutin and his team did not expect to notice anything too interesting. When he observed at such a close level, he found that when the joints are cracked, an explosion occurs causing the popping sound. This explosion was concluded to be the bursting of the air pocket created by the stretching of the muscle joint. Through observation, they also were able to conclude that the cracking had no affect on the muscle joint. They did not detect any noticeable signs of damage, even when observed though an ultrasound machine.

This is a fascinating, and very misunderstood wives tale. Originally, people thought that the sound was a result of the bubble forming, and was believed to be damaging to the joint. Next, a scientist was able to conclude that the sound was the byproduct of the air pocket bursting, but it was still believed that it was straining the joints, and causing arthritis. Until those two experiments were conducted, it was just assumed with no evidence that cracking your knuckles caused arthritis. Now we know that the cracking has no effect on the joints/ligaments, and does not aid in the acquisition of arthritis. I can continue to crack my knuckles and enjoy that satisfying pop without a worry of future health problems.

Sources:

Articles:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-makes-the-sound-when/

http://www.arthritis.org/about-arthritis/understanding-arthritis/what-is-arthritis.php?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&gclid=CjwKEAjw1qHABRDU9qaXs4rtiS0SJADNzJis5c_9QIh8sEmLz2OYayHhYbVqvI5TvmtBhTMue9EX4BoCYprw_wcB

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11539913/Why-knuckle-cracking-makes-a-popping-sound-and-why-it-might-be-beneficial.html

http://www.sciencealert.com/new-study-confirms-what-really-happens-when-you-crack-your-knuckles

http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v301/n6/full/scientificamerican1209-104.html

Pictures:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3040294/They-ve-cracked-Scans-reveal-popping-sound-clicks-knuckles.html

http://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/everything-you-need-to-know-about-cracking-your-knuckles

No matter where I am, or what the food is, I will never eat anything that touches the ground. To be completely honest, I am what someone could consider as a germaphobe. With this being said, the other day I noticed a friend of mine eat a goldfish that had previously been on the ground. His reasoning was that since the goldfish was only on the ground for a minimal amount of time, it was still in a condition in which it is safe to consume. This is more commonly known as the 5-second rule. This phenomenon establishes the idea that if food is on the ground for less than 5 seconds, it is still sanitary enough to eat. It has been on my mind for weeks now, and I have decided to discover the truth. I need to know if someone can grab their fallen food within 5 seconds, is the freshness/cleanliness of the food preserved, or will it become germ-ridden?

To start to answer this question, we must determine what affects the transferring of germs. This article states that moist food is more susceptible to picking up germs. It also goes on to say that certain surfaces are going to transfer more germs than others. For example, a carpeted surface is going to spread fewer germs, than a stainless steel surface, or a tiled surface. Next step is to find a well-conducted experiment. To prove that the 5-second rule is true, we must find a study that obtained results displaying that before the 5-second mark, little to no germs were transferred to the food. If any other result comes from the experiments, then we will know that the rule is invalid and just another myth. Also, the experiment must be conducted in a manner in which it has next to no confounding variables, and contains a large enough sample size to further convince us the results pertains to almost every situation.

I found a study that put this myth to the test. It was an experimental study, and the findings were impressive enough for those involved to receive an IG Nobel Prize. This experiment was conducted by a high school student (Jillian Clarke), on a six-week internship at the University of Illinois. Along for the ride was a doctoral candidate to supervise the study. They wanted to test how many germs are transferred over a specific amount of time and discover the validity of the 5-second rule. The null hypothesis for this experiment was that before the 5-second mark, no germs would spread. The alternative hypothesis was that before the 5-second mark, germs would have spread to the food. If the null hypothesis is correct, the 5-second rule would be proven true.

First, Jillian Clarke measured the amount of e-Coli that was present on both a rough, and smooth surface. This provided a base for the amount of germs initially present, and the variety of surfaces was done to eliminate a possible third confounding variable from the experiment. Next, she placed a cookie, and a gummy bear on both surfaces, and observed and recorded her results. She found that germs started to transfer even before the 5-second mark. The results supported the alternative hypothesis and showed that the 5-second rule was just a myth. The results suggested that a short amount of time does not preserve the sanitation of food (At least in the case of gummy bears, and cookies).

This experiment has taught me that the old 5-second rule is just a myth. In fact, germs start to transfer to the food the second it touches the floor. I was expecting the learn that this rule was established from scientific proof, but I discovered that this rule is just another example of widely accepted theory not backed by any scientific evidence. I believe that the experiment was conducted in a manner to provide sufficient data to make the firm inference that the 5-second rule is incorrect. They attempted to rid the experiment of third confounding variables, and the sample size was large enough to produce convincing results. With that being said, the experiment was recognized and accepted enough to merit an IG Nobel Prize.

The most important concept anyone can take from this experiment is that germs spread at a faster pace than most realize. Being careful with tainted surfaces, and recognizing the fast paste at which germs spread, can help prevent the transferring of food born illnesses. This can help keep people safe from contracting an avoidable ailment.

Sources:

Articles:

http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/features/5-second-rule-rules-sometimes-#1

http://cen.acs.org/articles/82/i41/Ig-Nobel-effort.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/09/five-second-rule-revealed/

Pictures:

http://funnyasduck.net/post/16779

http://www.albanesecandy.com/all-gummies/12-flavor-gummi-bears/

I feel that today, the most important things being researched are ways for people to live longer, happier, and healthier lives. For example, either through discovering new medicine, vaccines, or obtaining new/better knowledge on human behavior. Several things are not allowing the average person to have these “better lives.” Data collected in 2010 showed that millions of individuals are affected by some addiction. Addiction causes people to live an abnormal life and can cause shorter life spans. Addiction is when a person is physically or mentally dependent on something else. For instance, a substance or activity (In this blog I will mostly be focusing on drug and alcoholism). If a substance contains enough addictive material, then the user can become hooked after just one use. Studies show that consistent drug use alters the brain’s functionality. It is understood that there is the connection between constant use and how the brain processes satisfaction. If the brain notices that the action has a pleasurable outcome, a person will start to do it more often, and it could eventually lead to a dependency. The most important question I would like to have an answer to by the end of my research is: Can an addict return to a normal, nondependent life after longterm drug use?

To know if it is possible to break an addiction, we must know what causes an addiction to starting in the first place. Several different factors cause the development of addiction. 1.) Genetics plays a part. If a family member has or had an addiction, their descendants are more likely to become addicted to something. 2.) Mental status is also a factor. If a person is alone or has a mental illness, they too are more susceptible to become an addict. 3.) According to this article, males are more likely to become addicts than females are. 4.) Lastly, the substance or activity that is used impacts the severity of the addiction. Certain drugs are very addictive; Used even once, it can cause a person to become dependent.

When a person is dependent on something, there are usually signs. First off, and probably the most obvious is that they can not stop. It clearly shows they need it and are addicted. Next, even when there are apparent changes in their health, they will continue to feed their addiction. This shows the phenomenon known as denial and is another sign of dependency. For example, a drug addict might tell themselves that the drug is not causing them to feel ill. They will blame it on anything besides the drug because they do not want anything interfering with using. Also, an addict will give up other things for their addiction. Like not being as social, giving up other hobbies, and spending an excessive amount of money. Lastly, if they do not satisfy their addiction, they will show signs of withdrawal. Withdrawal is when the addict is no longer fulfilling their addiction. This causes both physical and mental consequences. Their mood will rapidly change, they could start to feel empty without it and tend to become depressed. On top of that, they might go through spurts of time where they both shake and sweat an inordinate amount.

Now that we understand the basics of addiction, it is important to see real life experiments done on the topic. A study was conducted by a group of researchers, who believed that there is a particular neuron in the brain that provides the sense of reward from feeding an addiction. They wanted to know if there was a way to block these neurons, and stop an addiction. In this case, the addiction is alcohol, and it is tested on rats. For this experiment, mice were injected with a concoction that would render alcohol-linked neurons inactive. This means that the substance would not allow the mice to distinguish drinking and the feeling of getting drunk. The rats could still be able to get drunk, but they would not be able to make the conscious link between drinking a lot and the pleasurable feeling of being intoxicated. The null hypothesis was that the created concoction would not stop the rats from binge drinking. The alternative hypothesis was that the concoction would cause the rats to be no longer addicted to drinking alcohol.

To start, the researchers gathered rats and made them addicted to alcohol. Next, they split the rats into two groups; One receiving the injection (Experimental group), while the other did not (Controlled group). After that, they had provided each rat two pumps. One containing alcohol and the other holding sugar water. They observed and recorded the results. They noticed that the rats that had received the injection had completely stopped being dependent on alcohol, and their compulsive drinking habits stopped. On the other hand, the other group continued to drink excessively. This lasted the entire time the rats were monitored, and the study was repeated a second and a third time. Each experiment presented relatively the same results. These repeated results supported the alternative hypothesis. This provided strong evidence that that the root of addiction is found in the brain, and that if specific neurons are blocked, an addiction can be stopped in it’s tracks. These results could be due to chance (most likely not though), but third variables are ruled out. It was a controlled experiment which blocked specific neurons in the brain, eliminating the possibility that the results were due to other variables. Reverse causation could also be ruled out for that same reason.

After this experiment, the next step would be to find a way to convert this newfound knowledge to humans. Either through conducting human experiments or developing medicine to manipulate the link between addition and the reward it provides. With the results of the experiment, it is evident an addiction can be broken. Until a standardized form of medication comes out blocking neurons in the brain, addicts must recover in a more conventional way. The first step in stopping an addiction is acknowledging that the addict has a problem and that they are not in control. After the first, and arguably the most important step, they must seek out help. Either treatment centers or psychologists. Here they will have people to support them battle the addiction, and set them on the right path to living a normal life again. With constant comfort, and eventually new medication, it is possible for an addict to return to an ordinary life.

Sources:

Articles:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/info/addiction/signs-of-addiction.php

http://www.addictionsandrecovery.org/withdrawal.htm

http://www.scripps.edu/newsandviews/e_20160912/george.html

http://www.drugfree.org/new-data-show-millions-of-americans-with-alcohol-and-drug-addiction-could-benefit-from-health-care-r/

Pictures:

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugs-brains-behavior-science-addiction/drugs-brain

https://memegenerator.net/instance/35161408

The upcoming elections have been under a lot of focus recently. A big part of the entire process are the presidential debates. Everyone tuned in to watch the first of the two debates and analyzed every minute that it lasted. One of the things that came up was the high frequency of interruptions. Donald Trump appeared to be interrupting his competitor quite frequently, however, he was not interrupted as much. Different organizations tallied the interruptions between the two candidates and while they may not agree on the specific numbers, they all saw that Trump interrupted Hillary a lot more than she interrupted him. One article even analyzed the effects of these interruptions on each of the candidate’s performances. The article explained how the candidates walk a fine line between appearing to be assertive or aggressive. These interruptions, especially in debates show off the personalities of the speakers. Whether or not Trump appeared to be assertive or aggressive is for the viewers to decide, however, it is important to note that even things as simple as interruptions can affect us.

The article also referenced to several studies which have been conducted since the 1970’s to see whether men tend to interrupt more than women. Most studies related to this topic are observational experiments. There is little way of controlling conversations. Studies in 1975 saw researchers hanging around train stations, coffee shops, etc and recording conversations. Results from one such study revealed that out of the 48 noted interruptions, men were responsible for 47 of them. Seeing that there was little data collected at the time, one can doubt the findings and believe that it was just the work of chance. Hence more studies were conducted to test the hypothesis. While these other studies did not show such a big difference between the number of interruptions made by men and women, they did show that on average men did tend to interrupt more. Not only that, but a recent study even claimed that men were more likely to interrupt women than they would other men. The study’s conclusions are based on an observational experiment involving conversations for 15 hours over a period of four weeks. In approximately 900 minutes of conversation, the conductor (Kieran Snyder) noted 314 interruptions. Of all the data collected, she made several observations on the frequency of interruptions and noted that third variables such as the number of people involved int he conversation and setting affect the number of interruptions. Her own study took place in a formal setting and involved 4-5 people. Based on these external factors, she concluded that men do infect interrupt more than women. Out of the 314, men were responsible for 60% of the interruptions.

All three studies, including several others, conclude that men do interrupt more than women. The reasons to explaining why would need us to explore several other studies about psychological mindsets of men and women and the nature of our male-dominant society.

Citations

Trump & Clinton Image

Interruption Rate Graph

1. Pappas, Stephanie. “Do Interruptions Hurt Presidential Candidates? What the Science Says.” Live Science, Health. N.p., 7 Oct. 2016. Web. 15 Oct. 2016.
2. Robb, Alice. “Why Men Are Prone to Interrupting Women.” Disrupting The Interrupting. N.p., 19 Mar. 2015. Web. 15 Oct. 2016.
3. Snyder, Kieran. “How to Get Ahead as a Woman in Tech: Interrupt Men.” Slate Magazine. N.p., 23 July 2014. Web. 20 Oct. 2016.

Currently, America is undergoing a fad known as the health craze. This craze consists of the average person attempting to become as healthy as possible. They strive to do so through making alterations in their diets. For example, many have switched from peanut butter to almond butter; Became vegan; Started using almond milk, instead of regular milk; Or even begun to cook with coconut oil, instead of olive oil. It seems that our society is becoming obsessed with finding that healthier alternative. This health craze is a good thing. It is encouraging causing people to alter their eating habits for the better. With that being said, I decided to research some different substitutions that could be made to increase one’s health. The most interesting alternative I had found was, substituting milk/white chocolate for dark chocolate. It forced me to question if there is a difference between the types of chocolate? It also got me thinking, what makes one type of chocolate healthier than the other?

Let’s start the research by finding out the known benefits of cocoa as a whole. According to this article, cocoa can provide many health benefits. It states that cocoa on its own is an excellent provider of nutrients and antioxidants. A bar rich in cocoa contains high levels of fiber, iron, copper, magnesium, and potassium. It also consists of a large amount of the good type of cholesterol (HDL), which can aid in the reduction of the bad cholesterol (LDL). Chocolate is not all good, though. It comes at the cost of high sugar, bringing us to the point that chocolate must be consumed in moderation for it to be beneficial to one’s health.

Next, we must figure out what makes the three forms of chocolate different from one another. I found an article that pointed out that the classification of chocolate, is distinguished by its ingredients. Dark chocolate has absolutely no milk solids added into it; It consists of 30%-80% cocoa solids. White chocolate has no chocolate in it. It is made up of a byproduct of cocoa plants, called cocoa butter. To reach government standards, milk chocolate must be comprised of 25% cocoa solids, and 22% chocolate liquor, and milk solids.The difference in ingredients is more than likely the mechanism causing the difference in health benefits from one form of chocolate to another. To test this, we must find a study comparing the health results between the different types of chocolate. I searched and found a perfect experiment to test my possible mechanism.

This experiment’s objective was to compare the effects of the consumption of white, and dark chocolate, on a person blood pressure, and insulin sensitivity. 15 healthy subjects were chosen to partake in this experimental, double-blind, placebo study. The study was conducted after each subjected completed a seven day period of not consuming any chocolate. After, the subjects were randomly assigned to eat either 90g of white chocolate or 100g of dark chocolate on a daily basis. They consumed their randomly assigned form of chocolate for 15 days. After those 15 days, they entered another seven-day chocolate-free period. When those seven days were over, each subject was given the alternative form of chocolate. They each consumed that type of chocolate for another 15 days. Blood pressure and insulin readings were conducted after each period, for a total of 4 different blood pressures measurements, and four different insulin readings. The null hypothesis was that eating either white or dark chocolate would show relatively the same blood pressure and insulin readings. The alternative hypothesis is that dark chocolate will show lower readings in blood pressure and insulin sensitivity.

The experiment provided the results that dark chocolate caused a decrease in blood pressure, and improved insulin sensitivity. The readings on blood pressure showed that those who ate dark chocolate had lower blood pressure than those who ate white chocolate. The results brought a P value of roughly .001. This low value means that, more likely than not, the results were not due to chance. With insulin sensitivity, the results showed that dark chocolate provoked a lower HOMA-IR (Assessment of insulin levels) than white chocolate consumers. Its P value was also marked at less than .001. This too showed that the results were not likely due to chance. Even though the experiment had a small experimental size, the results were pretty conclusive. The experiment provided certain results, and changed my views on chocolate consumption.

The most valuable idea to grasp from all of this is that dark chocolate is healthier, but eating an absurd amount of dark chocolate is detrimental. The healthy aspects are only present if consumed in moderation, and if the chocolate is organic with a cocoa percentage greater than 30%. The increased cocoa percentage provides more nutrients and more antioxidants. Not to mention, if the percentage is higher, there is less room for added sugar, cocoa byproducts, or milk solids. So if you have a sugar tooth, and love chocolate, switch to dark and reap the benefits it provides.

Sources:

Articles:

https://authoritynutrition.com/7-health-benefits-dark-chocolate/

http://www.belgiansmaak.com/white-milk-and-dark-chocolate/

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/81/3/611.short

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/27/6/1487

Pictures:

http://www.quickmeme.com/spongebob-chocolate-guy

http://www.eattoperform.com/2015/04/14/eat-perform-365-solution-reset-food-freedom-means/

I have been a contact lens wearer for more than five years, and I think they are great. A few seconds in the morning gives me the gift of perfect sight without having to wear a primitive piece of eyewear on my face. Unfortunately, the second I take them out for the night, I am essentially blind at distances further than an arm’s length! I am certainly not alone. According to the American Optometric Association, nearly thirty percent of Americans are affected by myopia (nearsightedness) caused by an elongated eyeball and/or incorrect curvature of the cornea. Light entering the eye does not do so in proper focus. Contact lenses and glasses correct this. Myopia can be inherited genetically and provoked by environmental factors. I can say that my vision is definitely worse now than it was five years ago. I have chalked this up to some sort of “dependence” that I have developed as a result of corrective lens use and I have accepted it as a natural consequence of wearing them every day. This Nigerian study found that 64 percent of students feel the same way. Is there validity to this belief? Would people be wise to wear their lenses sparingly to avoid worsening myopia? Furthermore, is there a difference between contact lenses and eye glasses with regards to myopic progression?

A simple google search will return advice from many laymen claiming the affirmative- that corrective lenses do in fact worsen eyesight. The science, however, leads in a different direction. Testing this is not easy because it is normal for eyesight to naturally worsen with age, but this study offered valuable data. The scientists assumed that if it were true that prescription glasses worsened eyesight, then it would be logical to under correct eyesight to slow that deterioration. To study this, 94 children aged 9 to 14 were randomly assigned to two groups. The control group was fully corrected while the experimental group was given prescriptions that were .75 units below what would correct them fully. Their eyes were measured yearly. The results of the study were surprising: the control group eventually leveled off while the experimental group experienced elongated eyes and worsening vision. This study debunked the idea that a weaker prescription will slow myopic progression by proving that doing so in fact accelerates it. Those with proper prescriptions did not experience worsening vision as a result. Interesting note on this study: This study was actually a rare example of one that had to be stopped prematurely because the results were so immediately obvious. We discussed ethics in class with regards to this type of occurrence. Researchers concluded that to continue the study would be unnecessarily harmful to the experimental group. Under correction is no longer an acceptable practice for attempting to slow myopia.

The take away so far is that worsening nearsightedness as a result of corrective glasses is a complete myth. But does the same hold true for wearers of contact lenses? According to a project called Adolescent and Child Health Initiative to Encourage Vision Empowerment (ACHIEVE), children who wore contact lenses experienced no clinically relevant increases in myopic progression. They determined this by randomly allocating 484 children who had not previously worn contacts into two groups: one that wore contact lenses and one that wore glasses. They then studied the progression of myopia in the two groups to determine that there was no statistical difference.

Take away: The notion that nearsighted people will experience more rapid eyesight deterioration by wearing corrective lenses is false. Under correcting to avoid worsening of eyesight will actually worsen it! Contact lenses are safe with regards to myopic progression.

Note: The pictures themselves are links to their respective source. 

Currently, the world as a whole must deal with so many problems. War, penury, and terminal illnesses are just some of the extreme ones. With so many new developments in technology, it is shocking that we still face numerous complications. A prevalent problem throughout the world is cancer. Unfortunately, it took the life of my god-father last summer, after a prolonged battle with a form of cancer, called Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma. It is sad to say, but cancer is far too common and is the second leading cause of deaths in the United States. According to this article, only counting this year, roughly 564,000 Americans that were diagnosed with some form of cancer. This statistic made me wonder why we have not found a cure yet. If it is one of the most common killers in the United States, why is it taking so long to find a cure? Throughout history, many deadly diseases have been cured, but why has cancer failed to join that list?

According to this article, a vaccine is a type of medication that supplies immunity to a particular disease. Vaccination is created from a weakened or dead form of the organism that causes that disease. The weakened form of the disease will not cause any harm but will teach the body how to react if a living form of that organism every enters the body. Our bodies fight off foreign invaders by producing antibodies. These antibodies identify the intruders and attach themselves to fight them off. Now, one may be questioning how a weakened form of illness would help in the future. They work by providing the immune system a crash course. Basically, when our antibodies encounter a pathogen once, they will develop memory cells. These cells increase the response time of antibodies for the next time they face that particular organism, making it much harder for you to become ill from that organism. Vaccines are more or less the cure to specific pathogens.

Finding a cure for cancer is so complicated due to the uniqueness of cancer. Cancerous cells originate as normal healthy cells and then became cancerous. Because of this, our body has a hard time distinguishing healthy cells from the tainted ones. This confusion causes antibodies to attack our healthy cells along with the cancerous ones. With that being said, an experimental drug has been introduced that is believed to increase the survivability rate of those suffering from certain forms of cancer. This medication works by hindering the creation of new blood vessels in tumors, and in turn, cuts off necessary nutrients for the tumor to grow. Without tumors being able to grow, the cancerous cells can not contaminate any other cells, preventing cancer from spreading.

In an experimental study, a total of 1,253 patients with stage 4 lung cancer were selected to test the drug, called Ramucircumab. Every participant had previously been treated with chemotherapy, but their cancer was still progressing. The experimental study was conducted as a double-blind, placebo trial. Each subject was randomly assigned Ramucircumab, or a placebo. The researchers attempted to rid the experiment of third confounding variables by conducting this as the random trial, with a large sample size. The null hypothesis was that Ramucircumab would not have any affect on the survival rate of the patients. On the other hand, the alternative hypothesis was that the patients who received Ramucircumab would live longer and show signs of remission. Patients were evaluated before and after the experiment, and their results were compared to their initial assessments.

Results:

Experimental Group: Those who received Ramucircumab…

1. Survived an average of 5-10 months.
2. Went through a 4-5 month period in which their cancer did not worsen. This included after the trial was over (p<0·0001).
3. Noticed a reduction in the size of tumors

Control Group: Those who received the placebo…

1. Survived an average of 1-9 months.
2. Went through a period of 0-3 months in which their cancer did not worsen. This included after the trial was over (p<0·0001).
3. Rarely noticed a reduction in the size of tumors

The experimental group lived longer, suggesting that Ramucircumab increases the survival rate of cancer patients. This increase supports the alternative hypothesis that the drug is effective. Due to the large sample size, and the manner in which the study was conducted, the p value was less than 0.0001. This low value means that the results were more than likely not due to chance

.

By no means does this one trail prove that we can cure cancer, or prove anything for that matter; This study does prove we are getting close to the cure, and it displays signs that we can fight it. Cancer is a terrible illness and one of the biggest problems the world faces. With more and more trials, and experiments, I believe that cancer can one day be cured. Although we have not been given a treatment yet, scientists are developing medicine to help fight cancer, and are providing hope that there is a cure for cancer.

Sources:

Pictures:

https://apkpure.com/ar-lungs-demo/com.Holoteq.ARLungs

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

Articles:

http://www.vaccines.gov/basics/

http://www.livescience.com/32617-how-do-vaccines-work.html

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/what-is-cancer

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)60845-X/abstract?cc=y=

Growing up, I loved playing video games. Before I had a car to go places, I would play outside when it was warm or play video games inside when it was cold. Playing video games was an easy, fun way to pass the time for my friends and I when we were younger. We would play all types of games ranging from sports games, to arcade games, to action games. Playing video games was the thing to do back then. Now that I’m older, I don’t play as much, but I know a lot of people who do. This caused me to think about the effects of all the time I spent playing these games. I started to think about the types of games I played, many of which were violent. I played violent video games for years, and I wonder how it may have affected me over time.

There are two hypotheses in this situation: the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that violent video games have no effect on the player, and the alternative hypothesis is that the violent games do have an effect on the player. In my opinion, I do not think the games had much of an effect on me, but I could see how some say the violent games could affect them.

This article describes a study done to find the answer to the question if violent games affect the player. The results of this study surprised me a little bit. This particular study showed that playing violent video games has a short-term effect on the player. The effect shown was an increase in the aggression of the player. It also showed less emotion and attention from the player. The study did show that these effects were short term because after a week of not playing, the brain went back to the baseline levels before the gaming was done.

A separate study actually attempts to show long term effects of violent video games. The results of this study show increased aggression from the players of violent video games just like the previously mentioned study. However, this study shows that the aggression is increased after every session of playing a violent video game. The co-author of this study, Dr. Brad Bushman, believes that if the player continues to play the violent games daily, that the aggression levels would add on top of each other each day. He believes this could lead to a negative or hostile view of the world.

These studies show results that the brain undergoes changes after playing a violent video game. I was surprised to learn the effects of violent video games were so prevalent so quickly. My personal theory was that some young people’s view of a hostile world was derived from the media. I thought what they saw happening on the news and in the world would cause them to feel a certain way about the world. It turns out that violent video games can have this effect on people quite easily. These results make me think that a young person with a maturing brain could be negatively influenced by violent video games, and that the laws to get violent games at a young age should be much stricter.

Video games are very enjoyable, and the business is growing exponentially. People are not going to stop playing violent games so we need to make sure people understand the effects. I played them growing up, but I think I will monitor what games my future kids play starting at a young age.

Sources: http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/02/how-playing-violent-video-games-may-change-the-brain/

http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/12/11/negative-effects-of-violent-video-games-may-build-over-time/48918.html

http://webspace.ship.edu/jacamp/psyberpsych/videogames/Page2.html

As many of us know, Penn State is infected with sick college students. I find it nearly impossible to go ten seconds without someone either sneezing or coughing profusely around me in our SC 200 class. When we are sick, many of us take medication like Benadryl to control or cough or runny nose. We are also well aware that there are numerous side-affects listed on the packaging but we barely bother to read around 30 side-affects. Could dementia be one of those side affects?

http://www.green-hill.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/dementia-Large.jpg

Background Information

Dementia is a very serious condition that affects millions of people around the world. If you are not aware of dementia, it is something caused by our brains which causes things like memory loss, impaired thinking, confusion, and mental decline. Dementia is most common in elderly people over age 60.

Benadryl is a very common over-the-counter drug that is widely available at places like Walgreens and CVS all across the world. Benadryl is part of a class of drugs called antihistamines. Antihistamines work by blocking histamine receptors in our body which can cause things like runny nose and insomnia.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/fathom_media/cache/bc/eb/bceb06a5414d16b78da363acc916661b.jpg

Hypotheses 

In this case, the null hypothesis would be that antihistamines like Benadryl do nothing to cause dementia. While, the alternative hypothesis would be that in fact antihistamines play a role in dementia. Scientists can choose to either accept or reject the null hypothesis.

Studies

A study conducted by JAMA Internal Medicine in 2015 studied the potential link between anticholinergic use and dementia. Anticholinergics are drugs that block acetylcholine from reaching the body (antihistamines like Benadryl are anticholinergic drugs). The study was a longitudinal study, which as we mentioned in class in the “is smoking bad for you” session, is a observational study that studies some sort of trend across a long period of time. The longitudinal study tracked 3,434 people aged 65 and older over 10 years. Specifically, the study looked into constant use of anticholinergics and dementia. New participants were enrolled into study to replace previous participants that passed away. Computerized pharmacy dispensing data was used to see if the participants were using anticholinergics frequently. This data showed the name of the person, the amount, and how they took the prescribed anticholinergics.

https://mgtvkron.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/pills.jpg?w=650

Results

The results of the study showed a positive correlation between anticholinergic use and dementia in the participants. 797 out of the 3,434 participants developed during the course of the study. Participants who took more anticholinergics had a higher risk of developing dementia. A number of third variables like college education, regular physical activity, and smoking were taken into account.

http://jamanetwork.com/data/Journals/INTEMED/932778/ioi140138t1.png

Takeaways 

In my opinion, this is one of the most important studies ever conducted in medicine. I believe that the study was extremely well conducted by accounting for a number of third variables and had an incredibly large sample size. Most of my previous blogs contained studies that had 20-50 people, this one had just under 3,500. Although this study definitely proves the positive correlation between anticholinergic use and dementia, we know that correlation need not equal causation. This study does not prove that if you take anticholinergics you will get dementia, it just shows that there is a link between the two. Reverse causation can be ruled out due to the lapse of time.

Works Cited

MS, Shelly L. Gray PharmD. “Strong Anticholinergics and Incident Dementia.”The JAMA Network. Jama Internal Medicine, 01 Mar. 2015. Web. 20 Oct. 2016.

When I was growing up my elementary school teachers always told me to eat a piece of chocolate before a standardized exam. I never understood why but it always gave me a good excuse to eat a piece of chocolate early in the morning. Ten years later I am really intrigued by  how eating chocolate can improve your brain’s ability to process things. Chocolate to me was always a nice little treat to snack on.

Chocolate contains natural chemicals called Flavonoids. These chemicals provide many health benefits. Chocolate contains flavanols and flavonols. Flavanols are beneficial in lowering blood pressure and keeping blood vessels healthy. These chemicals also contain anti-axtiodants that help remove damaging agents from the body. Dark Chocolate is known to have a higher percentage of flavonoids compared to light chocolates.

Image taken from http://cocoaflavanol.org

In addition studies have shown that eating chocolate can improve cognitive functions like memory.  It is relatively normal for someones memory to deteriorate as they get older. This should not be mistaken for Alzheimer’s disease.  For many adults recalling facts can become difficult while recognition seems to be easier. Recall consist of remembering a fact and mentally having to retrieve the information from your memory. Recognition involves comparing things and associating information in your memory.  Recognition does not involve as much effort. A study done by Columbia University Medical Students has shown that dietary changes can improve memory that declines as a person ages. Before this study there had only seen to be a correlational relationship between eating chocolate and improved cognitive functions. In this study Dr. Scott A. Small wanted to test whether or not cocoa flavanols could help the part of the brain that deals with memory. Dr. Small used a drink that contained cocoa flavanols to test his hypothesis. The sample group of 37 volunteers in the same age range were randomly allocated into the control and experimental group. A randomized control experiment helps to eliminate confounding variables. The control group received a drink with a low concentration of cocoa flavanols while the experimental group received a drink with high concentrations. Different images were taken of the participant’s brains before and after the study. Memory test were also given before and after to allow for comparison. The results showed that the participants that received the highly concentrated drink preformed much better and the brain images showed the dentate gyrus improving with functioning. The dentate gyrus is the area of the brain affected by normal age related memory decline. The study was done on a small scale but there is compelling evidence that shows the casual relationship between consumption of cocoa flavanols and improvement in memory.

Image taken from http://newsroom.cumc.columbia.edu/blog/2014/10/26/flavanols-memory-decline/. Normal age related memory decline and Alzheimer’s disease affects different parts of the brain.

Chocolate consumption has also been linked to providing benefits to the heart. Multiple studies have been conducted looking deeper into this linkage. Scientists from the University of Cambridge sought out to analyze the results of the multiple studies done. From all of the studies they analyzed five of the studies showed a positive correlation between chocolate consumption and heart health. With high chocolate consumption many things like stroke were reduced. These experiments can sometimes be difficult to conduct because with the consumption of chocolate there are many other things to take account of. There are high calorie and sugar levels with eating chocolate. Eating high amounts of chocolate is never too safe. More studies in this realm could be conducted with caution to see if there is indeed a casual relationship between the two.

Chocolate consumption has been linked to both improved memory and heart health. But these studies do not promote the overconsumption of chocolate which can result in negative effects in different areas. A piece of chocolate a day might be the perfect amount to stimulate your brain and to keep your heart healthy.

I think that almost everyone has heard from an adult at some point in their childhood to make sure they drink more milk because it will make your bones stronger. For generations, it has been believed that the calcium, that is mainly found in dairy products, could increase bone density and strength. I never thought to question whether this was actually true or not; I just took their word for it. However, recently this has become a big topic of issue. Scientists have begun to question whether calcium actually helps strengthen your bones and if it can reduce the risk of fractures and breaking. I decided to do some more research on whether calcium is beneficial.

Within my researching, I found a study, led by professor Mark J. Bolland, that analyzed the effects of extra calcium intake through dairy or supplements to see if there is a correlation to bone density. The study included male and female participants over the age of 50. They had randomized control trials where they would give the patients calcium supplements in addition to vitamin D supplements or a placebo. The researchers found that the chance of bone fracture was decreased by eleven percent after taking the calcium supplements. However, the results were not uniform with every trial. Therefore, it is concluded that there is not enough consistent evidence to prove that calcium, whether taken by supplements or through dairy products, can significantly reduce the chance of bone fractures or breaking (Bolland 2015).

I decided to look further into this topic and found many researchers and doctors who also not only believe that calcium does not contribute to a reduction in bone fractures, but calcium intakes could cause other health issues as well. In an article written by Maggie Fox, for NBC News, she explains how a study found that additional calcium supplements could cause build up in your arteries or kidneys, which could lead to heart disease and kidney stones. In addition, some studies have even found a correlational between a higher risk of cancer and an increased intake of calcium (Fox 2015).

The studies mentioned in the article have the same conclusion as the study conducted by Bolland: calcium intake can slightly increase bone density, but there is not enough evidence to prove that it is significantly beneficial. The article suggests exercising as a way of increasing bone density, instead of relying solely on calcium supplements (Fox 2015). These articles and studies prove to be very informative and helpful for people who are looking to strengthen their bones and trying to reduce the risk of bone damage.

Sources:

http://www.delameredairy.co.uk/media/1522/healthy-bone.jpg?anchor=center&mode=crop&width=320&height=480&rnd=130861152810000000

http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4580

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/diet-fitness/calcium-supplements-or-dairy-doesnt-strengthen-bones-study-finds-n435726

According to this article, the earliest recorded set of twins was recorded about 7,000 to 8,000 years ago, so twins have obviously been around for a long time. But according to BabyCenter.com, the rate at which twins are born increased by 76% between the years of 1980 and 2009. The rate of other multiples, such as triplets, quadruplets, etc., has also increased greatly since 1980. There has definitely been no crazy multiple-making contraption invented… at least yet. So what is causing the rise in the amount of multiples being born?

Picture Link

Women used to regularly have children in their teenage years, but that has become a rarity. Women now tend to wait until their 20’s or even their 30’s to have kids. This is the first reason for an increase in multiples because according to an article by Nicholas Bakalar, as women age they tend to release more than one egg per cycle. If more than one egg is fertilized, it results in more babies. Women 30 years or older gave birth to 35 percent of 2009’s twins, which was a 20 percent increase from 1980. The higher average age of women only accounts for about one third of the rise in multiples, though. The biggest reason that the birth rate of multiples has shot up is because of fertility treatment, which is any method or procedure that increases a woman’s chances of conceiving by stimulating the ovaries and causing women to release more than one egg at a time. In vitro fertilization (IVF), a process by which a woman’s egg(s) is/are removed from her body and fertilized by sperm in a laboratory and then put back into her, is one of the most popular types of fertility treatment and according to BabyCenter.com, it has given women anywhere from an 8.8 percent to a 29.1 percent chance of conceiving multiples.

Picture Link

It’s definitely not by chance that multiples have become so common today. We have science and technology to thank for all of these extra cute babies. Without the constant work and discovery in those areas, fertility treatments such as IVF would not exist today and we would not have near as many multiples.

This is how in vitro fertilization works.

Everyday, after getting only about 5 hours of sleep, I wake up and tell myself “I’m going to bed early tonight.” Spoiler alert: I never end up going to bed early. So what usually happens is that I am so exhausted by the end of the week that I sleep for 10-11 hours on Friday and Saturday. I would wake up after getting 10 hours of sleep and still be tired. This made me question how I could get so much sleep and still wake up tired. Well there is a term for that, and the term for getting too much sleep is “oversleeping”.

In my personal case, the question I thought to myself was “can oversleeping be causing unhealthy side effects?” From that question, I developed a null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis. My null hypothesis is that oversleeping causes no adverse health effects. The alternative hypothesis is oversleeping does cause adverse health effects. After developing these hypotheses, I had to find the answer. I researched the topic and found that oversleeping can be detrimental to one’s health.

Oversleeping is a real problem, especially among college students. Many students, like myself, sleep in very late on weekends to try to catch up on the sleep they missed throughout the week. Oversleeping can actually have adverse effects on a person’s health.

During my research, I found that there are a multitude of side effects from over sleeping. This article from the Huffington Post describes a few of them. The main side effects are headaches, heart disease, and diabetes. The headaches are often caused from the internal clock of the body not matching the external environment. They can also be caused by the amount of dreaming and work your body is experiencing while you sleep. Heart disease has one of the scariest correlations with oversleeping. A study showed that the risk for heart disease increases by 38% in those who oversleep. Another frightening correlation is the one between oversleeping and diabetes. Its shown that those who oversleep have a 50% higher chance of having diabetes.

These correlations between over sleeping and side effects worry someone like me, but remember, they are just correlations. We know that correlation does not always equal causation. Oversleeping is not known to be a cause of heart disease and diabetes, it just has strong correlations to these side effects.These side effects are also based on people who oversleep daily. For someone who only oversleeps every so often, they probably will not be affected by the side effects. Even after doing this research, I will probably continue to oversleep at times. I will try to lower the amount of times I do it, but I like sleeping too much to stop oversleeping completely. In the end, just try to get the right amount of sleep every night, and you will most likely be much healthier and happier.

Sources: http://www.webmd.com/sleep-disorders/guide/physical-side-effects-oversleeping#1

Oversleeping Side Effects

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/16/sleeping-too-much-health_n_6672274.html

http://www.headache-help.org/sleep-disorders-and-headache

What exactly is a concussion? According to the CDC, a concussion is a traumatic brain injury caused by a hit or blow to the head or body that causes the brain to move rapidly back and forth. This movement can stretch and severely damage brain cells causing chemical changes in the brain. In the National Football League, concussions happen all the time. Most fans of football are aware of the correlation between NFL players who have sustained multiple, untreated concussions and the neurologic problems that follow. Concussions have been one of the biggest problems the NFL has faced. We hear about it all the time in the news how poorly the NFL handles concussions.  In the 2015 football season, diagnosed concussions rose by nearly 32 percent according to ESPN writer Kevin Selfert. In the year 2015, the total number of concussions was 271 while in 2014 there was only 206 instances. Of the 271 instances, majority of them were caused by contact with another helmet, contact with the playing surface, or contact with a shoulder. Even though the NFL’s concussion policy makes teams more cautious of concussion like symptoms, it is still struggling to reduce the problem  of concussions that occur in the league today. So what does the NFL need to do to increase concussion safety?

To start, concussions will always be a problem in the sport of football. In my opinion, it is almost impossible to completely get rid of concussions because the game is built around contact. One move that the NFL has recently done to try and decrease concussions is the new touchback rule on kickoffs. If the returning team does not run the ball out of the end zone, the team will start now on the 25 yard line instead of the 20 yard line. The goal of this rule is to discourage teams from returning the ball out of the end zone, which will cut down on players running and getting destroyed by the opposing team. Kick returns account for 23.4 percent of concussions during games even though it only represents 5.8 percent of overall plays, according to USA Today. People around the country will see at the end of the season if the NFL was successful in their new rule.

Another way to reduce concussions in football starts at the basic level of the game. Coaches and leagues all over the United States must properly teach kids how to tackle. Recently, the NFL has created Heads Up Football, a series of in person and online courses for coaches to learn the best ways to tackle and new safety procedures to limit head injuries. The NFL has sold thousands of Heads Up Football programs to parents all over the country and reported that the program has done well in limiting concussions. The report that was released by the NFL was false which was debunked by The New York Times.  Heads Up Football showed no effect on concussions during studies.

No protective gear can completely eliminate the risk of a concussion in football, but improvements in equipment could easily reduce concussions. The NFL has made a deal with a company called Vicis who debuted a new helmet that the NFL hopes can help with the problems of concussions. According to Digital Trends, the new helmet is a multilayered that is adept at diminishing rotational and linear impact forces. Each layer has its own job in helping reduce the impact given to the head. Vicis plans on testing the high tech helmet out with Virginia Tech, even though it acknowledges the fact that their unique helmet cannot totally eliminate head injuries. Here is a video that shows off the new helmet.

Sources:

It’s time to finally get rid of the most dangerous play in football

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/zero-1-football-helmet-helps-prevent-concussions/

Picture: http://www.rv123.com/does-nfl-really-mean-not-for-long-concussions-are-ending-careers/

Everyone has heard the term “you are what you eat.” The statement implies that what you put into your body is what you will get out of it and have an affect on your appearance and health. To put it bluntly: healthy foods make you healthy, while unhealthy foods make you unhealthy. As an 18 year old girl who lives with many other kids my age around me 24/7, I have started to question this statement even though I have been hearing it all my life. There are both girls and boys who eat the worst foods possible everyday and are still very fit and have not gained weight due to their unhealthy eating habits. What is the reasoning behind this? Could it be because they have a better metabolism than others? Or were they gifted with genes that gave them the body type that looks lean no matter what they put into their bodies?

http://www.returnofkings.com/30503/men-are-dropping-out-because-their-women-are-becoming-too-fat

Complete Human Performance suggests the best way to test this would be to have a strong control on a group of people when it came to what they ate and how much they exercised. Specifically how many calories were in their meals and what affect it had on their weight. It is easiest to compare results when the test subjects are as similar as possible when it comes to age, gender, and other factors such as their overall health. Then, the calorie intake of each person is the same, in order to be able to compare the results. If one person is losing weight consistently, while another is maintaining their weight or gaining weight, it becomes clear that for the person losing weight, there is another factor stronger than the weight gain. Going back to what I mentioned earlier, my next question was: could this be based on the individual’s metabolism?

The answer to this question was found easily and is no. One’s metabolism is referred to often when talking about one’s weight but does not account for much of it. The best way to loose weight is to burn more calories than you take in. It is true that some have genes that help them stay skinny, while others have genes that are not preventative when it comes to weight gain, but the best way to stay healthy is to find a caloric intake that is best for you.

In addition, a study done in 1921, called “The Longevity Project” 1500+ Americans started being followed by researchers interested in what makes a human healthy. They began to test the question of what the ideal diet and day to day lifestyle for us was. The project shed light on other aspects of life that proved there is a lot more to someone than what they eat. What you do and how you behave plays a major role in one’s health and everything is different.

Naturally, when humans think of romance, the color red is the common denominator. Think about it for a second, that red box of chocolates, the stuffed teddy bear holding a red heart, those red roses. Is this a coincidence? Our human eyes can see around 10,000,000 (10 million) different colors. When going shopping for things like clothes, make-up, and shoes there are a plethora of options for us to chose from. If you are a guy, can something so minuscule like the color of your shirt, tie, or shoes make you more attractive to the opposite sex? Similarly, for women, could the color of your lipstick, dress, or purse make you more attractive to men? That was the question that psychologists Andrew J Elliot and Daniela Niesta tried to answer.

http://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/color-theory-design#sm.0001ua7stcnoyef9z7c1tj06f27k9

Hypotheses 

Personally, when I first thought about this question I thought that there was no way that I would be more attracted to a woman wearing a red dress rather than a white dress. This idea seemed so farfetched to me. In this case, the null hypothesis  would be that a red tie or red lipstick does not make individuals more attractive to the opposite sex. The alternative hypothesis would be that the color makes you more attractive. Scientists can chose to either accept the null hypothesis which basically says that nothing is going on, or they can reject the null hypothesis.

Studies 

A study was conducted by researchers and psychologists at the University of Rochester that tried to figure out if red made people more attractive. They conducted five different experiments with five different groups of participants. The first experiment was a double blinded randomized controlled trial where participants were asked to rate the attractiveness of a black and white picture of a woman on red and white backgrounds on a scale of 1-9 with 9 being very attractive. Participants had no idea what the study was about until they arrived to partake in it. When they arrived, they were only told that the study was about first impressions of women. 27 males were split amongst two groups where one group viewed a black and white picture of a woman with a white background while the other group viewed the same picture with a red background. A standardized manila folder was placed on the table and the groups were asked to pick up the folder and look at the picture for five seconds while the researcher turned around. Following the five seconds, they put the picture down and were asked a number of questions including how attractive they thought the woman was. This study was double blinded because the participants had no idea what the actual purpose of the study was and researchers had no idea what color the participants were looking at.

Experiment number two included doing the same experiment again with both men and women. While additional experiments included a double blinded randomized controlled trial of a woman wearing a red shirt and a blue shirt and participants were asked different questions like would they ask the woman on a date and if they had a hundred dollars, how much would they spend on a date in intervals of ten dollars.

http://media.indipepper.com/2014/11/red-dress-105013.jpg

Results

The results of the study absolutely shocked me. In the first study where 27 males were split amongst two groups and showed pictures with different backgrounds, the red background achieved a perceived attractiveness of around 7.5 on a scale of 9, while the woman on the white background achieved a score around a 6. The p value for this was one percent. The participants were also asked on a scale of 1-9 how the color, facial expression, and clothing of the woman influenced how attractive the woman was. Color was ranked as the least important factor. What made the results so shocking to me was the fact that both groups looked at the same exact woman!  Yet, their results were dramatically different.

http://www.bryanburnham.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Elliot-Niesta-2008-JPSP-.pdf

The second experiment which was the same experiment but included women in addition to men looking at the picture of a woman on different background colors, showed that the gender played a major role in attractiveness. The men yet again found the red background to be more attractive while the woman actually thought that the woman with the white background was more attractive.

http://www.bryanburnham.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Elliot-Niesta-2008-JPSP-.pdf

The last experiment which dealt with 23 males looking at a picture of a woman wearing a blue shirt and a red shirt, showed the correlation between the color red and attractiveness yet again. Additionally, the participants said that they would spend around 25 more dollars on a date with the woman wearing red. Again, the woman in the pictures was absolutely identical with the color of her shirt being photoshopped as the only exception.

http://www.bryanburnham.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Elliot-Niesta-2008-JPSP-.pdf

Later on, the same researchers conducted a separate study where the focus was on if women found men to be more attractive if they were wearing red and the results showed that the color made the males more attractive.

http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3663

Takeaways

My initial response to the results was why are we as humans more attracted to the color red? After doing some research online, I found that the reason why we are more attracted to the color red was subconscious and possibly due to evolution.

I thought that the studies were conducted fairly well. I really liked how the researchers used the double blind approach and did not tell their participants the true purpose of the study. The p values were also one percent which showed that chance played a minimal role. The sample sizes were fairly small and it would be interesting to see if the results were different with 500 people instead of 27.

Works Cited

Elliot, Andrew J., and Daniela Niesta. Romantic Red: Red Enhances Men’s Attraction to Women (2008): 1150-164. Bryanburnham.net. Bryan Burnham. Web. 20 Oct. 2016.

Strain, Daniel. “The Red-Dress Effect.” Science. Science Magazine, 12 July 2013. Web. 20 Oct. 2016.

“Women Attracted to Men in Red, Research Shows.” Rochester News. University of Rochester, 2 Aug. 2010. Web. 20 Oct. 2016.

With the recent release of the PlayStation VR (and Oculus Rift and HTC Vive earlier this year), people are understandably worried about motion sickness that could occur while trying to play the newest video games to utilize the new hardware.  Motion sickness (in terms of VR) has to do with the mismatch of visual and movement data your brain is receiving at the same time.  Through the VR headset, you see yourself moving throughout a virtual world.  So your brain expects to move your legs and arms and feel your body moving.  But you’re actually just sitting there playing a video game.  Developers are trying to remedy the feeling of sickness by getting has high a frame-rate as possible so the experience is as smooth as possible which should help.  But my question is, since video games have gotten enormously popular in the last decade, and millions of people will likely experience virtual reality games in the next few years, are men or women generally more affected by motion sickness when using virtual reality?

This type of motion sickness is actually not a new phenomenon.  As early as the 1950’s it was known as “simulator sickness”.  According to Live Science,  it was in 1957 that the first report of simulator sickness came from a helicopter training simulator.  Also, a study done in 1989 reported that up to 40% of military pilots experienced some form of sickness during simulator training.

According to the US National Library of Medicine, a study had been done on the effects of motion sickness on men and women.  The sample size is unclear but they looked for volunteers for participants.  The first thing they did was a questionnaire that specified sex and whether or not they wanted to volunteer for the study.  Then there were two rounds of motion sickness inducing trials.  One where the participants were allowed to move their heads and one when they were not.  The conclusion of the study found that women were more susceptible to motion sickness.

The null hypothesis would most likely have been “There is no discrepancy of level of motion sickness between men and women” and the alternate hypothesis would most likely have been “There is a difference between men and women in the amount of motion sickness experienced”.  Prior to doing the experiment, the researches actually anticipated the main problem with using volunteers.  They hypothesized that those volunteering would likely be less susceptible to motion sickness than those not willing to volunteer, and took this into account when forming a final conclusion.  We also have no idea how large the sample size was.  However, I believe they did set up a nice control group by having one session where the participants did not move their head, and another where they did.  Although the potential for a small sample size is there, and there is no randomization going on, I think the researchers did a good observational trial.

As of 2013, the American Medical Association has officially classified obesity as a disease.  Affecting 36%  American adults each year, its rising numbers have caused worry for health professionals warning against side effects such as diabetes, heart disease, and many other fatal health issues.  When discussing obesity, it is easy to blame the individual who has it for having a poor diet, being lazy, or just not caring.  But in all reality, studies like this and many others have shown that obesity has been found to be genetic in the terms that it affects ones metabolism.  Recently though, a study has been published that has shown evidence that not only is obesity genetic, it also affects the grown of fetuses during pregnancy.

The study is titled Maternal Pre-Pregnancy Body Mass Index and Newborn Telomere Length and it was published just this month in BMC Medicine.  Its focus was on how an expecting mothers BMI, a number determining what a healthy weight for a  should be based on their height, correlated to the length of their baby’s telomeres.  A telomere, according to T.A. Sciences, are tips on the end of our DNA (pictured below) that keep the DNA structure stable.  As explained early in the study, the reason the length of a telomere is important is because it allows scientists to see what chances a person has of developing diseases associated with age.   When a person’s telomere is shorter, the chance of them developing diseases earlier than expected in life increases.  In terms of this study, researchers wanted to see if there was a mechanism relating a mother’s weight before and during pregnancy to the length of her child’s telomeres, and eventually affect their overall health.

For this study, the null hypothesis was that a mother’s weight would not affect her child’s telomeres, and the alternative hypothesis was that a mother’s weight would affect her child’s telomeres.  Researchers collected data on the 768 expecting mothers regarding their height, and weight before and after pregnancy, and were then sorted into groups: normal, overweight and obese.  Later, when the women went into delivery, their weights were taken again and so was umbilical cord blood.  With this blood, DNA samples were taken and assessed for telomere length.  Once this analysis was finished, the results found followed the studies alternative hypothesis; The cord blood of mother’s in the normal weight range had children whose telomeres were shorter than those of children with overweight or obese mothers.

Despite this logical correlational, one potential issue I see in this blog are all the other confounding variables that would be needed to be taken into account such as the mother’s family health history, and the father’s BMI and family health history.  Also, the BMI measurement has long been debated as not being an effective way to calculate obesity, but obesity is something that is obvious to see so the accuracy of the BMI would not skew any results.  In the study a third variable that was measured was level of smoking, but I think it also would have been interesting to have seen how the level of the mother’s exercise and eating affected the results, but that type of self documented data is not always true and could have been falsely recorded by the mother.

In terms of the results, there is no possible way reverse causation could have been a mechanism since the telomeres of an unborn child or un-conceived egg cannot affect on the weight of the mother.  But, there is also the chance that the results are just a false positive since it was a smaller scale study that had lots of third variables that should have been taken into account.

While I think third variables pertaining to the mother’s lifestyle would need to be assessed, I do find these results fully believable.  I hope that further research is made on the topic of weight and infant health for this topic is one that is very relevant in todays society.

Sources:

New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/business/ama-recognizes-obesity-as-a-disease.html?_r=0

AMA on obesity: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/public-health/promoting-healthy-lifestyles/obesity.page

CDC on obesity:http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

Science Direct: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1521690X01901538

Study Link: https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-016-0689-0

CDC on BMI: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/

T.A. Sciences on telomeres and photo: https://www.tasciences.com/what-is-a-telomere/

Sweating is a normal bodily function. Sweating allows toxins to be released from the body and cool the body down when it overheats, like during exercise. If you’re like me you don’t just sweat during exercise or when its super hot out. I find that I get sweaty when I get nervous. I consulted some of my friends to see if I was the only one who had that problem. I found that many of them agreed that they sweat when they get nervous, but why? 

When a person gets anxious or nervous their primal instincts kick in and the body’s fight-or-flight response is triggered. What is  the fight or flight response? Also known as the acute stress response or hyperarousal, it is a physiological reaction. The fight-or-flight response reacts to a stressful, harmful, or terrifying, attack, event, or threat. Described by Walter Bradford Cannon, the fight or flight response was originally recognized as a theory that animals responded to threats with a general discharge of the sympathetic nervous system. But eventually the response developed recognition as the first stage of a general adaption syndrome. Triggered by a release of hormones, it is meant to let your body know to get away from the threat or address it. 

As part of the fight-or-flight response, adrenal glands release catecholamines, or stress hormones, into the body. The adrenal gland is is controlled by the hypothalamus. Part of the autonomic nervous system, the hypothalamus signals to the adrenal gland to release hormones. One of these hormones being epinephrine, also known as adrenaline. Being nervous prompts a release of adrenaline into your body, activating sweat glands. There are two types of sweat glands that are triggered, the apocrine and eccrine. The apocrines are found around armpits and genitals. Apocrine glands produce a thicker, stickier sweat that is made up of proteins and lipids. The eccrine glands are located all over your body. These produce a sweat that is made of water and salt. As a result of these sweat glands being activated, your body’s heart rate, blood pressure, and breathing all increase.

So now that I know why I sweat when I get nervous, how can I stop it? Deep breathing is a highly recommended technique to reduce stress and nervous sweating. It helps to cool the body down and stop sweat. Also wearing loosely fitted clothes and keeping your hands out of pockets will help to slow down the amount of sweat being produced.

Sweating under pressure can affect some people more than others. It all depends on how well an individual can stay calm. Once the threat or event that has triggered the response is gone, it takes the body from 20 to 60 minutes to return to normal levels or prearousal.

While sweating under pressure is a normal physiologically explained occurrence, it is not to be confused with excessive sweating. Excessive sweating is a common disorder also known as hyperhidrosis. People with hyperhidrosis sweat an excessive amount through their underarms, palms, or soles of their feet. It can be triggered by anxiety and there is treatment for it.

Sources:

pic 1

pic 2

pic 3

https://www.psychologistworld.com/stress/fightflight.php

http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/men/sweating-odor/anxiety-cause-underarm-sweat.htm

How To Stop Nervous Sweating (Caused By Social Anxiety)

http://www.menshealth.com/health/how-to-stop-nervous-sweating

http://www.calmclinic.com/anxiety/symptoms/sweating

http://www.medicinenet.com/hyperhidrosis/article.htm

http://www.active.com/fitness/articles/why-do-you-sweat

https://www.verywell.com/what-is-the-fight-or-flight-response-2795194

Growing up I can remember all my girlfriends preparing months in advance for two of the most important days of the year to every high school girl… the Homecoming and Prom school dance. As the months approached everyone had to plan the perfect dress, shoes, hair and makeup. One of the most important elements of the perfect prom look was bronzed glowing skin to compliment that beautiful silk dress. Everyone was obsessed. Young girls between the ages of 15 to 18 were buying monthly indoor tanning packages and tanning two or three times a week. I was part of that population for about two years until I stopped and all of my friends still spend their hours baking under the rays. Indoor Tanning is one of the most concerning problems in the United States and there is much controversy whether it causes cancer or not.

Photo Link

Indoor tanning and UV radiation has widely been knows as one of the leading causes of melanoma for young women and was even written about in a an editorial from the British Journal of Dermatology stating that a 25% rise in cases of melanoma was due to indoor tanning equipment. With tanning salons across the country in more locations than McDonald’s or Starbucks, there is an increased risk for more than just melanoma but also other types of skin cancer. The International Agency for Research of Cancer found a positive association, as Dr. Andrews spoke about in class, between melanoma and tanning beds. Biologically speaking, the UV rays that penetrate into the skin, traveling to the epidermis, altering your DNA is where things get a little messed up (Friedman). The only way to avoid these, in some cases, deadly alterations is to avoid UV rays all together and when outside in the sun protecting yourself with sunscreen.

These are an extremely small portion of all the findings supporting this accusation. But what if there is more probable cause such as your skin type, or the amount of time you are in a tanning bed, or the age you enter a tanning bed for the first time? These are all things to consider when thinking about using one of these UV machines. The younger you are the more sensitive your skin is, and the more it is exposed to UV rays the the more damage will occur. The natural sun contains some UV rays but tanning equipment is anything but natural rays, sometimes containing 10 to 15 times more UV light than the sun (Friedman). Ultraviolet Rays also does not contain any of the natural vitamins we take in from the sun.

Another element of this journal article that is controversial is that some association has been proven between tanning beds and psychological and behavioral issues. This may have scientific evidence that there is some probable cause. Realistically thinking about this assumption, it is hard to believe it is true. Just think how many girls do you know that walk out of a tanning bed feeling depressed or have anxiety from being exposed to light that is noticeable to others? Not enough to make it a real concern. Also being exposed to the UV light, I have not personally experienced these effects and can not relate or understand how they are even possible.

In conclusion, tanning beds are dangerous and absolutely not necessary and cancer is a leading side effect from the UV lights transmitted into your skin cells. There is a law for a reason and many scientific findings to prove that tanning and UV lights does contribute to the increased risk of Melanoma and other types of skin cancer. However, there is still room for more research on a correlation between psychological and behavioral level.

Friedman, B., English, J., & Ferris, L. (2015). Indoor tanning, skin cancer and the young female patient: A review of the literature. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 28(4), 275-283. doi:10.1016/j.jpag.2014.07.015

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1083318814002691)

When I was younger, I absolutely loved Legos. It was one of my favorite things to do. In kindergarten, my brother and me would always play games like Legos, Mega Blocks and Lincoln Logs. We would build forts on days when we could not go outside and play then take pictures of the great things we would build. We would love construction fun. Every Christmas we asked for a different Lego set. Sometimes it would be the Batman set, but our favorite was by far the Star Wars Legos we would get. We would build ships and big play sets.  Obviously, one of the benefits of kids playing with legos is enjoyment, but does playing with Legos help develop young children and their brains?

One of the most sought after talents is being creative. Creativity is vital to long term health of whatever career a person pursues. The components that a child needs to make cool designs with legos are highly applicable to a grown up’s life. Designing, working together, building, wrecking the final product, and trying a different one. Using Legos let kids free style, build something creative that they like, and enjoy it with other kids. According to Parenting Science, the more time kids spend playing with blocks and puzzles, the better they perform on IQ tests of spacial ability.Legos don’t just help with developing a child’s creativity, it develops many other skills that they must develop to grow up. Even the muscle movements that are required to put the Legos together develops moves and muscles that help with skills with scissors and pens or pencils. According to Dr. Maryhan Baker, these movements are called Fine Motor Skills, which helps handwriting, independent dressing and promote coordination.

According to a recent American survey, high achieving college graduates in the science, technology, or engineering fields were more likely to have hands on extensive experience with hands-on activities according to Parenting Science.  Like we learned in class, correlation does not prove causation. Just because people under those fields played with toys like Legos or Lincoln Logs does not mean that those toys caused intellectual or academic progression or improvements.  Legos also help develop problem solving skills. Children realize that when the blue one does not fit in the yellow, they must find a building piece that does. They map out what they want to build before they build or, or free plan using solely their own creativity. They use imagination to create their scenarios and works of art. Learning how each piece fits together and seeing what they can make with these pieces is a valuable challenge to the mind. Here is a link to why people are so drawn to legos.

Sources:

http://www.parentingscience.com/Lego-bricks-construction-toys-and-STEM-skills.html

http://www.welovebricks.com/how-lego-supports-child-development/

Picture: http://most-thingsconsidered.blogspot.com/2014/02/kids-review-lego-movie.html

This might seem intense, but being a redhead has affected my life in so many ways. I stand out like a sore thumb. I’m always getting called ginger, Shirley Temple, Annie, or carrot top. If I stand in the sun for more than five seconds I burn and gain fifty more freckles. We, redheads,  only make up 2% of the world population. I thought I knew everything about being a redhead. I was wrong. The other day I was walking and I stubbed my toe on the side of the chair. I yelped because for some reason it felt like the most painful thing in the world to me. My friend responded, “don’t feel bad that you’re a baby, red heads feel more pain.” I was so confused. Skeptical on whether or not her statement was true, I decided to do research. 

Surprisingly, she was right! But how could a hair color affect your nerve cells? Scientists believe that redheads are more prone to pain due to a mutation in a gene that affects the actual hair color. The mutated gene produces a protein that accounts for pale, white skin, red hair, and freckles. This regular gene produces a protein, known as melanin, that allows those with hair color other than red to allow the skin to darken. Additionally, more symptoms from this mutated gene include perception of pain and the effect of specific drugs used to get rid of the feeling of pain and discomfort. In other words, we, redheads, are more sensitive to things like anesthesia and drugs that are painkillers. For example, it has been found that redheads require twenty percent more anesthesia than people with other hair colors.  Continuing on with more effects that the mutated gene has on us, redheads are very sensitive to warm and cold temperatures. Surprisingly, colder temperatures harm redheads more than warmer temperatures. In fact, redheads tend to become more sensitive and feel more pain in temperatures ten degrees warmer than the average for blondes and brunettes.  

Redheads’ extreme resistance to anesthesia has caused most of us to avoid dentists in fear of having to undergo dental work that requires a large amount of anesthesia. In addition to fearing the dentist, we also have to ensure that, if a procedure requires anesthesia, that the doctor goes into the procedure aware of the fact that an excessive amount of anesthesia will be necessary. The type of pain that redheads are most effected by is thermal pain. Now, when people joke with me saying that redheads experience more pain than others I know that this is a real thing , and will not be taking it as a joke. Also, when I suddenly get sunburn and even more freckles, I can attribute that to our increased sensitivity when it comes to pain. It amazes me how I have been able to go this long without ever realizing or stumbling across the proven fact that redheads are more sensitive to pain and experience a greater amount of pain than blondes or brunettes.

Link to photo 1 : https://goo.gl/images/pB4cHl

Link to photo 2: https://goo.gl/images/fmI9Du

I love to write my notes by hand for more ways than one. Mainly because I hate to carry around the extra weight of a bulky laptop but also I can do everything it can, on my phone. Now I recognize about 1/3 maybe even 1/2 of some of my classes are filled with people who bury their face in their laptop. I still prefer the old fashioned way or writing my notes, and after searching for studies on this topic, I’m glad I still do. As stated by The Journal, 1/3 of high schools and middle schools now provide their students with mobile devices.

According to Medical Daily, two psychological researchers performed two experiments to actually test whether it is good/bad for us to use technology in the classroom. For the first study they set up a classroom students who were told to listen to a presentation and takes notes however they typically do. Shortly after the participate were then asked to complete a test based on the material that was just taught. The researchers looked to observe whether the students had a deep grasp of the concept and topics that were spoke about. While observing the results they noticed that whether the used a notebook or a laptop, they both were able to retain facts the same amount. It also showed that students who used a laptop took many more notes and tended to copy them down word for word. On the flip side those who took notes by hand tended to comprehend the topic and summarize it in their notes, showing a deeper understanding. They used this study to see if it effects students immediate comprehension. In this case we would reject the null hypothesis because there was an effect of handwritten notes compared to a laptop.

To further the experiment they conducted it again, but instead of taking the test almost immediately the students were given a week to prepare for the exam. The again tested the students on the facts of the presentation as well as apprehension and the concepts overall. This study had the same results showing a significant difference with those who write by hand being ahead. Even those who used a laptop and wrote the lecture word for word (even though told not to) scored significantly lower in comprehension. They concluded by the study that students who took notes by hand had a different reaction in the brain and were able to process the words and letters they were writing. In this case they were could accept the alternate hypothesis.

Overall, I think we have data to say that taking notes by hand cant not be substituted by using a laptop without affecting ones comprehension. As always even though it is convincing, correlation doesn’t equal causation.

Sources: Source 1 Source 2 Source 3

Images: Image 1

Introduction:

You can be nice and say that you are only interested in an individual if they have a good personality or you have a special connection but lets be real. You are looking for someone who is generally attractive physically. When we try to grasp our brains around that image of attractiveness, qualities run through our heads of what we prefer.  There is a special sort of bracket of attractiveness that our brains all look for. We might say that we prefer blondes over brunettes, or blue eyes over brown eyes. But in reality people tend to focus on what they prefer in their partner and lose sight of qualities that actually decide attractiveness. In reality, there is a more scientific reason to why we find people attractive rather than what we prefer or observe as individuals. The concept of of attractiveness can be broken up between of course physical features but also things that aren’t physical, for example, personality.  The science behind attractiveness is extremely unique and can be proved with factual information that I am about to supply.

Traits that prove to make more people attractive through data sets.

Definition of attractiveness:

According to dictionary.com, the concept of attractiveness can be described as something or someone that provides a sort of pleasure especially in terms of physical attributes. Attractiveness as a definition and as a concept described by individuals are very far off. Both the definition and what the human brain defines as attractive focus on physical appearance.

Creepy picture that breaks down traits that the brain deems attractive

The science of attractiveness and relation to class: 

The first thing we do when we meet a person we have never met nor seen before, without even sometimes noticing, is judging that individual on their attractiveness. It is just and instinct of the human brain. The brain processes the persons physical traits such as facial symmetry, voice, height, posture, and many other characteristics to immediately determine the level of attractiveness.

This video, posted by Brain Signal and used on psychologytoday.com, explains the science of attractiveness as a whole. It breaks down the reasons why and how people see others as attractive. The process starts as early as when a human is in the womb, where a chemical is released at different stages during pregnancy. The time at which the chemical is released determines traits and levels of attractiveness that the child will obtain as they grow and mature. The video featured on psychologytoday.com explains the science behind the traits that make people attractive.  It questions the process of which traits are developed to make someone attractive, which as just explained, starts as early as in the womb.

In class we learned in depth, what science means. We observed that science can be described as the want or desire to explain the world like it is through, “testing a hypothesis about what causes certain things.” (A. Read, What is Science?, V. 3.0) Andrew explained that data that is gathered is what is used to support the hypothesis. Even though it might seem obvious, there needs to be enough data to do so and thoroughly give support. In the case of understanding what traits make people attractive, there are studies that do just that.

When looking at the science behind what traits people find appealing, the world of business is one environment that very clearly supports the concept In business it is often thought that people who are in theory, more attractive, generate more sales and or revenue. The Association for Consumer Research defends this hypothesis by gathering data from past studies and observations.  Anne M. Brumbaugh of Duke University who is the coordinator of this study starts by developing the hypothesis as questioning whether there are other factors aside from physically attractive traits that can effect a buyer when presented with an attractive seller. The Null hypothesis of this study would be that there is no relation between people who have traits that the brain deems attractive selling more than people who are not viewed as attractive. The Alternate hypothesis is that the people with traits the brain processes as attractive indeed tend to produce more revenue than those who do not. The conclusion settles on the fact that sellers who are observed with attractive features are more apt to sell and generate more revenue. For examples, the study observes that people with traits such as facial symmetry, blue eyes, higher forward, tall and good stature, and blond hair, which are scientifically proven attractive traits, in fact sell more. This data is just one set that supports the scientific skepticism behind traits that make people attractive.

Universal example of an a person who holds attractive traits. Some being facial symmetry, high forehead, moderate facial hair (for men)

Conclusion:

Attractiveness as a science is a concept that when explained correctly and supported with data can be understood and accepted. Some people ignore the fact that there are traits that our brains immediately detect when meeting individuals and choose to believe that other factors are responsible for deeming people attractive. But with data and studies, certain physical traits can be understood as attractive features. Many studies have been conducted to support this theory, some more examples being the scienceofpeople.com article and the telegraph.co.uk post on the universal viewpoint and theories behind attractiveness which list traits such as finger length, height, physical stature, posture, hair color, and many other features. As learned from this post using various studies and examples, the term attractiveness can be summed up as a compilation of traits that the brain categorizes as physically appealing due to chemicals and other factors.

Here is one last example of a person with universally viewed attractive qualities.

Citations:

telegraph.co.uk

scienceofpeople.com

elitedaily.com

huffingtonpost.com

businessinsider.com

acrwebsite.org

psychologytoday.com