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

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/

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=

When I am not living at Penn State University as a full time student, I live with my father, my older brother and my younger sister. My siblings and I are all roughly a year apart, and I am the middle child. Everyone always jokes about how being the middle child is so tough. People say that they are overlooked; That they do not receive the respect, and trust like the oldest, nor the babying that every little sibling cherishes. Growing up in such a tight family I noticed this every once and a while, but it was never too severe where I felt the need to point it out. But I did always question if this sensation I would feel was something common. It turns out that it is actually a normal feeling among middle children, and it is called “Middle Child Syndrome”. When I read that it was actually a thing, and that it was common, I decided that this blog was a perfect excuse to research this topic.

The simplest explanation of the phenomenon known as “Middle Child Syndrome”, is that it is a sense of isolation felt by the middle child. It is said that middle children do not fit a specific role in the family, which is more than likely the cause of this sense of exclusion. Every child in every family has a job. For example, my brother was almost like my second father. He cooked, cleaned, and was just an overall a reliable person. His role was to always be a leader, and responsible. On the other hand my sister just sat back and had everything done for her. That is obviously a hyperbole, but it seemed that way. My brother and I would drive her to practice, help her with school work, and sometimes even do her laundry whenever my dad was too busy with work. And there I was; In the middle of both of them. My brother would cook for me making me rely on him, but I would also help my sister with anything she needed. So where does that leave me?

I always wondered what actually causes this feeling of not having a particular role in the family. Was it simply just being the middle child? Or was was it jealousy of not being old enough to be the most responsible, nor young enough to be the least responsible? In this article, it explains that there are two main causes of middle child syndrome.

1.)  Lack of Support –  The article declares that the middle child feels overlooked. This sense of not being noticed causes them to subconsciously feel like they do not have anyone supporting them. Since they have “no support”, and are “over looked”, they feel as if they are not valued. And without that feeling of value, they are not going to identify to a specific role in the family. With this being said, they are more likely to be quite, timid, introverted, have low self-esteem, and be independent. All of these qualities can easily cause the child to feel like they are without a role in their family or that they do not need a role.

2.) Identity Crisis – The article also states that the middle child is unsure of who they truthfully are. This seemed obvious to me, since middle children are known to have have low self-esteem, and to be withdrawn. This also relates back to the fact that they feel like they do not have a role in their family.

With the middle child having trouble identifying who they are, and a lack of support, there is no surprise that they feel excluded. In most cases parents do not even notice that they are causing this feeling nor are they doing it on purpose. Only way to counteract this is for the middle child to express how they feel; And possibly how this feeling can be prevented later on. From all of this, I learned a lot. I learned why, I would feel excluded. Also how to possibly work towards not feeling isolated anymore. But most importantly, I learned that this sensation is normal.

Sources:

Article: http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/15912/1/Middle-Child-Syndrome.html

Picture: http://www.bustle.com/articles/177189-8-middle-child-day-memes-that-every-middle-child-can-relate-to-because-the-struggle-is

There is nothing more irresistible than the sight of your bed after class. It just invites you in, relaxes you, and provides warmth. There is no place I would rather be after class than in my bed. Even though my bed here is half the size of mine at home, I still love taking naps. Naps help me recover from a stressful day, give me energy, and overall calms me. This all sounds perfect, but we have all attempted to take a 15 minute power nap, but ended up sleeping for hours. Over the summer and during the later half of my senior year this was not really a problem. I could take a 3 hour nap during the day and still complete everything I needed to do. But now that school has started, it has become a problem. My “useful” naps, have turned into a terrible and negative use of my time. They pour into my study, and homework time. Is it possible for me to take naps, and still get all of my work done? Do they actually have any benefit to me? And if so, how?

Before anyone can understand how to correctly take a nap, one must understand that humans have a natural sleep cycle. The only thing I remember from my Psychology course in high school was the human sleep cycle. Im not an expert, but I do know that we go in and out of two stages of sleep, called REM Sleep, and NREM Sleep. REM stands for rapid eye movement, and this stage of sleeping is when someone is in their deepest sleep, and start to formulate dreams. NREM stands for non rapid eye movement, and at this stage, you are not formulating dreams, but still are technically asleep. People start in NREM, and after about 90 minutes, they start to transition into REM sleep. Now with all of that being stated, the most effective way to take a nap is to stay in NREM sleep. Now if you think about it in just a logical sense, if you are suddenly woken up by an alarm or anything during your deepest sleep, you are still gonna feel tired. Your body was never able to naturally leave the deepest state of sleep. Your normal cycle will be broken, and the nap will be counter productive. If you are able to maintain NREM sleep, you will wake up you feeling refreshed, because your body did not fully fall asleep yet.

Knowing how to nap is only half of it. Now we need to know if they are even worth taking. According to this article, a well timed nap can actually be beneficial. A nap between 20-90 minutes (Remaining in NREM) will aid in the reduction of stress, will help increase consciousness, and possibly put you in a better mood. Anything surpassing that (Going into REM) will end up being counter active. It will cause you still feel tired, and groggy. So basically not only does a longer nap take up more time, it also does not even help you. It contradicts the whole reason why anyone would take a nap.

To summarize, it is possible to take a useful nap. They can be beneficial, and to actually benefit from them, they must be taken in shorter intervals. Not only is that when you gain the most from them, the shorter the time spent sleeping, the more you can get done. As long as they do not last longer than 90 minutes, I can nap anytime I need to, and still manage to get all my work done. Naps are beneficial.

Sources:

Article: https://sleep.org/articles/napping-health-benefits/

Picture: http://www.stoneandlight.com/napism/d_nap_memes

Every year I hear about cases of people who die from abnormal time spent in cold temperatures. They experience extreme heat loss, and end up getting hypothermia. I always heard “hypothermia”, but never knew exactly what it was. What causes hypothermia? Does our body have anyway of fighting off the cold? And how can we prevent hypothermia?

Hypothermia is a condition where your body temperature drops too low, and is caused by prolonged exposure to low temperatures. Windy, and wet conditions also can result in hypothermia, if it brings down your body temperature enough. According to this article, hypothermia starts to set in when your body temperature falls past 95 F. At this point, if your body can not produce more heat than it is loosing, you could become unconscious or die. There are several symptoms that hypothermia is happening. Some include, slower breathing, clumsiness, irregular pulse, fatigue, and ignorance. Since hypothermia causes confusion, when the symptoms start to show, it might be too late. One may not notice because they become ignorant and confused.Luckily, our body instinctively will try and fight this loss of heat. According to this article, there are two responses.

1.) Saving Energy: When we start to get dangerously cold, our body focuses on our vital organs. Our body will attempt to keep them functioning the longest since they are so critical in surviving. As a result, the brain will have an increased blood flow, while our extremities will have a decreased blood flow. This is all done in an effort to reduce the amount of energy being used. The more energy, the longer your body will be able to produce heat for it’s self.

2.) Shivering: Shivering is a subconscious action done by our bodies, when we are too cold. Our body senses that our external temperature is too low, and our brains send the rest of the body signals to shiver. Shivering is when our body relaxes and tenses it’s muscles, and in turn provides warmth. This heat is the by product of the consumption of energy.

Hypothermia is dangerous, and can sneak up you. The human body can only do so much to fight off hypothermia. To prevent hypothermia, you must wear layers when possible. Layers will keep the heat your body produces in, and keep you warm. And staying dry will also help prevent hypothermia. Apparently being wet will speed up the process and will aid in an increased loss of heat. The best way to prevent it, is by making sure you do not spend too much time in the cold.

Sources:

Picture:

http://www.skinsight.com/diseaseGroups/firstAid.htm

Articles:

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/three-ways-your-body-battles-w/19490777

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/hypothermia/basics/definition/con-20020453

HI, my name is Devon Buono. I am a freshman here at Penn State, and I’m from Long Island New York. I am currently undecided, but my goal is to become a finance major.

It’s not that I do not want to be a science major, its just that there are other majors out there that can provide me a different and possibly more economically stable future. In other terms, I want to make as much money as I can. To be completely honest The Wolf Of Wall Street made me realize that a finance major could help me work towards that stable future. On top of that, my 8 an hour summer job simply was not cutting it. Both of those together really pushed me to learn a little more about the major, and the more I learned the more I knew I was going to be pursuing the correct major. In high school I really enjoyed science, but I was just never good enough at it. No matter ho much I studied, the classes never got easier. I was not gonna risk becoming a science major, if I did not fully believe I could  strive in that major, or flourish when I graduated.

With all of that being said, I have decided to take this class for a couple reasons. First, it was recommended to me a couple of different times. Secondly I enjoy science. I like learning about the world around me and understanding my surroundings. Lastly, I would like to stay up to date studies going on in the world right now. For example, anything to with cancer research like this article, would really interest me. And I hope that this class with provide me with knowledge on any current developments in the field of science.