standarderrors

Risky Foods

An article entitled Study: Fewer eating risky foods on CNN health, grabbed my attention. Initially, I thought what types of “risky” foods? The consumption of seven types of food was re viewed: pink hamburger patties, pink ground beef, raw fresh fish, raw oysters, unpasteurized milk, runny eggs and alfalfa sprouts The article discussed how fewer people were eating these foods that are known to be associated with E. coli, salmonella, and other “food borne illnesses.”

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the California Department of Health Services and “other state health services” conducted the study using telephone surveys. The findings showed that African-Americans were the “safest eaters,” Pacific Islanders and Asians were more likely than whites to consume “risky” foods, and men ages 18 to 64 years were more likely than women. In order to generalize the results, the sample needed to be representative of the US population. I am wondering which states other than California contributed to this study. The type of foods people eat can not only reflect one’s culture, but also the region in where people reside. California has direct access to the ocean where people are more likely to eat raw, fresh water foods. Secondly, it would be interesting to know the format of the survey? Were the participants asked about eating “risky” foods? If so, people may have been less likely to answer truthfully, especially since they had to tell someone instead of completing an anonymous survey. SES can also be a contributing factor in the type of foods that people eat, especially since foods such as raw oysters are more expensive. What other variables would you consider?

More Adults Taking More ADHD Drugs?

More adults using ADHD drugs, fewer young kids

According to a report from Medco Health Solutions, Inc., there was a huge jump of 19 percent in ADHD medications among adults ages 20 to 44. Yet, is 19 percent really a huge jump? How can these findings be generalized to the population? The findings were based on 2.5 million U.S. participants. However, there was neither mention of the proportion of the participants who were ages 20 to 44 and taking ADHD medications, nor was there mention of the demographics of the participants in the study. More details are needed before one can make any valid inferences. In addition, only one source, Medco Health Solutions, Inc., was used to make this claim. Considering that researchers may consider these findings to make certain implications, outside verification is needed to confirm this trend.

Watch Sports at Your Own Risk

In our society, we like to blame everything and eveyone else when something goes wrong, but we always try to avoid blaming ourselves. People do not realize the beauty of taking responsibility. By taking responsibility for my choices, I am allowing other poeple to be responsible for their choices. Also, once you take the responsiblity of your own choices, then you can decide to start making better choices any time you like.

However, if you get sucked into the cycle of blaming other things and other people, then you will likely start to feel helpless. You will feel like your happiness is in the hands of other people; you have no control over what happens to you.

An article on MSNBC recently reminded me of how beautiful taking responsibility can be. The article is entitled, Sports fans: Watch at your own risk. I was intially intrigued because I am always searching for reasons that will convince my friends and family to watch something other than sports, but by the fourth paragraph of the article I was laughing and thinking to myself, "They cannot be serious."

The author of the article blames watching sports for popped blood vessels in the brain, heart attacks, choking, sunburn, dehydration, frostbite, domestic violence, bladder problems, and depression. I am not denying or refuting that these problems arise during sporting events, because they do. However, the mere act of watching sports does not increase an individual's chances for the above problems. It is the individual's choices while watching sports that either increases or decreases their chances for these problems. A more apporpriate title for the article is: Sports fans: Make responsible choices while watching the game.

When We Fight Infection Are We Welcoming Disease?

There has been much controversy regarding the use of childhood vaccines and their effects on the child’s development. Many feel that in giving vaccinations at birth, when a child’s physiology is most susceptible, we may be warding off serious infections but we are also creating serious diseases and mental disorders. It is the preservatives used in the vaccines and not the vaccines themselves that are the apparent problem. In particular, the preservative thimerosal, found in the Hepatitis B vaccine given at birth, has been discussed as a possible link to autism. In a recent news article (link) this possible link is discussed in relation to the number of diagnoses in the past years. Here it is pointed out that since 1999 the levels of thimerosal have been reduced to almost zero, and that “autism rates among children have declined at a similar rate”. What is important to note in this situation is that while the rates of diagnoses have decreased they have certainly not reached almost zero, suggesting that there are clearly other key variables at work. In a related article (link) several studies are cited that support this link between thimerosal and autism. The problem arises when both articles stretch to say that thimerosal is the cause of autism. Also, it is pointed out in the second article that mercury, a key component of thimerosal, has been recognized as unhealthy and has been removed from many other commercial and medical products. If there truly is a positive correlation between the mercury in vaccines to the number of autism diagnoses than couldn’t the reduction of mercury across many consumer products be an external variable to consider as well? While there may be cause for concern when it comes to the correlation between vaccinations and autism, by expressing causation many other important variables could be overlooked. In this situation where essentially a person’s entire life could be affected, whether by infection or disease, every variable must be carefully considered.

When

At Risk: Tie Between Obesity and Dementia

     This article states a study in Finland has found "being overweight at midlife is associated with an increased risk in dementia."The article contiues to say,"At the age of 72, dementia was found more often in individual's with a higher body mass index when the were in there early 50's". It goes on to state, "high blood pressure and high cholesterol appeared to double the risk of dementia." Continuing the discussion, a researcher stated she believes it could be the diabetes and not the obesity that increased the risk of dementia.

     The article does not go into much detail about how the experiment was conducted. I felt it ironic that they mentioned the body mass index level causing dementia and didn't even mention age as a variable which may be involved. Then towards the end of the article when the woman states it may not be obesity it may actually be diabetes that causes the increased risk in developing dementia, another lightbulb as to why this was not a good article went off. First of all, the experiment appears to be correlation, therefore, they cannot imply causation which i feel they are trying to do in this article. Also, it appears they are not even sure what causes the increased risk in dementia. It seems they took people and measured their body mass index and dementia level, waited for years to pass, and remeasured them, and then tried to make the claim that because a difference was present it was merely because of weight.

Claim: Heart Attacks are More Common On Mondays

    An article in the New York Times (link) states the claim that heart attacks are more common on Mondays. It claims they "occur at their lowest rates on weekends, jump significantly on Mondays, then drop again on Tuesdays." The article also claimed the risk on Mondays was 20% for men and 15% for women. The only factor mentioned as to possibly causing the linkage of heart attacks to Monday was the Scottish researchers claiming heavier drinking on the weekend. Also mentioned was the fact it seemed to be common in retirees as well.

     This article does not go into any detail about how the research was conducted, why it was conducted, or even mentioning factors or events which led to the bold statement mentioned repeatly throughout the article claiming that heart attacks are more common on Monday. Information is definitely lacking in this waste of paper and time. So many variables are not mentioned or accounted for in the article, I feel i have harped on this enough.

Study Details Link of Drugs and Thoughts of Suicide

     An article published in the New York Times (link), mentions the facts that antidepressants "raise the small risk of suicidal thoughts and behavior in depressed children and adolescents." The FDA found that 4 out of every 100 adolescents reported twice the amount of suicidal thoughts and behavior as those taking placebo pills. The article continues to state, "it is harder to deny that antidepressants cause a worsening in a small number of children with depression, stirring in them thoughts of suicide they would not otherwise have had."

    My issue with this article is the fact that they are claiming the drugs cause these depressed children to have "more suicidal thoughts that they would have otherwise." How exactly do they know when these children have suicidal thoughts and why they have them? Also, if these adolescents are feeling more "depressed" could it possibly be the medication is not right for that individual's particular needs? I must also mention that the placebo effect could have been an issue in this study as well. It seems to me that if an individual is taking an antidepressant and feeling worse than before he/she started taking the pill that the pill is not doing it's job to begin with and another method of treatment should be administered.

Cell Phones and Family Life Satisfaction: Correlation and Causation

A recent article found in Psychology Today magazine entitled “Curse of the Cell Phone” asks the question: “Cell phones make life easier, but do they make it better?”. The article states that “People who use mobile phones heavily have less satisfying family lives.” It further states that “The culprit is the ‘spill-over’ effect, when technology blurs the boundary between work and private life.” Certainly, it is possible that cell phones have blurred the boundary between personal and professional life, leading to less satisfying family lives. However, I think that before blaming cell phones for family difficulties, it is important to consider the possibility that another variable may account for the correlation found between heavy cell phone use and less satisfying family lives. For example, it may be that individuals who use cell phones heavily for business purposes also spend more hours at the office. In addition, these individuals may have more stressful jobs, which may have an effect on family life. Also, people who use cell phones heavily for business purposes may place a greater emphasis on career relative to family than those who do not use cell phones heavily. It is important to remember that causation cannot be determined from a correlational study and that other variables that may account for both heavy cell phone use and less satisfying family lives should also be considered before determining the “culprit.” It would be interesting to conduct research controlling for factors such as number of hours spent at work per week.

Got Milk?

A study reported in the LA Times, compares the effectiveness of postexercise drinks.  The three drinks in the study were:  Gatorade, chocolate milk, and Endurox 4R.  This study was published in the International Journal of Sports Nutrition and Exercise Metabolism. 

There were three trials in the study, each trial was completed at one-week intervals.  Nine, male cyclists performed strenuous workouts and drank an assigned drink.  One group of cyclists received 2% chocolate milk, another group of cyclists received Gatorade, and the final group of cyclists received Endurox R4.  After drinking these drinks and a rest period, the cyclists again exercised to exhaustion.

The study reports that the group of cyclists drinking 2% chocolate milk were able to exercise 50% longer than the group of cyclists drinking Endurox 4H.  The chocolate milk drinkers were described as exercising about equally as long as Gatorade drinkers.

Several limitations to this study exist.  First, the sample size is very small.  Not only is the sample size very small, but the sample size only consists of male cyclists.  How well can these results be generalized to female cyclists?  Also, the fact that part of the study was supported by the dairy industry makes one wonder if the results are accurately described.  Another aspect of the study I wondered about was whether or not the rest period between exercise bouts was adequate time for each of the drinks to be digested and the body to get needed nutrients.  Replication of these results are needed and a study including females would also provide more comprehensive data