Recently in Health Category

I recently read a research article named, "Mind-Set Matters: Exercise and the Placebo Effect" by Alia J. Crum and Ellen J. Langer.  They were investigating the placebo effect and affecting your mind-set.  Crum and Langer's participants were all female room attendants or house cleaning in a hotel.  They randomly assigned the participants into two groups.  The control group was not told anything, they were told to continue their job as normal.  The experimental group was continually reminded they were getting a lot of exercise throughout their daily responsibilities at work.  However, both groups were doing the same amount of work throughout the day. 

At the end of the four week, study the control group behavior had not changed.  However, the experimental group reported feeling much healthier to Crum and Langer.  Not only did these participants report feeling healthier, when compared with the control group, they showed a decrease in weight, blood pressure, body fat, waist-to-hip ratio, and body mass index.  I found this result fascinating.  Both groups were doing exactly the same job.  However, when one group was continually reminded how much exercise they were getting in their jobs, they actually became healthier.

This study reminded me of the cognitive dissonance theory.  This theory suggests people need to justify their behavior, feel rational, and feel in control.  According to Reeve, cognitive dissonance occurs from "inconsistency between what one believes (I am competent) and what one does (I act competently)..." (Reeve, pg. 278, 2009).  Cognitive dissonance does not always refer to being psychologically uncomfortable, but also can be applied to your positive goals.  The women who were reminded of how much exercise they were getting at work might strive to reduce any dissonance.  They may believe they are working harder and therefore are healthier. 

Although they attempted to control the study, there may have been possible problems with the participants.  One issue would be exercising outside of work and the other issue may be working harder during their shift.

My question is what do people think of the placebo effect?  Can it really alter your way of thinking?

Crum, A.J. & Langer, E.J. (2007).  Mind-set matters: Exercise and the placebo effect.  Psychological Science (18)2, 165-171.

 

http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_specter_the_danger_of_science_denial.html

I figured I would make my last post from ted.com, since I have really come to enjoy this site over the course of this semester. This video is of Michael Specter discussing the recent denial of scientific advances. Michael briefly discusses the progression of lifespans in his family from generation to generation. He mentioned that each generation has lived a decade longer than the last, and he plans to live till 90. Through the course of this video he discusses the ways in which we are able to engineer foods to make them more nutritious. We, as a community, have decided that foods that are not 100% natural should be shunned from our diet. However, we are willing to take pill after pill in hopes that it will help us feel better. We have virtually wiped out the threat of small pox in our country, so we no longer get the vaccine. What if small pox is reintroduced? We will all be susceptible once again. The discussion of what problems vaccines can cause has been brought down to the ground by science every time that it is brought up. Yet, people still believe that they are doing their children a favor by neglecting to give them their vaccinations. However, if an unvaccinated individual travels the world and contracts a disease outside of the protective bubble of the United States, not only would they run into a problem for themselves, but they could bring a problem for the rest of us.

What is it that motivates people to take such risky behaviors, but claim them to be safer? Is it the need for power? Reeve describes this as the need to be in control of situations. Could it be that people feel as though they have more control over situations if they eat food that is not genetically engineered or if they avoid vaccinations?

How did this video make you feel? Personally, it really got me thinking about what I felt to be health conscious. I always believed that vaccinations were necessary, and that it was rather ignorant to over look the research that has been done to prove it. This video just reiterated that point for me.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36649379#36649379

Whenver we think about college students and their addictive behaviors, what comes to mind is alcohol and drugs.  Reeve (2009) states that addictive drugs, such as psychostimulants, are especially potent reinforcers because their repeated usage produces hypersensitivity to dopamine stimulation.  This is what is being compared to the feeling people get after tanning.  The behavioral approach system is related to the reward responsiveness feeling, which these tanners feel when they are just getting out of the booth. 

Now, studies have shown an addictive behavior to tanning, especially around the season of prom, graduation, and spring break.  Doctors have said that some people just have addictive behaviors and people who are addicted to tanning, are usually addicted to other things such as alcohol and drugs. In one study done on Northeast college students one third of them are shown to have a tanning addiction.  People feel better after they just got done tanning and that they have some sort of anxiety which they think tanning eliviates.

Although people know that it causes skin cancer, college students feel that they can't get skin cancer that young.  Experts think that tanning booths need to start screening tanners for an addictive behavior.

 

http://health.yahoo.com/featured/94/eating-the-wrong-kind-of-carbohydrates-increases-heart-disease-risk/
I found this article one day while surfing on yahoo looking at the news articles.  It really separates good vs. bad carbs.  I hope I'm not the only one but I find all the health stuff kind of confusing.  One minute it's bad the next someone says it's good for you.  Slowing down the digestive process so that your cells aren't wrecked and so carbs are not stored as fat is the key.  One major reason why people don't succeed with their diet is because they don't take serving sizes into account.  Americans often have very large proportions.  The following are the five ideas the article said for switching to good carbs:
1.  Switch to darker breads
2.  Choose high bran or whole grain cereals
3.  Choose pasta over rice
4.  Swap for better snacks
5.  Embrace fruits and vegetables with a few exceptions
What have you heard about good and bad carbs and what is your opinion? 

I read an interesting chapter from The Good Body (2005) by Eve Ensler.  Ensler has been a radical feminist for nearly thirty years.  I have added the link for the first chapter of the book.  In the first chapter, Ensler focuses on her body image and her dislike for dissatisfaction with particular body parts.  Like many women, she has always been anxious about a particular part of her body.  Ensler shares she has placed much of her attention on her stomach.  She continues to say she feels her stomach has become her most serious committed relationship.  Regarding her stomach, Ensler states, "It has protruded through my clothes, my confidence, and my ability to work.  I've tried to sedate it, educate it, embrace it and most of all, erase it" (pg. 6). 

I found this chapter interesting because Ensler is an intelligent and confident woman, like most women she suffers with body image.  I can relate to Ensler.  I hate when my girl friends complain about their body size or some part of their body instead of embracing their body.  However, I know I am just as guilty about complaining about my stomach and lack of abdominal muscles when I have not worked out, or eat a big, juicy hamburger with salty fries.

Does anyone else share similar feelings about body image?  Do you think our culture has engrained into us that thin is beautiful; therefore, the only way to look?  Do you think our culture places too much emphasis on appearance instead of, for example, intelligence?

https://lms.uni.edu/webct/urw/lc597085295011.tp597085320011/RelativeResourceManager/sfsid/811815967021

This article talks about Two Ways To Be a Happier Parent. It's a sociologists perspective on being a parent and dealing with the stressful times. According to her it comes down to two questions:

1. When are you happiest with your kids?

2. What part of the normal day with your family routinely causes suffering?

She goes on to give a specific example she dealt with personally, and she explains how she changed their routine as a family to decrease the stress levels in their household.

I think parenting is one of the hardest things to do in life, so it is helpful to have any tips. While reading how the sociologist adjusted her family's mornings it seemed a little too military like. If it works than maybe that's all that matters. I just don't know if I liked her approach.

We see it in movies and TV shows, but is it true in real life? The common stereotype that athletes dominate on the field but they also party just as hard on the weekend it present in our media in today society. But how does the research hold up to this societal perspective? As I look back on my high school and their policies I remember one specific one that was implemented during my sophomore year. This police targeted athletes and the use of alcohol. Student athletes that were caught using alcohol for the first time were suspended from a portion on their sports season. The second offense was suspension for the entire year, and the third was elimination from sports for the rest of their high school time. This gave off the impression that alcohol consumption and athletics were strongly correlated. A study done and presented on ABC's Health website targets this idea. 1300 students were surveyed linking violence, drinking and binge drinking to the competition attitudes of athletes; more specifically this article target competitive, contact sports such as football.  I this study, researches found that men who participated in these sports were more likely to develop violent behaviors that stemmed from the glory, power, and special behavior they were treated to on and off the field by their peer, coaches, and parents.  Researchers argue that these results do not mean men who play football are more likely to drink and demonstrate violent behavior but men that play football in general have more characteristics that lead them to become more apt to participate in these behaviors. These researchers strongly support that football does not cause these behaviors but co-exist with these individuals. Other researcher beg to differ in that parents and coach are neglecting to distil values in these athletes therefore they feel as though the rules do no apply to them eliciting this violent behavior and adolescent alcohol consumption obsession that we see among athletes. This article brought up some very interesting thoughts about the rules and regulation of athletes. After reading this blog and the article did you school have a alcohol policy outline in their code of conduct as mine did? If so, what was it? Also, do you think that completive sports such as football are the cause of this violent behavior that we are seeing in young adolescent men or do you take the stand that this is not a causation correlation but merely a co-existing characteristic overlap and children who are more violent and drawn to alcohol are teen are more apt to choose to participate in competitive and contact sports such as football?

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/team-sports-linked-teen-drinking-violence/story?id=9019219&page=1

In 1872, American physician George Huntington described a disease that can be traced back to the Middle Ages, when it was referred to as chorea.  Chorea is a term that describes the uncontrollable movements that are seen in individuals who are affected by the disease.  This disease was found to be hereditary and progressive.  Today this disease is called Huntington's disease (HD).  Currently more than 15,000 Americans are living with HD, with at least another 150,000 others who have a 50% chance of developing the disease.  This disease is passed from generation to generation, destroying families who have to watch their loved ones lose the ability to feel, think, and move (National Institutes of Health, 2009).

As stated above HD is a progressive disease that causes the loss of control over movement, behavioral changes, and memory loss over time.  The onset of HD is generally slow and insidious making it hard to distinguish when an individual transitions from being a risk for HD to having HD (Maio, 1992).  On average symptoms of HD begin around 40 years of age (Meiser & Dunn, 2000), although the disease has been seen in children as young as 2, and adults as old as 70 (Quaid et al., 2008).  After the onset, individuals with HD generally live for 10-15 years.  Currently there is no way to cure the disease or to slow the progression of the disease (Meiser & Dunn, 2000).  Patients suffering from HD commonly die from infection (such as pneumonia), injuries related to a fall, or other complications from HD (National Institutes of Health, 2009).

After reading Sadie's article on why having a puppy is a positive thing and her experience with it, I looked for an article that discussed some of the benefits of it and I came across this article. This article discusses how having a dog can physically and literally improve an indiviuals's physical health. People who own dogs generally have lower colesterol, lower blood pressure,and have reduced chances of cardiovascular diseases. These individuals also have faster recovery times and higher survival rates.These individuals also have fewer visits to the doctor because their physical health is over all better. The main thing in this article that relates to me is how having a dog can improve the emotional state of people. As I said in commenting on Sadie's article, I have been battling severe depression that almost cost me everything I had, including my college career. I have been in counseling, which my counselor suggested I should have some sort of pet even if just a fish. For Christmas this year, my sister and her family got me a female miniature weiner dog which  I named Lady. She has made a huge positive effect in my life and my depression has done a 180 since I got her. I am almost like a completely different person. She gives me a reason to smile each and everyday and something to look foward to going home to. She has made a huge difference in my life and in my emotional state of mind. She gives me a sense of unconditional love and acceptance, and feeling of being needed, which is most important. I couldn't agree with this article more that having a dog can improve a person's physical healtha and also their emotional helath.

Chapter 6 talks about relatedness and how relationships that are caring, accepting, and valuing satisfy the need for relatedness. Loneliness is used as an example of a characteristic of someone who has not fulfilled the need of relatedness. Having close, personal, and intimate relationships will help satisfy this need. Any social bond such as a sibling, spouse, or friend has the potential of being an intimate relationship. But even people who have siblings, spouses, and friends are not gaurunteed to have their need for relatedness satisfied. There are many marriages, as the text suggests, that may not satisfy one or both of the partners emotionally. The texts stresses the importance of fulfilling the need of relatedness because it has been shown that neglecting such needs can lead to loneliness and depression. Here is a website that explains how to start the process of trying to beat depression related to loneliness. It focuses on the importance of getting out of isolation and meeting new people. This should be done in hopes of finding someone that you could eventually develop a social bond, and thus, fulfilling the need of relatedness. I think this site has a good message behind it, but makes it sound a little easier than it probably is for depressed people. The textbook supports the need for meeting new people as a way of lessening depression and loneliness though.

http://www.ehow.com/how_5517599_beat-depression-related-loneliness.html

http://newsroom.ucr.edu/news_item.html?action=page&id=1958

In my Healthy Psych class I am currently taking, we read an article on conscientiousness increasing longevity in elderly people.  I thought it was interesting and decided to find another article supporting the one I read in class. 

The article I found was called "Conscientious People Live Longer" done by Howard S. Friedman, professor of psychology, and Margaret L. Kern, a graduate student at the University of California, Riverside.  In the article, Friedman states, "...conscientious individuals have better health habits and less risk-taking, but they also travel life pathways toward healthier psychosocial environments..."  Friedman and Kern found three specific facets of conscientiousness: responsibility/self-control (responsible, not implusive); order (organized, disciplined); and achievement (achievement-oriented, persistent).  From their meta-analysis they also found achievement and order were the strongest components for linking conscientiousness and longevity.

This article intrigued me because I am interested in learning how conscientiousness, achievement, and order help increase the longevity of peoples' lives.  I feel like conscientious people are more intrinsically motivated to live healthier lives and focus on making healthy, not reckless, decisions.  After reading about Atkinson's model on achievement goals in the book, I think conscientious people are motivated by mastering their goals.  They will continually work to improve themselves and overcome challenges in order to make progess in their lives to reach their "standard of excellence" (Reeve, pg. 183, 2009).  Friedman and Kern also found that highly conscientious people, on the average, live two to four years longer than low conscientious people.  Highly conscientious people also seem to live more stable lives and less stressful lives.

Here is an article from the Associated Press about a journal article to be published this April. The subject is how boredom affects our health. Researchers have found that people are more likely to participate in unhealthy behaviors when bored, especially if the boredom is chronic. These behaviors will then lead to other health complications and an earlier death. So, basically it's alright to be bored occasionally but if it's all the time...Get out of the funk and find something that engages your brain.

February 10, 2010 (LONDON) -- Can you really be bored to death?

In a commentary to be published in the International Journal of Epidemiology in April, experts say there's a possibility that the more bored you are, the more likely you are to die early.

Annie Britton and Martin Shipley of University College London caution that boredom alone isn't likely to kill you -- but it could be a symptom of other risky behavior like drinking, smoking, taking drugs or having a psychological problem.

The researchers analyzed questionnaires completed between 1985 and 1988 by more than 7,500 London civil servants ages 35 to 55. The civil servants were asked if they had felt bored at work during the previous month.

Britton and Shipley then tracked down how many of the participants had died by April 2009. Those who reported they had been very bored were two and a half times more likely to die of a heart problem than those who hadn't reported being bored.

But when the authors made a statistical adjustment for other potential risk factors, like physical activity levels and employment grade, the effect was reduced.

Other experts said while the research was preliminary, the link between boredom and increased heart problems was possible -- if not direct.

"Someone who is bored may not be motivated to eat well, exercise, and have a heart-healthy lifestyle. That may make them more likely to have a cardiovascular event," said Dr. Christopher Cannon, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard University and spokesman for the American College of Cardiology.

He also said if people's boredom was ultimately linked to depression, it wouldn't be surprising if they were more susceptible to heart attacks; depression has long been recognized as a risk factor for heart disease. Cannon also said it was possible that when people are bored, dangerous hormones are released in the body that stress the heart.

Britton and Shipley said boredom was probably not in itself that deadly. "The state of boredom is almost certainly a proxy for other risk factors," they wrote. "It is likely that those who were bored were also in poor health."

Others said boredom was potentially as dangerous as stress.

"Boredom is not innocuous," said Sandi Mann, a senior lecturer in occupational psychology at the University of Central Lancashire who studies boredom.

She said boredom is linked to anger suppression, which can raise blood pressure and suppress the body's natural immunity. "People who are bored also tend to eat and drink more, and they're probably not eating carrots and celery sticks," she said.

Still, Mann said it was only people who were chronically bored who should be worried.

"Everybody is bored from time to time," she said.

I found an interesting article on the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier website.

http://www.wcfcourier.com/lifestyles/health-med-fit/article_2ea45aab-df99-5e02-868e-ea221e16b85c.html

It was an article based off a study published in the European Heart Journal.  The article in the newspaper discussed the main point of the study which was happiness can help your heart and decrease risk for a heart attack.  Even if you aren't a naturally happy person, simply acting happy can help your heart, says Dr. Karina Davidson.  Being stressed damages heart muscles, blood vessels, clogs arteries with plaque. 

I thought this article was interesting because it supports the idea of satisfying psychological needs.  Being happy and positive increases our positive well-being.  An individual's understanding of his or her motivation or perceived locus of causality is important to note. 
A person's internal locus of causality reflects the individuals understanding of his or her behavior.  Being happy or even acting happy can provide positive health benefits and reduce the risk for cardiovascular disease.

I figured there is no time better than the present to touch of the drive and story of an Olympic athlete. I think we all know by now, being an Olympian takes much more than an occasional practice. Being an Olympian takes commitment, determination, drive, and natural ability. These athletes practice for hours on end. Then, when they are done, they go to sleep and wake up to do it all over again. Training is nothing less that extreme. Anything other than being the best is not acceptable, because no one goes to the Olympic games with out the desire to bring home gold. Every athlete dreams of being an Olympian, and every Olympian dreams of being recognized as the best... to be positively reinforces with a gold circle draped from their neck. 

http://www.uni.edu/safety/

Here is a link that provides information on safety and services offered at UNI and you can also go to the UNI police department site which is below.

http://www.vpaf.uni.edu/pubsaf/police_division/index.shtml

The first link can help with a variety of things from the weather, students safety, alerts on campus and off, health center, H1N1 shots and so forth.

The second link also deals with a variety of things to help students from services, prevention, sexual assualt, drugs and alcohol, and even statistics of crime on campus.

I thought that since this past semester we had hate crimes going on not just on campus but in the Cedar Fall area off of campus that I would share a story I found on hate crimes on college campuses other then our campus.

http://socyberty.com/issues/hate-crime-on-college-campuses/

check it out for yourself. One psychologist found that offenders attack people because of their antisocial behavior and their hate against those who might be better than them.

Because college campuses account for 13% of hate crimes, colleges have had to increase their security.

 

Reeve talks about emotions in the textbook, and depending on what a person has experienced, going through or even a friend going through something traumatic can involve many students facing fear and anger. Everyone experiences things differently. Some may fear others, be angry towards others for what they did (e.g. sexual assualt, hate crimes etc.) and others might show no emotion what so ever. The UNI sexual assualt department had a lady talk to my violence in intimate relationships class on how they see people show emotions such as: fear, anger, laughing, crying, no emotion because no one experiences the same things the same way. Hope you enjoy this information and it helps someone.

http://www.wisegeek.com/can-drinking-too-much-water-be-unhealthy-or-even-dangerous.htm

 

        In the Understanding Motivation and Emotion textbook, on page 86 there is a discussion about the dangers of drinking flavored water and how drinking too much water can be downright dangerous. Specifically, the book says, "When factors such as a sweet taste offer a high incentive value for drinking, human beings drink excessively and sometimes consume dangerously high amounts ... Both alcohol and caffeine (introduce biological processes) that motivate people to drink in excess."

 

I have to admit, I was very surprised by this finding. I did not think that mere flavoring in water could cause people to drink dangerous levels of water. The book also mentions that the "Drink 8 glasses of water per day" rule has absolutely no scientific basis. Of course most of us know about the dangers involved with alcohol, and the nutritional deficiencies that can arise from excessive amounts of alcohol, but I think most people are not aware that drinking too much water can kill you. When I was little I actually remember hearing about a girl who drank too much water and died because of it, but my mother assured me that she must have drank an extremely excessive amount for it to be a problem. I do not think the amount need be so excessive to prove fatal.

 

 This article mentioned that the 6-8 glasses of water per day probably does not do any harm because it still falls within the normal range, but it mentions that sometimes dieters and athletes try to get an "extra edge" by drinking more. One of the major problems is that "too much water can quickly deplete electrolytes like sodium compounds" and "(This sodium depletion) can rupture cells" either from the inside or outside of the cells. The symptoms arise quickly.

 

In hindsight, perhaps I should not be too surprised that I did not know this information. I have not yet taken Personal Wellness or been active in any sports programs. This may be common knowledge among certain groups, but I for one did not know any of this. I had assumed that the thirst satiety response cycle would be exactly the same for both flavored and regular water.

 

 Another question arose in my mind as I read about this problem among athletes. If drinking dangerous amounts of water can sometimes give an athlete an edge, it is probable that some people will continue to partake in excessive drinking even after learning about the dangers. In some ways this directly relates to the debate over steroid use. What motivates athletes to use steroids when some of the side effects can be very serious?

 

 I think it is important to note that we must never allow ourselves to become too comfortable with anything that could be dangerous. There is probably not a day in our lives when we have gone without water. We often think of it as completely harmless, but in reality in sufficient quantities there are a great many things that can kill a person. I think there is also a desensitization problem with dangerous machinery. I used to do occasionally work on projects in woodworking and had a couple close calls, which I think I can attribute to my lack of attention because after so many uneventful encounters with the dangerous machinery my fear response seemed to decline substantially.  

 

While the problem of drinking too much water is by no means an epidemic, I think it is a potential problem we need to be aware of, especially as energy drinks and flavored water drinks are becoming more common. There are serious dangers to even moderate amounts of certain energy drinks.

 

Another related topic I wanted to briefly bring up here is the food sold in fast food restaurants, the cigarettes sold in stores, and the drugs (such as caffeine) put in energy drinks. I am curious as to what others think regarding possible regulation for fast food restaurants, cigarette companies, and energy drink companies. If some of their products are found to be extremely harmful and found to contain addictive ingredients that encourage addiction and excess, should the public be simply warned through information campaigns or should the government set regulations that prevent certain unsafe products from being sold? One might argue that a black market of sorts would arise and people would just have to find ways around the regulations, but do we have a moral obligation to take greater action against these problems? There is a great deal more about the fast food restaurants and smoking companies using that could be said in this discussion, but I suppose that would be best left for another time.

 

The main reason why I believe this discussion is relevant and applicable to our class is because these chemicals and ingredients in these products directly influence the behavior of consumers and sometimes motivate them to do things against their best interests. I believe people are generally smart enough to make decisions on their own and excessive regulations can become ridiculous, but it is my opinion that a few extra standards may need to be implemented regarding these products.   

 

This is just a small excerpt from the main article I hyperlinked in case anyone would like to read the conclusion of the article without going to the hyperlink...

 

Generally too much water is defined as water consumed above what the kidneys can process in an hour. Extremely healthy kidneys would be able to process about 30 ounces of water in an hour. A person with kidney problems or with only one kidney should drink much less, as per doctor's instructions.

 

The person with healthy kidneys could develop water intoxication by drinking about 2 to 3 times what the kidneys can process. For a person with kidney problems or with one kidney, too much water might be defined as just an ounce or two over the recommended amounts.

 

For people with healthy kidneys it should be perfectly safe to drink two cups of water an hour, and for the dieter, even one cup an hour will fulfill requirements for getting plenty of water. However, drinking too much water in rapid succession can prove fatal and should definitely be avoided.

As a college student sleep is at a premium. I am often up very late studying for a test, writing a paper or doing some last minute homework. But usually when I lay down to fall asleep everything that I need to get done that week is racing through my mind. So when I saw this article, I was intrigued, because I thought that other people could also use some tips on getting better and more sleep.

1.      Set a specific bedtime

2.      Get ready for bed well before your bedtime.

3.      Make your room very dark.

4.      Stretch

5.      Keep your bedroom a little chilly

6.      If your mind is racing with worry, make a list of everything you need to do the next day.

7.      Tidy up your bedroom

8.      Exercise.

9.      An hour before bedtime, avoid work that requires alert thinking

10.  Slather myself with body lotion.

11.  Put on socks if my feet are cold.

12.  Yawn.

13.  Tell yourself, "I have to get up now."

14.  Give up, and re-frame your sleeplessness

I found some of these tips helpful, and others are not realistic for a college student. Number 9 would never work for me because I am pretty much studying or doing homework until I go to sleep. Number 6 is a very good idea that I may try though.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-happiness-project/201001/fourteen-tips-getting-more-sleep-and-why-it-matters

 

For my Intro to Women's and Gender class one of the books we read was Women: Images and Realities by Amy Kesselman, Lily McNair, and Nancy Schniedewind.  This book was comprised of essays about experiences in women and mens' lives.  I enjoyed this book because it made me aware of many life experiences and how differently each person handles these experiences. 

One of my favorite essays was called, "Klaus Barbie, and Other Dolls I'd Like to See" by Susan Jane Gilman.  Gilman talks about Barbie dolls versus Dawn dolls.  She hates Barbie dolls with a passion and named them "Klaus Barbie dolls", after the Gestapo commander.  She feels Barbies are a pop artifact promoting Aryanism.  In fact, she compares the blonde-hair, blue-eyed dolls to Hitler's cult.  Although she commends Mattel on making an effort to create a variety of dolls, she feels they basically have the same Aryan features.  Gilman also states, these unique dolls are limited edition Barbies, and not the normal or standard look.

However, Gilman is not anti-doll.  As a child, Gilman and her friends played with Dawn dolls.  Before this reading, I had never heard of these dolls; however, they intrigue me.  Dawn dolls had four dolls in the collection.  Dawn was the blonde doll, Angie had black hair (Italian or Hispanic), Gloria had red hair (Irish or a Russian Jew), and Dale had an afro.  Gilman and her friends were Jewish, Black, Asian, and Latina and felt if you didn't look like Barbie, you didn't fit in. 

Gilman's essay ends with her describing Barbie's she would like to see (my favorite part).  These Barbie's include Dinner Roll Barbie, Birkenstock Barbie, Bisexual Barbie, Butch Barbie, Our Barbies, Ourselves, Harley Barbie, Body Piercings Barbie, Blue Collar Barbie, Rebbe Barbie, B-Girl Barbie, The Barbie Dream Team, and Transgender Barbie.

I found this reading unique and interesting.  Like Gilman, I'm not sure Barbie is to blame for young girls constantly being insecure with their bodies; however, I do think it is a possibility.  Personally, I never played with Barbies much.  I found it more enjoyable to pull their heads off or play outside in the sandbox or swinging. 

Does anyone agree or disagree with the fascinationtion and/or obsession our cultures has with Barbie dolls influencing young girls?

 

 

In my introduction to psychology class my professor asked if we would be more mad if our boyfriend/girlfriend had a sexual infidelity or an emotional infidelity. By a show of has we were able to see that more men would be upset by a sexual infidelity and more women would be more hurt by an emotional infidelity. Why is this the case? To understand mate selection will provide the answer to this. In the link below I found information regarding the answer to my questions and information about the physical appearance that impact mate selection based on evolutionary psychology ideas.

First-in the physical appearance of mates men tend to prefer younger women because they tend to be more fertile. Men like full lips, breast, and hip and a slim waist because this is the features that represent a woman who has a lot of estrogen in turn making her a good candidate for reproduction. Women are often attracted to men who have a more masculine build; broad shoulders, slim hips, a strong jaw line, clear face, and facial hair. This type of physic represents a man with a lot of testosterone therefore reinforcing that this man will be able to fulfill and provide for the family. The idea of infidelity as mention earlier is based on passing on ones genes. If a women has a sexual infidelity then the many is not 100 percent sure that the child they have together would be genetically his. Where the women in 100 percent sure the child she bears is of her genetics. A woman needs a man who is going to be there emotionally and provide support, energy, resources, and protection for her family. Therefore, a woman is going to be more concerned with an emotional infidelity than a sexual one. The first time I read his is was somewhat surprising to me however, after looking at it from an evolutionary perspective it is easy to see why this is the case.

 

http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/denisiuk.html

http://www.themedguru.com/20100114/newsfeature/people-happiest-during-weekends-study-86131803.html

I found this article to be rather interesting, the study suggests that weekends have a significant effect on the body. Researchers suggest that, "simply being in charge of your own day, spending quality time with family, provides better mood, greater vitality and (fewer) physical ailments from Friday evening to Sunday afternoon."

 

While the results of this study are probably to be expected - most people are visibly happier on the weekends -  it is interesting to hear about what they believe specifically causes physiological changes, such as hormone release, and a more positive attitude overall.

 

They attribute some of these changes to higher feelings of autonomy. At first, I wondered if this effect was mainly seen in those with relatively low paying jobs (those with consistently low autonomy throughout the week), but the effect was found regardless of occupation, age, gender, or relationship status.

 

I actually found it very interesting that even those with high status jobs experience this effect on weekends. I have generally thought that workers with high status already tend to have significantly higher levels of autonomy and leisure, so the presence of the weekend would not make as much of a difference to them. According to this study, I may be wrong.

 

 I wonder if another reason for this affect is that people are often able to rest more on weekends. In BioPsychology I remember the author (John Pinel) mentioning that over time people can gradually reduce the amount of time they sleep to as little as two hours per night with only minor effects, but I have not yet looked at the studies on which he based those statements. I wonder how much of a role (perhaps 2 additional hours) additional sleep can play in improving one's mental and physical condition. I find studies involving sleep to be among the most interesting, and from what I have read it seems like much more research needs to be conducted in this area.   

 

Another question I have is, "Why don't the effects seem to carry past Sunday afternoon?" I suppose the answer may lie in their original report, but if it does it would be rather odd for them not to have included it in the article. I have often heard people say that they will be revitalized and refreshed for work after the weekend, but in my experience I'm not sure people tend to be any better or any worse at their jobs whether it is a Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday. In any case, I think some of the questions that arise from this article merit further research.

I found an article that discussed the first study to find that exercising during or before work hours not only has physical benefits but mental benefits as well. They found that people who worked out before work or during their lunch break were more productive, happier, and less stressed at work compared to those who opted not to exercise. The employees moods improved on the days they exercised and were less calm on days in which they did not exercise. Exercising employees also reported improvements in time management, mental and interpersonal performance, and work load management.

Link to article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1095783/People-exercise-work-days-happier-suffer-stress-productive.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100119133519.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+(ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News)

I was rather intrigued by the research presented in this article. The main finding is alluded to in the title of the article - recent research suggests that those less motivated to achieve will excel on tasks seen as fun and those more motivated to achieve will not perform as well on tasks that are intended to be for fun. Obviously, this suggests that different students may need different types of motivation to excel. The students that are competitive and serious tend to be significantly less motivated when they think the task is just being performed for fun. Many other students do not take academics so seriously and work better when the task is fun.

Although these two groups are not all-inclusive (plenty of people lie somewhere in the middle of the extremes), I believe these differences do exist in the real world. As some individuals strive for excellence, they can become rather obsessed with perfection and get in the habit of avoiding anything fun-related to maximize their reputation of achievement. Given the incredible amount of time that many of these perfectionists put into their work, it is very hard for others to remain competitive without also putting a tremendous amount of effort into their academics. Because of this, I think many people stick to a more balanced (and perhaps more natural) life, in which they strive for excellence rather than perfection and are okay with not being labeled "the best."

Although I think many people are able to eventually find a balance between work and fun, there will always be those who are unable to achieve such a balance. I have not read much of the literature pertaining to this subject, but I wonder what the common causes of "overacheiving" are. It seems likely to me that some of these overly competitive individuals may be trying to compensate for low feelings of self-worth and others may be motivated by a need to feel superior. Whatever the reasons may be, I think most people realize is better for one's physical and mental health to not be overly competitive, but as people get older I think it becomes increasingly difficult for such people to change because the tendency to be that way has become a fundamental component of their personality. I think this research supports the idea that we can get too carried away and we can be overly motivated. Moderation is key in a great many areas of life.

 

Another questions that arises here is, "Does this research support the idea that people motivated by different approaches should be taught in separate groups (each given the learning style that works best for them)?" If we put more and more highly competitive people together into a single class though, would we also be creating the potential for even higher, even more unhealthy work ethics to arise? I suppose the questions I am posing here rest on the assumption that it can be unhealthy to be overly competitive, but I think this assumption is justified considering that those highly motivated become less able to do tasks that are supposed to be fun.

While working out the other day, I was reading Star magazine and I came across an article called, "The Biggest Loser's Dirty Little Secret.  This article discussed the secrets behind the weight loss for the participants.  The show wants big, dramatic results and unfortunately the participants are at risk.  The contestants participate in extremely intense workouts and are on restricted diets.  Along with exercising and dieting, participants intentionally dehydrate themselves before weigh-ins to have a better outcome.  According to contestants, the morning of weigh-ins was the most intense. 

They would go to the gym and the heat would be cranked up to over 100 degrees F, they would wear layers of clothing, and work out for 2-3 hours without consuming water.  There is also nothing safe about having 500-lb contestants working out to that extent.  According to Star magazine, all participants signed a contract realizing the life-threatening reality of the show.  Those over 400-lbs also had to feel they were "in excellent physical, emotional, psychological, and mental health."

Another problem with the show was they claimed to provide a psychologist for support for the participants mental and physical breakdowns; however, contestants stated they never knew where to find him.  A woman contestant, Kai, who appeared on the show in 2006, says she began developing an eating disorder, her hair was falling out, and her body was covered in bruises.  According to the article, her trainer would not let her see a counselor and forced her to continue working out.  Kai also stated, producers would create drama and untrustworthiness on the show by deliberatly saying their friends were possibly saying horrible things behind their back.

This article was shocking to me.  I realize that the Biggest Loser is a show and wants to create dramatic effect; however, putting people's physical and mental well-being in danger is not safe.  I feel each contestant should have had their own counselor to continually talk to them and support them through this process. 

What does everyone else think about this article?  Is anyone else surprised by this article?  Should the participants be allowed access to a solid support system?  Should contestants to be deliberatly placed in a hot room without AC and no water in order to lose the most weight possible? 

Here's the link to the website.  It's not the whole article but you can get the main point of it!http://www.starmagazine.com/news/16415

http://tiny.cc/Z1L6O

This is a post from another blog but it caught my eye. When I hear about all of these easy ways to slim down, get rock hard abs, be healthy etc. it just makes me wonder why more people don't live healthier lifestyles.  Why don't I strive for that? I know personally I have created many excuses for not eating right and getting regular exercise.

Summed up, here are the 5 easy ways to stick to any exercise program out there:

1) Imagine your goal
2) Come up with a routine
3) Think of your past failures
4) Prepare yourself to feel like you are going no where
5) Change it up

So this will make you stick with any exercise program, do you think it will work with any person? (why or why not?)  What about these steps is going to make an exercise program stick?