Brain Power Part II

Last time I ranted all about physical activity and the brain; now I want to focus more on what people put in their bodies and how it affects the brain and what kinds/how many of these nutrients people need to keep their brains running.  Or thinking. 

Meredith sings to my moderation song when she says that it is not necessary to eat any special foods to enhance brain power, but mainly to eat a balanced diet.  For the facts I use in this post to both support and refute Meredith, I cite an article from Scientific American by Jerris Fabr from 2012. Meredith and Fabr both agree that the “brain worker” (in Meredith’s words) needs little more food than if he were to have "one very lazy day of no activity" (in Fabr's words). The brain already requires a huge amount of blood, oxygen, and nutrients (mainly glucose) to function, and extra mental effort (ie thinking) requires little more energy consumption than this already huge baseline.  According to Fabr, the brain, which only weights 2% of our body weight (on average) requires about 20% of our resting metabolic rate (RMR) which is the total energy our bodies expend even if we are just sitting on our tush playing video games (in my words). In an average human, this is about 1,300 calories. Awesome right? We burn calories even when we’re not doing ANYTHING.

So, what should we put into our bodies exactly to keep this giant energy and calorie suck functioning?

Meredith says that “clinically it is evident that if a faulty diet (or other causes) lowers the percentage of sugar in the blood the brain is impaired in its functions.” However, according to Fabr, it really isn’t as simple as direct logic of if A then B, in regards to putting sugar into our brain and therefore having it function properly and efficiently.  Working harder and using more glucose before expending more than normal brain energy or mental effort may not actually impair brain function. In one study cited, it is noted that the brain requires so much baseline energy and is constantly maintaining a complicated balance of nutrients and neuronal maintenance, that the brain has enough energy already to add a little extra work (even if that work is in the form of your really really really dense philosophy reading).

Relating this to the workout ideas from the previous post, one study showed that children who walked for 20 minutes on a treadmill performed better on an academic achievement test compared to children who read quietly before the exam.  I wont get into the physical benefits of the workout for the treadmill group, but in terms of glucose, the children walking were using more energy, and therefore burning more glucose, so if mental ability was a matter of increased vs. decreased glucose, the children who expended more energy before the test should have performed worse. Although individual differences are obviously a factor, the simple idea that more or less available glucose affects mental effort is not necessarily correct.

Physical symptoms, however can affect our ability and efficiency in studying. A huge part of mental exhaustion and fatigue, especially during taking important, stressful tests, like the SAT, is caused by physical stress (measured by increased cortisol and heart rate). Diet also physically affects mental ability, and if one were to eat a diet that makes him or her physically feel unwell (like if you had a stomach ache from eating bad chicken tenders), or does not contain proper nutrients (you only eat potatoes), this will surely affect concentration and focus, if not in the short term, than in the long term. 

If you are hungry (or tired, or have any other form of physical ailment) while trying to study, you wont be able to study as efficiently. This is probably not only due to lack of nutrition or proper health, but distraction. Sometimes, it really is just a mental thing: you are distracted by paying attention, focusing mental effort, fixating, etc. on your physical symptoms rather than the homework in front of you.  Or, you are simply looking for an excuse not to continue studying. Being more aware of your grumbling tummy or closing eye lids is probably why you can't study, rather than your brain being completely depleted of nutrients and physically unable to carry on. Because if that were you case, you would probably be dead.

In terms of food, one of my favorite topics is “brain foods.” Fish is brain food! Eating nuts will help you think better. Avocados will make you a genius! Well...not really.  These claims mainly exist because these foods have nutrients that the body and brain need to continue normal functioning.  Although food obviously affects and plays an important role in body functions, including brain functions, don’t expect that eating walnuts, olive oil, berries, fish, coffee, leafy greens, avocadoes, chocolate, and garlic (according to the Huffington Post) will make you smarter or able to concentrate way better than normal.  Basically, these foods contain omega-3 fatty acids (“good fat”), antioxidants, zinc, vitamin E, and a whole host of other nutrients that are important for all types of body functioning.  

What you should really do is eat in moderation; make sure these foods are a part of your healthy, balanced, and nutritious diet most of the time, and I think you’ll be okay.  In other words, making a walnut, avocado, and spinach sandwich, washing it down with a latte and expecting to turn into a super-dee-duper braniac is not really how it works.

Brain Power Part I

So I’m a cognitive science major. I think brains are cool.  I would like to think that I use my brain a lot.  I found it particularly hilarious (and a little sad) in The Science of Health, by Florence Meredith (1942) when she says that the amount of brain work a person can do is dependent upon one unchangeable internal factor and many other external factors.  The unchangeable factor is that we have an “inherited number and quality of brain cells” and that there are “limits beyond which a person cannot go in mental achievement, but these limits are probably never reached.” Well Ms. Meredith, I think I and all of my Cog Sci/Neuroscience professors would have to disagree with you.  The brain, and number of nerve cells, are forever expanding and are also plastic throughout life, including adulthood. Although our heredity plays a role in our neural capacity (eg those born with Down’s Syndrome or cerebral palsy cannot overcome that barrier) and the number of neurons we are originally born with is is a set number, the human adult brain is surprisingly plastic, and humans can train themselves to do a virtually limitless variety of tasks.  

Firstly, according to Fred Ganes in his article "Neurogenesis in the Adult Brain" in the Journal of Neuroscience published way back in 2002, new research has pointed to the ability of adult brains to create new nerve cells, although the areas where this can happen is limited. This means that not every area in your brain has the ability to form new neurons and synaptic connections, but some notable areas that can are the dentate gyrus, in the hippocampus, which is used for creating and consolidating memories, and of course we all know about the magic abilities of stem cells.  

“Does your brain produce new cells: a skeptical view of adult neurogenesis” on The Guardian online blog says that recent neuroplasticity research has changed the way we think about the brain, but that maybe we need to be more "sceptical" (as it is said...er written...in Britain).  Although some studies point that neurogenesis can be stimulated by physical and mental exercise, everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon and prove that we can significantly delay cognitive decline and repair damaged brains. Simple, easy, done! But really, not so much.  I think the take-home message here is that although we should still be skeptical as to the amount and ability our brain has to create new neurons, we should not be as negative as Meredith, because as my mommy puts it, I (as a representative for all human kind) can achieve whatever I set my mind to. And yes, I actually believe that. 

I could go into a long rant about IQ tests and their validity in predicting how intelligent and smart we all are, but more in the scope of this blog, and relating to the external factors Meredith mentions, I am going to talk about personal life health choices and how these can affect mental capacity and efficiency. 

Meredith states some facts; that “150 of the most learned men of the country (members of the National Academy of Science)” were “living proof that the most brilliant brains are usually found in the huskiest bodies.” Although husky bodies are nice, I think Meredith states it better a few sentences later when she mentions that it was found that graduate students with high IQs were in good health. Husky bodies don't necessarily mean one is in good health, and good health doesn't necessarily mean you are a member of the "genius class," but health does have an affect on your brain. As it does on every other part of your body. Big surprise.  

Exercise is extremely important in health, both for brain and body, and I am pleased that Meredith does not ignore this fact.  There are two ways we can think of exercise and the brain.  1. Physical Exercise and 2. Mental Exercise.

Physical exercise is good for the brain in that it gets our blood circulating, gives you mental rest (for example, working out in between study sessions) to let you process newly learned information.  The circulation that is a product of exercise is important to get blood, glucose, and other nutrients to your brain. I will say more about the nutrients needed for brain functioning later. 

According to some studies cited in “How Exercise could lead to a Better Brain” in the New York Times, 2012, the full effect of exercise on the brain in a molecular level is not yet understood, but exercise may help slow or reverse physical decay, and may even prompt neurogenesis (the growth of new neurons, but don’t worry, we’re not going to talk about that again). Also, research suggests that exercise prompts increases in something clled brain-derived neurotropic factor (B.D.N.F.) which strengthens cells and axons and the connections between neurons.  This is also what may help stimulate neurogenesis (but like I said, we wont talk about that again.) These studies have been conducted mainly in lab animals, namely mice and rats, and scientists are working to connect this research to the human brain. So far they have found that people have increased B.D.N.F. in their bloodstreams after workouts, but as to how or if this affects brain function, they are not so sure. 

Also in regards to learning, exercise can help with encoding information. Learning new information requires memory, which means that information needs to be moved from short-term to long-term memory (also known as consolidation). Dr. Roig at the Universityof Copenhagen published research that a single bout of exercise immediately after motor learning increased memory, even long term memory, in healthy young male subjects. Although these findings were just on motor learning, a study at UC Irvine in 2012, found that a short burst of moderate exercise enhances the consolidation of memories in both healthy older adults and those with mild cognitive impairment. I could cite more studies like this all day, referring to exercise, short-term or long-term memory, motor learning, cognitive ability, etc... but whether you believe the scientific findings, or the fact that just taking a break post studying, or in between, will give you a little mental break and therefore a mental boost is hopefully enough.  

So I now need to go workout and give myself a little mental break so I can write the next post on this topic, since I never got the mental effort and food/nutrient part of this post. But look forward to that for next time!

The first food you ever ate. Guaranteed.

If you didn't guess it, its MILK!

And now, a little MILK humor...

What did the cow say to the bull?

I’m udderly in love with you. <3

For this post, I will once again reference our close friend and Oxy acquaintance, Oscar Mueller in his book, Roads to Health and Happiness, published in 1936.

To start out, Mueller says that “milk is the most valuable of all foods, for it contains nearly all the vitamins.” But what vitamins does milk actually contain?

There are many fat soluble vitamins found in milk:

A – for good vision, growth of body tissue, and immunity*

D – good for absorption of calcium and good for bones and teeth

E – an anti-oxidants that prevent damage to cells) and K are found in milk fat.

There are some aqueous vitamins found in milk:

B – maintains healthy nerves and blood cells. There are actually lots of different B vitamins in milk: pantothenic acid, pyridoxine, cobalamin, niacin, riboflavin, all which serve a variety of functions but I won't get into it on here.

* drinking skim milk significantly reduces the amount of vitamin A found in milk

According to the New York Times Science Desk, cow’s milk for children is the number one source of vitamin D, but can interfere with the absorption of iron. Two cups a day, according to an article by scientists at the University of Toronto published in Pediatrics, is the ideal amount of milk to maintain sufficient vitamin D without affecting iron absorption. Vitamin D is important in the absorption of calcium, and can also be obtained from sunlight.

Milk also has a lot of calcium, about 350 milligrams in one cup.  Calcium is present in all types of milk (whole - skim) because it is found in the water-soluble part of milk (ie the fat content wont change the amount of calcium in your milk). Calcium helps build strong bones and teeth as well as many other functions. (“Milk has benefits, but issues for some” Philadelphia Tribune, 2012).

And now, I have to give a quick shout out to my Dad, and show some proof that everything you (Dad) tell me about calcium and vitamin D isn’t completely disregarded.

So yeah, I guess milk really does have “all” the vitamins. But is it as good for us as was once (and still is) thought?

To start off, I have to put Mueller's book in context. The dairy industry must have been a lot different in 1936 than it is now.  So now I interject with a little bit of milk history and vocabulary. 

Homogenization: Milk was first homogenized in 1919.  Homogenization is blending the butterfat in milk by preheating it and forcing it through a tiny hole. The size of the butterfat particles are reduced so they won’t rise to the top and separate from the other particles of milk.

Pasteurization: In 1920, pasteurization became widespread in the dairy industry and is attributed with lowering infectious disease rates in the US by 90% (TIME, 2007). Pasteurization is a heat treatment in milk to kill the germs in homogenized milk. It also gives milk a longer shelf life. Pasteurization actually became popular in New York from the work of Nathan Straus, a Jewish guy who campaigned for national milk health regulation. Straus is responsible for saving the lives of many children in poverty levels in New York by eliminating unsafe milk.

And now, back to the science...

Although milk was homogenized and pasteurized during Mueller’s time (cerca 1936), from the research I’ve done, it appears that the huge technological advancements in the dairy industry, eg. the introduction of rBST to improve milk production, standardization of pasteurization, and artificial insemination of cows, didn’t happen until post 1936. 

In fact, in the 1930’s it was discovered that BST (bovine somatotropin) is a natural hormone produced in small quantities in the cow's pituitary gland and is used in regulating metabolic processes. BST can now be synthesized using genetic engineering, and when injected into dairy cows in large quantities actually increases milk production by making their digestive system more efficient at converting feed to milk.  However, BST wasn’t approved for use in the US until 1994. 

For all you rBST haters, who just gasped at the mention of BST, according to an article in the  New York Times, 2007, “Don’t Cry Over rBST Milk,” scientists have found no compositional differences in milk with or without rBST. And for all of you who don’t care if rBST is in your milk, those who do care say that it can increase health problems in humans for a variety of reasons. Firstly, it makes cows need to be milked more, which can lead to udder infection, which is treated with antibiotics, which could increase the growth of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria, which can also affect milk drinkers who are allergic to antibiotics. Woah.  That was a mouthful.

For this reason, the milk that Mueller is talking about and the milk that we are talking about are very different kinds of milk.  Mueller is also most likely referring to whole milk, or high fat milk, rather than the low-fat or skim milk that many consumers drink today, since skim milk wasn't popularized until the 80's. However, the milk that we drink and the milk that our ancestors drank in 1936 still have many similarities, including the same vitamins and minerals, like vitamin B, vitamin D, and calcium.  Milk is also still a huge part of the average American’s diet, although a lot of children and adolescents don’t consume the government-recommended amount of dairy products  (Philadelphia Tribune, 2012). 

Mueller also talks about milk being “particularly valuable to convalescents.” I found it interesting that Mueller didn’t mention milk being particularly valuable for children, since that is what we hear about most these days, however I looked into the “convalescent” issue as well.  In an article by C. Genari at the University of Siena, Italy on “Calcium and vitamin D nutrition and bone disease of the elderly,” calcium intake influences bone mass in all age groups. So I guess older people are included in this category as well, although Genari pays particular attention to children, pre-menopausal women, and adolescents in his article.

However, with old people breaking their hips all the time and what not, it makes sense that maybe they should drink a little milk every now and then too, and some studies cited in Genari's article even showed that increased calcium intake (over 4 years) reduced fracture incidence in postmenopausal women with an average age of 73.6. 

Furthermore, in 1998, the expert committee of the European Community in the report on Osteoporosis-Action on prevention said the RDA (recommended daily allowance) for calcium for those 65 and older is 700-800 milligrams per day. Mueller suggested that the elderly drink ½ class of milk a day, which is only about 150 milligrams of calcium. So the elderly now-a-days should drink about 2½  cups of milk a day, or eat enough other foods with calcium, like cheese, yogurt, fish with bones, dark leafy greens, fortified orange juice, and soybeans.

What’s one way to get more calcium besides milk? Ice cream!!! Mueller suggests ice cream as a “popular and valuable form of milk.” He even goes as far as to call it “one of the most wholesome foods” (when it is made of proper ingredients).  Well Mr. Mueller, I definitely agree with you on that, but I'm not sure what the science would say...with all the chemical flavors, sugar, and candy added into our ice cream these days.

So stop browsing the internet, reading this blog, or doing whatever you’re doing and go out and enjoy some good wholesome ice cream!

I would take my own advice, but I’m still stuck in the library writing this blog…

* I could also go into all the other milks for all the adventurous drinkers our there: goats milk, sheeps milk, breast milk (just kidding) or for all the lactards: soy milk, rice milk, almond milk...But I think talking about cow's milk is enough for now.

MOOOOOOOre from me later :)

Temperature and Food. Kind of.

So I'm having a food day. That means I want to eat anything and everything in sight, so today, I will post about food. Its also kind of chilly today, which through some odd connection brought me to the topic of weather and food.

I have heard so many conflicting ideas about what food you should eat when.  A friend's dad once told me that his dietician wanted him to eat less salads and cold foods in the winter to aid his digestion.  As a salad lover, I was appalled. I want to eat salads all times of year! But I guess like most normal humans, I do crave a nice warm stew or soup in the winter-time.

Many quick burn calorie diets tell you that eating cold food/raw food or being cold is supposed to help you burn more calories. My recent google search on this topic today informed me of a lot of different opinions on this idea. I went through a few and actually read the comments on the news articles, blog posts, and yahoo.answers (not always the most reliable sources.) However, in relating this idea to this class, (we had a discussion last week regarding online forums and what people say, what we should believe, and if they should be monitored), it was kind of fun to have all of that in mind and read the very ignorant/seemingly stupid and intelligent/seemingly informed comments. I still do not know what the real answer is. I think it may help you burn more calories, but its pretty much a negligible amount, so crazy diet people just like to latch on to the idea of burning a few more pointless calories.

I think digestion has something to do with a little bit of everything...the ambient temperature (which affects circulation, which aids in digestion...you see where I'm going with this), temperature of your food (cold food is usually raw or less processed than raw food), and food cravings (when its cold you want to be internally and externally warm, and when its hot you don't necessarily want to be hotter). 

But this blog isn't all about what I think so here goes...  

Charters, Smiley, and Strang, (from here on out referred to as the collective CSS) in "The Health and Growth Series: Wise Health Choices," published in 1935, decided that meat should be included less in warm weather and that vegetables, fruits, and less fatty foods should be served.

(I am going to attack this piece-meal (haha, get it? FOOD JOKE) because I am having a hard time finding straight scientific articles and there is A LOT of information on the internet...)

Natural medicine, like homeopathy and acupuncture, have a lot to say on this issue, and according to acumedic.com, climate, humidity, and temperature all affect digestion, including circulation and the nervous system. Cold weather weakens digestion and warm weather causes bloating and water retention. The scientific evidence on this website was minimal.  Go figure.

I also heard an NPR report this summer (sorry I couldn't find the link to the actual broadcast but I hope you can take my word for it) that eating hot (temperature and spice) foods in the heat is often suggested because it helps cool you down by way of perspiration.  Although we already naturally perspire in the heat, eating hot food or spicy food will make you sweat, which will cool you down faster!

In regards to weather and appetite/food consumption:

Almost all the studies say that we DO eat more food in the winter, when the weather is usually colder, however this could be due to a variety of reasons.

• The holidays.  'nuff said.
• There may be an instinctual drive to eat more food when we are cold because food gives us calories, calories keep us warm, so if A-->B and B-->C the silly human assumes that A-->C.
• A lot of people are also forced to be inside and when its cold, and are therefore bored, and eat more.

And now, according to C. Peter Herman and the "Effects of Heat on Appetite"

• When its hot, the body is trying to keep cold, so its working hard and will suppress other bodily processes, such as appetite, which is maybe why people have a diminished appetite in the heat.
• Eating and digestion is a bodily process, requires energy, and produces heat. In the summer, we need less internal heat to make us warm, so we aren't in need if digestion as a heating mechanism, so maybe that is why we experience a decreased appetite.

Finally, though, I found something that might help with the less meat in the summer myth proposed by CSS.  TThe doctors on this site (Everyday Health) are supposed to be reputable and check the facts, but as usual, you can't always believe what you read on the internet.

Some notable points in the Everyday health post...

1. Raw foods are not necessarily harder to digest than cooked foods.  Your digestive tract (unless you have prescribed health problems) will successfully break down most of the food you eat, regardless of its cooking level, although sometimes cooking grants easier access to nutrients and sometimes it can deplete food of nutrients.  Basically, in my book, if you're eating a balanced diet and cooking your food like a normal human being, you should be okay. 
2. Meat and vegetables take about the same time to digest.  Although fat (which meat has more of) can slow digestion, it apparently isn't enough of a problem to not eat meat.

CSS may also suggest not eating meat due to the lack of refrigeration in 1935.  They refer to "ice boxes" and talk about the "electric refrigerator now [being] very common." However, before this new technology (the ice box), having meat around in the summer could have been risky.  Meat, when not refrigerated, is quicker to spoil than other foods and can cause a lot of digestive problems (as referred to in my DyspepsiWHa? post).

A personal opinion from me: eating richer food (meat over veggies) might just make you feel heavier in the summer due to increased fat content and other factors.  I can't say much personally on this, as I never really lose my appetite, ever, even in the heat. 

For this topic, I might just take what CSS say as truth, since this is one of those situations where unfortunately the ancient book won; it took me a frustratingly long amount of time to actually find any semi-reputable information on this topic.  Turns out, there isn't a lot of research on this stuff for humans, and a large majority of whats out there is not reputable stuff, and may be internet sensation articles, personal speculation, or wholesome medicine advice (not that that is bad). But I will keep checking and I will update you if I find anything more.  

No humorous end to this post, I'm feeling quite defeated.

Hygiene for Freshmen

I want to do my next post on one of my favorite titles in the giant stack of books next to me. Hygiene for Freshmen, published in 1934 by Alfred Worcester. This book was published to fit the special needs of the college freshmen at Harvard University. Mind you these were all male freshmen, since Harvard didn't become coed until 1972.  Anyway, Worcester starts out defining health as "freedom from disease" and "the highest possible efficiency of mind and body." Well isn't that wholesome!  He maps health through the ages, noting that the Greeks and Roman's held physical perfection in the highest regard, a concern which was dropped in the Middle Ages and throughout Christian civilization, since disease and pain were all part of the divine plan.  

Although most people reading this blog, and hopefully a good portion of the population, don't believe that illness is inflicted upon us tiny minions from the omnipotent presence that rules us all, it doesn’t seem like a majority of people in the world care about their health.  Many have constraining factors that get in the way of leading a healthy life-style, but many of these factors (financial situation, family, work, daily stresses) are actually a huge part of our health and well-being, or our emotional health, as Dr. Worcester already pointed out.

So just how healthy is the world today? What diseases and lifestyle choices prevail on society now, and how can we be more aware of those and not become part of the statistics? When I first think of unhealthiness, I immediately jump to obesity, it might just be my western breeding.  However, malnutrition, communicable diseases such as HIV, malaria, stress, and unclean living conditions are also important factors that affect global health.  

According to Hygiene for Freshmen, in 1800, the average life expectancy was 25 years; in 1900 it was 45 years; and “now in 1933 the average duration is nearly if not quite 60 years.” This change came not by a lessened mortality of adults, but by saving children from easily preventable diseases! Yay science! Back in Dr. Worcester's day, 92% of deaths were from disease, and only 4% were from old age. A spread of sanitary science, according to Worcester, was both economically and healthfully beneficial back in 1933, since the US government then spent over 3 billion dollars annually treating people with disease. (Look forward to a future post on health plans and political health policy: then and now.)

Interestingly, what the population lacked then was not the information and expert knowledge (although they definitely lacked compared to what we know now), but the willingness to adopt in practice what was already known (in 1933).

Comparatively, the World Health Organization provides 50 Facts: Global health situation and trends1955-2025 to help us assess the health of the world currently. (Sorry a lot of these stats are over 5 years old, but the WHO seemed like a reputable source...)

• In 1997 about 365,000 babies were born and about 140,000 people died, giving a natural increase of about 220,000 people a day
• Life expectancy in 1997 was 65 years and in 2025 is projected to be 73 year
• However, more than 50 million people live today in countries with a life expectancy less than 45 years, which equals the average life expectancy in 1900! Progress has not been made...
• In 1997, of the total 52.2 million deaths...
• 17.3 million were due to infectious and parasitic diseases (33%)
• 15.3 million were due to circulatory diseases (29%)
• 6.2 million were due to cancer (lung > stomach > colon and rectum > liver > breast) (12%)
• 3.6 million were due to perinatal conditions (7%)
• 2.9 million were due to respiratory disease (5.5%)
• Mortality of children under 5 decreased by about 50% (as noted by our friend Dr. Worcester)
• In 1995, 27% of children under 5 were underweight
• Currently, about 50% of deaths among children under 5 are associated with malnutrition
• Infectious diseases are still the dominate killers in developing countries but non-communicable diseases will become more prevalent due to an adoption of “western” lifestyle risk factors like smoking, high-fat diet, obesity, and lack of exercise
• Yay Amurica!
• More than 15 million adults aged 20-64 are dying every year and most of these deaths are premature and preventable
• stop smoking, get off your lazy bum, eat better....yadda yadda yadda...
• Diabetes is projected to double from 1997 to 2025 largely due to dietary and other lifestyle factors
• Ouch!

In a lovely *Outdated Moment* Worcester states that “College men, inasmuch as they have had larger opportunities, are expected to be leaders in their own communities.  Such expectation imposes upon them as true gentlemen the obligation of living clean and wholesome lives.”

Fortunately this now applies to all college students, men and WOMEN.  Understanding some of these facts is important and noting that the concerns have not changed so much in the last 80 years is kind of eye-opening. We actually have more information now than ever before, and people still continue to lead unhealthy lives! 

So all you college freshmen reading this (and everyone else), consider this your impetus to lead healthier, and therefore happier lives. Spread the word of how important health is and remember to appreciate that you have the opportunity to lead a healthy life, unlike a large majority of the world.

I couldn’t end this post without a little bit of college humor…

“Fortunately the idea is now obsolete that collegians should be allowed indulgence for riotous living. Much higher standards now prevail.”  -- Alfred Worcester, 1934

“Ha.” –Lily Berrin, 2013