What High Heels Can Teach Us About Evolution

What high heels can teach us about evolution

What High Heels Can Teach Us About Evolution

13 May 2013 | Blogs

Written by Helga Groll

High Heels are sexy. This might not come as surprising news to you, but now it’s also scientifically proven. A team of researchers analysed the way women walked in high heels and flat shoes. Men as well as women perceived women wearing high heels as more attractive. In fact, high heels seemed to have an even stronger impact on female judges. Participants were filmed walking on a treadmill wearing reflective markers. The evaluators could only see a dotted outline of a participant, but not the actual person.

Moreover, men and women (again more women than men) incorrectly classified women as men when they were wearing flat shoes. Also, the higher the Body Mass Index, the less attractive the walker appeared.

But what is it that makes heels sexy when you can’t even see them? Apparently, it was the way participants walked. Wearing heels forced women to walk with shorter and more frequent steps. Wearing heels also changed the posture of the person. Knees and hips bend less and hips are rotated into an angle that favours other female assets such as the buttocks and the breasts. Dr. Paul Morris, Principal Lecturer in Psychology at the University of Portsmouth and lead author of the study, concluded: “The evidence demonstrates that at least one factor in making women in heels more attractive is that heels exaggerate the femininity of the walk”. Interestingly, the heels weren’t even that high. “We found very strong effects with relatively low heels (6 cm)”, he adds.

The researchers suggest that heels could act as a sort of “super releaser”. Super releasers can be found throughout the animal kingdom. They are an enhanced version of a stimulus, following the principle “the bigger the better”. Oystercatchers, for example, prefer an “über-sized” egg they can’t even sit on to their own eggs. In a similar way, high heels could exaggerate the way women walk, as well as their feminine features.

The researchers, however, stress that our responses to high heels are not necessarily due to instinct, but rather influenced by culture and fashion. They could simply act in the same way that we use make up to enhance facial features, bleach our teeth to appear healthier or enlarge diverse body parts.

Fashion can be very diverse and some trends come and go. Certain trends in fashion favouring masculinity, such as straight flapper dresses, or female shoulder pads in the 1980s are short-lived, while other things that could enhance attractiveness in an “evolutionary sense”, such as high heels, might always be “en vogue”.

High heels have been around for a long time, and at times, they were even common among men. In the past, they probably served a more practical purpose, such as keeping dresses out of the dirt or feet in stirrups. Now, they mainly serve to make women look and feel sexy. It just remains to be seen if there is a limit to the length of the heel. Surely, at a certain heel length, the “sexy sway” will be replaced by some awkward staggering and stumbling, causing women to resemble more “little Miss Whoops” than “femme fatale”.

Lost in Space

Astronauts may risk Alzheimer's

Astronauts May Risk Alzheimer’s - London Student

21 Jan 2013 | News and Features

Written by Helga Groll

It may sound like science fiction, but ‘Space Tourism’ is already here, and a recent study suggests such trips to space could be harmful to our brains.

Outside the Earth’s protective atmosphere, cosmic radiation has been found to produce a variety of health effects, from increased risk of cancer and cardiovascular disorders to the weakening of the immune system. These might not be the only issues though. A recent study suggests that astronauts could also be more prone to suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. Researchers exposed mice to radiation comparable to the amount astronauts would experience on a mission to Mars. The scientists found that memory was impaired and protein plaques had formed in the brain. These plaques are characteristic in those with Alzheimer’s; they alter or stop the communication between nerve cells, which leads to cognitive impairment. Although this study highlights possible non-anticipated dangers for astronauts, it is too early to be fully aware of the risks to humans of space travel.

The research only looked at very few mice, and exclusively males were studied. The mice were also genetically modified in a way that made them predisposed to developing Alzheimer’s disease. This means they had genes that increased their susceptibility to getting the disease, although they should still have remained healthy under normal circumstances. M. Kerry O’Banion, Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Rochester stated: “the mice tended to show plaque pathology starting at 5 to 6 months of age. Our results could indicate that environmental stimuli can influence Alzheimer’s pathology, at least in a mouse model.”

The problem is that the scientists can’t be certain whether the decrease in cognitive function was caused by radiation alone, or because of a combination of radiation and gene mutation. It is also unclear how long astronauts would need to be exposed to the radiation to suffer from health effects. “The dose duration was very different for mice and astronauts. Thus we cannot draw a simple conclusion yet” Professor O’Banion added.

While space tourism might remain science fiction for most of us (an 8 day trip costs around $20 million USD), it is important to minimise the risks for astronauts or space tourists by developing better radiation shielding for the space crafts. 44 years after the infamous “one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind”, we certainly have come far in our exploration of space. Perhaps at this point we should consider exploring our own planet Earth for a while longer. Five billion years have shaped this planet into its current form, and it is perfectly adapted to risks such as cosmic radiation. We owe it to ourselves and future generations to do our best to conserve it. After all, despite our desire to find new worlds to explore, mother Earth may be the only liveable planet accessible to us for a long time.

The Brain Science of Music

Check out my article about music and language in ionic magazine

In a society where talent shows dominate our TV programmes and we secretly cannot wait for our weekly X-factor fix, it is surprising how little we actually know about the science of music. While we’re swinging that leg over the dance floor and belting out to our favourite tune on the karaoke machine, neuroscience is probably the last thing that pops into our minds. But in fact, even humming a melody involves a range of complex cognitive processes, ranging from music processing and sensory-motoric functions, such as dancing or balancing, to storing and retrieving the information.

Once belittled as “auditory cheesecake”, neuroscience of music is a relatively young field that aims to understand cognitive brain functions and processing, in particular speech, and is gaining increasing attention by scientists [1]. And as such, we are now beginning to understand how music is processed in the brain, and whether it is similar to language processing.

It was once thought that the left-brain hemisphere is responsible for language processing, while the right hemisphere is responsible for music processing. Nowadays it is known that listening and engaging to music is processed bilaterally throughout the brain, involving the cortex, sub-cortex and cerebellum mainly in the right but also in the left hemisphere. Brain areas processing speech and music do not completely overlap but some common grounds can be found, for example in the syntax [2]. However, lateralities exist in some cases, that is certain information is only processed on either left or right side of the brain [1]. Melodic attributes can also be found in the way we talk, which is with different pitches. High flat pitches are associated with fear; while falling pitches are comforting and large bell shaped pitches are associated joy or surprise. It was even shown that with composers, the rhythm of the native language is reflected in their instrumental music [3, 4].

Music also changes brain structure and function and it was found that brains of musicians differ in morphology and function to the brains of non-musicians[5]. Music enhances brain activity, and those who learned to play an instrument at a very young age show a lot more changes in the brain than the ones learned as a teenager or in later years [6]. Moreover, links between musical discrimination and cognitive abilities have been found, for example children with dyslexia have impaired melodic and rhythmic tasks abilities [7]. A change of brain morphology happened in musicians’ brains, but also in people suffering from amusia [8]; a deficit in music processing in which people cannot discriminated between pitches less than a semi tone apart, although it is nowadays seen as a rather selective impairment of perception, concerning either rhythm, or melody, or both, or in more simple terms “tone-deafness“.

Many people see emotion as the essence and purpose of music. And although the role of emotion in music processing is still widely debated [9], it was shown that music can indeed trigger emotional responses such as shivers, thrills and changes in heart rate [10]. When listening to music, the same brain areas are activated in a similar manner to other emotional stimuli [1], and dopamine, a chemical that triggers the brain’s sense of reward, is released [11]. Oddly, sad music can make people happy. It tricks the brain to release prolactin, a bonding hormone released during breast feeding or sex, which induces a positive mood change [12].

Undoubtedly, music has a great significance in our lives and as John Miles put it in his ode to music “Music was my first love and it will be my last, music of the future and music of the past”, no one can imagine a world and life without music. The field of neuroscience of music has only recently started to flourish and due to the advancement of brain scanning methods, research in processing music will provide us with a better understanding about cognitive abilities, from auditory to motor processing and speech. It will also bring us more insight about developmental disabilities such as autism. And it may answer the maybe the most intriguing question, why have we evolved music and a musical brain? Although scientists argue that music has no purpose in an evolutionary context and had no adaptive value for our survival, it certainly has an uncannily important value for our wellbeing and society, now as much as in the past, as well as in the future.

1.             Levitin, D.J. and A.K. Tirovolas, Current advances in the cognitive neuroscience of music. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2009. 1156(1): p. 211-231.

2.             Patel, A.D., Language, music, syntax and the brain. Nature neuroscience, 2003. 6(7): p. 674-681.

3.             Patel, A.D. and J.R. Daniele, An empirical comparison of rhythm in language and music. Cognition, 2003. 87(1): p. B35-B45.

4.             Patel, A.D., Rhythm in language and music. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 2003. 999(1): p. 140-143.

5.             Gaser, C. and G. Schlaug, Brain structures differ between musicians and non-musicians. The Journal of Neuroscience, 2003. 23(27): p. 9240-9245.

6.             Hyde, K.L., et al., Musical training shapes structural brain development. The Journal of Neuroscience, 2009. 29(10): p. 3019-3025.

7.             Forgeard, M., et al., The relation between music and phonological processing in normal-reading children and children with dyslexia. Music perception, 2008. 25(4): p. 383-390.

8.             Hyde, K.L., et al., Cortical thickness in congenital amusia: when less is better than more. The Journal of Neuroscience, 2007. 27(47): p. 13028-13032.

9.             Trainor, L.J. and L.A. Schmidt, Processing emotions induced by music. The cognitive neuroscience of music, 2003: p. 310-324.

10.           Blood, A.J. and R.J. Zatorre, Intensely pleasurable responses to music correlate with activity in brain regions implicated in reward and emotion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2001. 98(20): p. 11818-11823

11.           Thompson, C., Music of the hemispheres. The New York Times, 2006. 31.

12.           Huron, D.B., Sweet anticipation: music and the psychology of expectation. 2006: The MIT Press.

Test Tube Dinosaurs

Will Jurassic Park become reality?

Test Tube Dinosaurs? - London Student

19 Nov 2012 | News and Features

Written by Helga Groll

Dinosaurs, the giant primeval beasts, have fascinated old and young for generations. Michael Crichton and Steven Spielberg’s Jurassic Park has inspired fantasies that we might one day see these prehistoric creatures in real life. In the movie, scientists used dinosaur blood from the stomachs of fossilised parasitic insects that were once sucking on T-rex and Co to extract DNA and bring the fearsome reptiles back to life.

Recent studies have investigated how plausible this DNA preservation and extraction could be. An Australian research team used buried Moa bones to conclude that DNA would not survive longer than 6.8 million years. A pretty impressive time span, however dinosaurs first appeared around 230 millions of years ago, and died out almost 70 million years ago.

The international research group examined 150 leg bones of the Moa, a giant extinct bird. The bones ranged between about 600 and 8,000 years old and were collected from three different sites. Palaeo-geneticists led by Morten Allentoft at the University of Copenhagen and Michael Bunce at Murdoch University in Perth, Australia found the half-life of DNA to be 521 years. This meant that after 521 years, half of the bonds in DNA had degraded, leaving half of the genetic information unreadable.

DNA has a limited ‘life span’ or, more accurately, chemical stability. Without the repair mechanisms present in a living cell, DNA decays and is eaten by micro-organisms. After 6.8 million years, the DNA would be completely destroyed. This makes finding intact DNA from more than 100 million years ago, the ‘prime time’ of dinosaurs, very unlikely. As for DNA long enough to be sequenced in a lab and studied, Dr Allenthoft says “such fragments will be gone long before the 6.8 million year mark”. Such a result would shatter hopes that we will be buying our tickets to a real Jurassic Park in the near future.

However, another recent study of ancient bones suggests there could be a twist in the story. The team analysed bones cells (osteocytes) of two dinosaurs, Tyrannosaurus rex and Brachylophosaurus canadensis. They claim to have found remnants of osteocytes, which could contain DNA. These remains are yet to be verified; and even if the cells contained DNA there may not be enough left to confirm its origin. Osteocytes are comparatively ‘invincible’ and cannot be destroyed and could be preserved in ancient tissue.

Dr Mary H Schweitzer, lead author of the study criticised the previous study, stating that “These authors did not test fossils dating back older, rather predicted that DNA would be gone by a certain time point”. She adds that her bone samples do not agree with this hypothesis; “We have 4 independent lines of evidence that there is material chemically consistent with DNA”

Even if DNA remains in these dinosaur bones, the slow degradation over time may mean not enough remains to study the genetic information of the animals through genetic sequencing. “We can’t demonstrate that the reactive material inside these dinosaur ‘cells’ is dinosaur DNA without sequence.”

So where does that leave Jurassic Park? For long strands of DNA to have any chance of surviving a 65 million year wait to the modern day, they would require perfect conditions. So could there be an untouched, perfectly preserved dinosaur genome under the Earth waiting to be discovered? “I would not completely dismiss the idea that that DNA can survive longer than we think under some extreme and rare conditions” explains Dr. Allenthoft, “but at the moment there is nothing suggesting that we will ever get authentic DNA from dinosaur bones”.

Unwanted side effect: obesity

Do antibiotics make us fat?

Are Antibiotics Making Us Fat? - London Student

29 Oct 2012 | News and Features

Written by Helga Groll

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, medicine was revolutionised by the discovery that microorganisms such as mould, fungi, and bacteria could produce substances capable of curing bacterial infections. In present day, a world without these substances now known as antibiotics is hard to imagine. Antibiotics are ubiquitous in everyday life, from fattening farm animals to treating infectious diseases and even certain types of cancer. Unfortunately, the overuse of antibiotics is accompanied by several side effects, the most obvious being the antibiotic resistance of certain diseases. Scientists have now discovered that the use of antibiotics during early childhood can also increase the risk of obesity.

A population study of children, done by the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children in the UK, has investigated the impact of the use of antibiotics at different points during childhood. The survey comprised approximately 12,000 children born between 1991 and 1992, and took into account the weights and lifestyles of parents and children.

Whilst exposure to antibiotics between 6 and 14 months of age did not increase the risk of obesity, a clear link between antibiotics and obesity was found when antibiotics had been administered earlier in a child’s life. After having been given antibiotics before the age of 6 months, children were seen to have been affected at 38 months. However, when antibiotics were given between the ages of 15 and 23 months, effects became apparent only after several years. By the age of 7, about 17.6% of children were overweight and 8.3% were obese.

“The composition of micro flora in the gut, ‘good gut bacteria’, is important for a healthy body, and differences in composition or lack of bacteria can be associated with inflammatory bowel diseases, metabolic disorder, immunity and obesity”, explained Professor Brendan Wren, an expert in microbial pathogenesis at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The gut is a microbial jungle, containing a very complex environment of microbes that stimulate vital processes such as immune responses, hormone production, energy regulation, and growth. Even the slightest change in bacterial composition can have severe consequences for the hormonal balance, or energy uptake in cells.

Dr Cormac Gahan, a microbiologist at University College Cork, adds, “There is increasing evidence in linking gut bacteria with the risk of obesity, and specific types of bacteria might play a bigger role than others. Malfunctioning bacteria can influence the efficiency of energy extraction from the diet as well as influence hormone production”.

Dr Leonardo Trasande from New York University’s School of Medicine, who is the main author of the study, thinks that the obesity is due to the composition of micro flora in the gut. Gut bacteria in children might be less stable than those in adults, rendering children more vulnerable to adverse effects from antibiotics. In addition, increased use of antibiotics in children has also been linked to dermatitis, asthma and bowel diseases.

Antibiotics could have more side effects than previously anticipated. Due to recent advances in genetic research, it is only now possible to assess the complex composition of the population of microbes in the gut. This in turn will allow more in-depth study on the development of the bacteria, and of a variety of related diseases. More research will be needed to better understand the mechanisms of how antibiotics influence gut bacteria. The indirect impact that antibiotics have on us because of the widespread use of the drug in livestock also remains to be seen. The frequency and intensity of antibiotic use should certainly come under review to ensure we can continue to use this essential medicine.

Busy Bee

Well, unfortunately my blogging attempts came to an abrupt halt. As so often, I committed to too many things at once... But – if you’re interested here are some links to what I’ve been up too:

What's all the fuss about multivitamins and cancer prevention? In this blog article I demystify all the rumours about the "magic pills"

I can see clearly now the smoke is gone!

A couple of weeks ago on my way to work I was listening to a live call-in debate on the radio about whether cigarette package branding should be banned or not. In the 30 minutes that I was tuned in, the majority of the people that called were smokers or ex-smokers, all of which claimed that packaging did not influence their decision to smoke. The few non-smokers that called were all of the opinion that unified package branding would help reduce smoking.

Is this an example for clouded judgement amongst smokers? Are smokers deluded in their assumption that branding does not influence their smoking behaviour? Can packaging influence our decisions and consumer behaviour?

Although the smokers insisted that branding had no influence whatsoever, they all were able to describe the exact details of the brand they smoke, often with a proud, reverent voice.  Even I, a non-smoker can recall adverts from my teenage days.  The most distinct memory is the advert of the “Marlboro man”. I can very vividly recall the handsome guy in cowboy attire posing and gazing pensive into the distance while oozing coolness, power and glamour. And although I have never smoked, there are a few cigarette packages that immediately pop to my mind! 

First to mind comes again, “Marlboro”, with its white and gold packaging for the “light and healthy” alternative, and the red and white packaging, with characteristic lettering in western font.  The “Lucky Strike” packaging, again featuring the colours white and red, this time with a red circle, “Gauloises”, a red or blue package with a flying helmet, which to me, somehow always conveyed the impression of being the “bohemian arty cigarette”. Then there is “Camel”, with the camel and the pyramid in soft colours (promising adventure and mystery?). There was also a brand, which name I cannot remember, but these cigarettes were clearly aimed at the female followers, with their long and slim shape, and a delicate flower on the packaging. Some of the brands had special editions, adding collector value, and I, the non-smoker, was collecting these packages! Admittedly, despite clearly having left a visual impression on me, these things never “seduced” me to take up smoking, but this is mainly due to the fact to having lost my smoking father to lung cancer at the age of 10. 

Despite divided opinions amongst smokers and non-smokers, can we really assume that branding and packaging does not influence the consumer behaviour? Advertising and marketing have one goal: to increase profit, and for that they use a powerful tool – the manipulation of our subconscious. The subconscious is more powerful than our conscious and can be strongly influenced by media. In subliminal advertising, hidden messages and stimuli that are below the threshold of conscious perception are embedded in the advert. This is used as a marketing strategy to manipulate the buyer (subconsciously) in order to increase profit.

In fact, research areas such as consumer neuroscience, neuromarketing or neuroeconomics, use modern technology to study brain activity, eye tracking or galvanic skin responses to measure our physiological responses when presented with different pictures, stimuli or adverts. Advertising uses cues that work on all our senses and product packaging is an important way to communicate with the consumer, to create attraction, brand identity and aesthetics [1]. Images, colour and font have a strong effect on the customer and it has been shown that package graphics influence consumer product related attitudes and behaviour [2]. Research has also shown that packaging can evoke emotional responses in the customer [3] and that attractive packages trigger brain activity in areas related to visual attention, memory and reward, while unattractive packaging elicits conflict responses, uncertainty and disgust [4]. 

While Imperial Tobacco claims that “tobacco packaging has never been identified as a reason why children start to smoke or why adult smokers continue to choose to smoke”, studies investigating the effect of cigarette packaging have shown [5] that cigarette packaging can lead to misleading perception of health risks. Words like smooth, light, mild, with charcoal filter or superslim wrongly deliver the impression that these cigarettes are indeed a healthier option. This also goes for colours. Light colours are perceived healthier than dark ones. Moreover, plain packs were shown to significantly reduced smoking in young adult smokers, compared to fully branded ones [6].

It could be argued that our lives and freedom are already too controlled by the state and a line needs to be drawn somewhere. I can only disagree. It seems to me that we are already subconsciously controlled, by hidden stimuli in adverts, music or film. 

Wouldn’t plain cigarette packaging be one step towards freedom?

References

1.         Simms, C. and P. Trott, Packaging development: A conceptual framework for identifying new product opportunities. Marketing Theory, 2010. 10(4): p. 397-415.

2.         Westerman, S., et al., The Design of Consumer Packaging: Effects of Manipulations of Shape, Orientation, and Alignment of Graphical Forms on Consumers’ Assessments. Food Quality and Preference, 2012.

3.         Liao, L., et al., Can packaging elements elicit consumers’ emotional responses? 2012.

4.         Stoll, M., S. Baecke, and P. Kenning, What they see is what they get? An fMRI-study on neural correlates of attractive packaging. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 2008. 7(4-5): p. 342-359.

5.         Hammond, D. and C. Parkinson, The impact of cigarette package design on perceptions of risk. Journal of Public Health, 2009. 31(3): p. 345-353.

6.         Hoek, J., et al., Effects of dissuasive packaging on young adult smokers. Tobacco Control, 2011. 20(3): p. 183-188.

7.         Marlboro man taken from (http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&biw=1280&bih=756&tbm=isch&tbnid=iXLhku76MHG3aM:&imgrefurl=http://130.18.140.19/mmsoc/subliminal/marlboro.html&imgurl=http://130.18.140.19/mmsoc/subliminal/marlboro.jpg&w=400&h=549&ei=RWo7UKz9POeQ0AXjxIHoBg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=624&sig=104044748211827893061&page=1&tbnh=177&tbnw=126&start=0&ndsp=19&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0,i:90&tx=75&ty=99). I don not own copy right of this picture.