Can you boost your IQ? The evidence says yes

It’s an age-old question studied by researchers for more than a century:  Is there anyone to make your-self smarter?

In the early days of this inquiry, researchers were certain the answer was no.  But studies over the past two decade have proven otherwise.  Yes, you can raise your intelligence quotient, or IQ.   In fact, the very question was covered in a recent Wall Street Journal article.

While I didn’t manage to track down a systematic review of the topic, I did find a body of literature pointing to methods for improving your IQ.  One study that followed 250 adults over the course of six years found that people in jobs involving complex relationships, elaborate systems or difficult problems tend to perform better over time on cognitive tests.

Likewise, the work of Cornell Professor Steve Ceci has found that schooling raises IQ by several points a year, mainly because students are exposed to information and problem-solving often included in cognitive tests.

In another recent study, British students were given IQ tests and brain scans at ages 12 to 16 and again four years later. The students with significant improvements in IQ – 15 points or more – showed changes in gray matter in areas corresponding with their improvements.

Alas, the issue is complicated.  Another recent study tested adults using at Wii video game, reading and reference ability. While the participants showed improvements in what they practiced, their new-found skills didn’t transfer well to other areas, suggesting that learning for adults may be more narrow than for young adults and children.

Clearly, more research is needed. But it seems that we can say definitely that if you practice something – whether physical or mental – you will see improvements in that specific area.

Updated info: Babies and toddlers should skip the screen

New findings about screen-time for babies and kids is something I keep a close eye on.  As parent of an infant and a three-year-old, I want to do what’s best for them. And yet there’s always the temptation to use the television – “just one show” – when I need to get something done.

So I paid careful attention last month when the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended the first two years of life remain “as screen-free as possible.”

The full report, published in the journal Pediatrics, cited studies that educational programming for children is only beneficial if the children understand the context – a milestone typically not reached until after age 2. The report found that babies and toddlers learn best through unstructured play and interactions with older children and adults.

The report also found that children under age 2 who engage in heavy media use – more than an hour or two a day – may have delays in speech and language.

What does all of this mean?

Rachel Dunifon, a Human Ecology faculty member and expert in child and family policy, says that while research supports that idea that too much media use is likely not ideal for children, parents should know that the studies showing linkages between media use and child well-being are not causal, and that the specific time limits and age cut-offs are somewhat arbitrary. 

While limiting media use is a great goal for parents, she says it is also important that parents not take these recommendations as another source of stress or guilt in their lives.

At our house, not a lot will change despite the new guidelines.  We’ll continue to let our three-year-old watch up to an hour a day of an educational program – most often while the baby is napping. My husband and I will continue to reserve our own TV-viewing until after the kids go to bed – with some special exceptions like the Superbowl and the Royal wedding. 

And yes, every once in a while, I’ll turn on Sesame Street and plunk both kids down in the living room so that I can get something done.  But we’ll try our best to make that a rare exception.

Everything you need to know about vitamin supplements

Now and again, a study is published that leads to a sea change in public opinion. If you’re a regular EBL reader, you already know how we feel about this. (While a single study provides some evidence about an issue, we should really consider all of the available evidence on a given topic before drawing any conclusions.)

Earlier this month, it wasn’t one study, but two.  Separate reports on the use of multivitamins and supplements among older women and the use of Vitamin E and selenium to prevent prostate cancer have led to a flurry of media reports about whether or not we, the general public, should take supplemental vitamins.

What does that mean for you?  We’ve done our best to dissect all of the evidence we can find.  Let’s start with the most recent studies.

First, researchers followed more than 38,000 older women for 25 years to track, among other things, their use of multivitamins and supplements. The study found that the risk of death among these women increased with long term use of multivitamins, vitamin B6, folic acid, iron, magnesium, zinc, and copper. They concluded there is “little justification for the general and widespread use of dietary supplements.”

In the second study, researchers followed more than 35,000 men over 10 years to determine whether taking vitamin E or selenium would decrease the risk of prostate cancer. In this study, the risk of cancer increased for men taking vitamin E, selenium, or both. This study also concluded there is little evidence for taking a supplement.

While these are both large, longitudinal studies, we thought it’d be prudent to check the other evidence available on supplements and talk to some Cornell nutrition professors about their interpretation of the data.

We started off at the Cochrane Collaboration, which has dozens of review on specific supplements for specific conditions. The most general report reviewed studies of supplements to prevent mortality. It reviewed 67 randomized trials with more than 200,000 participants, and found no evidence that supplements prolong life. It also concluded that Vitamin A, beta-carotene, and vitamin E may be harmful.

J. Thomas Brenna, Cornell professor of nutritional sciences, draws the same conclusions. “Human trials of so-called antioxidants have generally been neutral or shown harm, and these recent reports are consistent with their findings,” he said.

Brenna’s take on vitamins and supplements boils down to what he calls one of the oldest and most reliable mantras in biological science, “The dose make the poison.”  In other words, you can get too much of a good thing, and excess vitamin supplementation is no exception.

Patsy Brannon, also a professor of nutritional sciences, emphasized the need to consider your total intake of vitamins and minerals. 

“We know that those who take vitamin and mineral supplements tend to be consuming a healthier diet,” she said. “Further, many foods are fortified with minerals and vitamins such as ready-to-eat cereals and fruit justices.”

So who might benefit from a supplement and how to decide on what supplement to take and how much? 

“For those who routinely consume less than 1500 calories per day, it may be hard to consume all the vitamins and minerals in the amounts needed.  Then, a multivitamin-mineral supplement that provides only 100 percent of the recommended daily values for each of the nutrients in the supplement would be helpful,” she said.

Brannon pointed out a recent study published in the Journal of Nutrition that many adults are not meeting their nutritional needs.  Other evidence found only about 25 percent of American adults are following the recommended dietary guidelines.

The bottom line: Yes, supplements are important for specific deficiencies or when diets do not include a healthy variety of foods.  But the public as a whole may be overconsuming them to ensure health. When that happens, they may do some harm.

New evidence on yoga

Here on EBL, we’ve written plenty about alternative treatments like T’ai Chi and meditation. They’re always popular topics, maybe because many of us are looking for ways to improve our health.

So I was excited to see a New York Times blog post about the evidence surrounding yoga and pain relief. For one, it’s great news that major media outlets like the New York Times are touting the importance of systematic reviews.  And it’s also good to hear that an alternative treatment practiced by so many people – myself included – actually works.

The actual analysis, conducted by researchers in the United Kingdom and published in the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, reviewed ten randomized clinical trials that measured whether yoga helped reduce pain among patients with a variety of ailments. Nine of the trials found yoga led to significantly greater pain reduction than other therapies such as standard care, therapeutic exercises, touch and manipulation, or no intervention at all.

While the analysis gave preliminary indications that yoga works for pain relief, it concluded that more research is needed. The yoga practices in each of the studies varied widely, as did the type and intensity of pain experienced by patients.

Dr. M. Cary Reid is a geriatrician at Weill Cornell Medical Center and director the Translational Research Institute for Pain in Later Life, an evidence-based center in New York City to help older adults prevent and manage pain. He recently completed his own systematic review of alternative therapies including yoga for the treatment of osteoarthritis, which is submitted for publication.

Dr. Reid shared his thoughts on yoga for pain relief: “The good news is there appear to be few downsides to doing yoga, so my thinking is that we should be offering it routinely to patients, particularly those who are reluctant to try pain medications.” He echoed the need for larger, more definitive studies.

Until then, I’ll still be frequently my local yoga studio.

Is junk food cheaper?

It’s a major misconception in our modern society: processed foods like chips, frozen dinners and Happy Meals are not cheaper, but actually more expensive than whole foods like whole grains, fruits and vegetables. While this topic graces our TV screens in shows like Jamie Oliver’s Food Revoluion and our shelves in books like Michael Pollan’s In Defense of Food, the misconception remains among many Americans.

A few weeks ago, Mark Bittman wrote a column in the New York Times making the case that cost is not what keeps American families from eating healthy meals.  Bittman argues that advertising and marketing of snacks and fast food, the addictive nature of unhealthy foods and a lack of cooking skills are to blame for America’s nutrition problems.

It’s a problem that is documented by plenty of evidence, says Christine Olson, a professor of community nutrition at Cornell.

“His article lends some visibility to a fact that is well-known by nutritionists and family economists and amply-substantiated by research,” she said. “A home-prepared family meal is generally more nutritious and cheaper than a family meal purchased at a restaurant, even a fast food restaurant.  But the frenetic pace of family life and the relentless advertising by the fast food industry contribute to the widely-held opposite perception. “

Cornell Cooperative Extension has been educating families about this very issue for decades. Its Food and Nutrition Education in Communities program has been helping families gain the knowledge, skills, attitudes they need to eat healthily since the 1970s. Another program called Cooking Up Fun teaches young people about cooking with healthy ingredients.

It’s one of the many ways that Cornell Cooperative Extension is using evidence to help improve the lives of families in New York.

When should kids start kindergarten?

It’s a question I’m already pondering two full years before I need to make the decision: When will my son be ready for kindergarten?  Aaron turned three last week.  Having a fall birthday means he will always be one of the youngest kids in his class. In two years, he will qualify to start kindergarten as a four-year-old – for a few weeks, at least.  That is, unless I decide to hold him back.

Educational literature and the media are abuzz about this trend of redshirting kindergarteners.  Many parents want to make sure their kids are emotionally ready to start school.  Others don’t want their children to the smallest in the classroom, or the least advanced.

So when I read an opinion article in the New York Times arguing that most kids should start kindergarten on time, even when their birthdays are close to the cut-off dates, I was intrigued.

It turns out the research consistently shows that, on average, children who are held back a year do no better than those who start kindergarten with their designated class.  One study found differences in test scores between younger and older classmates declines over the elementary school years, and that children benefit from having older classmates to learn from. Another longitudinal study found that delaying kindergarten does not result in any long-term advantages, and that younger students may have a small advantage in human capital later in life.

Clearly, each child needs to be evaluated individually to determine when he or she is ready to start school. But the evidence clearly shows that many four-year-olds will do just fine in kindergarten and may end up ahead of their peers in the long run thanks to their early school experiences.

Personally, I will be carefully considering our choices for Aaron over the next several years, with lots of input from his preschool teachers.  In the meantime, it’s nice to know that he can be successful – whatever decision we make.

“You can’t say, ‘You can’t play.’”

Over dozens of years in the classroom, author and veteran kindergarten teacher Vivian Paley noticed a disturbing trend among her students: Each year, some children developed the power to create the games, make the rules, and decide who was allowed to play and who would be left out.

So Paley decided to make a new rule in her classroom: “You can’t say, ‘You can’t play.”  Paley documented the children’s reaction to the new rule with audio recordings.  (You can hear some of them in an episode of the NPR show This American Life.)

The following year, Paley’s rule was expanded to her entire school. She’s written a book on the experiment. And, since then, educators across the country have adopted the rule and studied its implications.  My own son’s preschool subscribes to the rule, so I thought I’d do a little digging to find out what the research says about it.

While there is no meta-analysis available to date on “You can’t say, ‘You can’t play,” studies have shown the rule improves social acceptance among kindergarteners.  The non-profit research center Child Trends implemented an intervention program among 144 kindergarteners that involved storytelling and group discussion to help children become more aware the different ways they may exclude their peers and learn ways to act in more accepting ways.  Their study found that children in the program felt more accepted by their peers compared to the control group.

Another study investigated teacher’s perceptions about inclusive play for young children. The found programs to implement the rule must involve training and on-going support to help teachers communicate the rule to students and deal with problems that emerge as students struggle with inclusive play.

On the whole, I’m impressed with the data available on “You can’t say, ‘You can’t play.’”  It seems to be a positive way to teach young children about social acceptance and diversity.  This is one area, though, where I’d love to see some more comprehensive research or a literature review to clarify all of the benefits to our children.

How to cope with trauma

Sadly, disasters are a part of our life today.  Both natural disasters like hurricanes or tragedies like the September 11 terrorist attacks take a devastating toll on the people involved in them. Many people who live through these kinds of dangerous events develop an anxiety disorder called post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. 

Given the recent flooding on the east coast from Hurricane Irene and Tropical Storm Lee, as well as the anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001, we thought it’d be helpful to see what the evidence says about PTSD.

The best resource we could find is from the National Institute of Mental Health. Researchers there created an online guide that describes PTSD and summarizes the best treatments based on current research.

Not everyone who lives through a dangerous event will develop PTSD. There are some factors that can help people avoid this debilitating condition. They include finding a support group, developing a way to get through the bad event and learn from it, and the ability to act and respond despite being in fear.

According to the research, people who have a history of mental illness, who saw other people get hurt or killed or who have little or no social support after a tragedy are more likely to develop PTSD.

The take-home message is, if you or a loved one have experienced a traumatic event, there are evidence-based steps you can take to avoid or cope with PTSD.

You can help a relative or friend by:

  • Offering emotional support, understanding, patience, and encouragement.
  • Inviting your friend or relative out for positive distractions.
  • Paying attention comments about your friend or relative harming him or herself, and reporting this behavior to a medical professional.

If you’ve experienced a traumatic event, you should:

  • Talk to your doctor about how you’re feeling.
  • Engage in mild activity or exercise to help reduce stress.
  • Try to spend time with other people and tell others about things that may trigger symptoms.

We’d all like to live in a world where disasters don’t happen. But given the realities of our society and environment, it’s important to understand the evidence about living through trauma.

Evidence-based energy: What we really know about hydraulic fracturing

A newer method for extracting natural gas from layers of shale deep below the earth’s surface – called hydraulic fracturing or hydrofracking – has ignited debates across the nation. Proponents say that natural gas key to the country’s energy future. (Burning natural gas produces fewer greenhouse gases emissions than coal and oil.) But opponents say this method for extracting it poses risks to ground water supplies.

Over the past several years, Cornell researchers have mounted an unprecedented response to the issue. They’ve stepped up research efforts to collect and develop as much evidence as possible about hydrofracking. And they are reaching out to help individuals and communities across New York to help them make decisions about the benefits and dangers of drilling.

They have created the Cornell Cooperative Extension Natural Gas Resource Center, which is made of a 12 faculty members from a wide array of disciplines—including sociology, environmental sciences, and geology—and 20 extension educators. The group has compiled information for people impacted by hydraulic fracturing including individuals considering leasing their land, community groups, and local governments.

The Resource Center’s web site is a treasure trove of information on the topic including how geologists use seismic data to determine if natural gas is accessible, how to negotiate a lease for gas drilling and the economic impacts of drilling.

If you live in an area where natural gas drilling is a possibility, you’ll definitely want to dig into this resource.

A new federal report: Vaccines and serious side effects

It’s a debate that has raged for decades – whether vaccines lead to serious side effects – and specifically whether the combination vaccine to prevent measles, mumps and rubella causes autism in children.

The federal government has investigated the risk of vaccines a dozen times in the past 25 years to determine what the evidence says on the issue. Their latest report, written by a committee at the Institute of Medicine and released last week, found no evidence that the MMR vaccine causes autism.

The report reviewed eight vaccines in total that are recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. For each vaccine, a committee of medical experts reviewed adverse events associated with vaccines to evaluate the scientific evidence about whether the event was related to the vaccine.

The committee did find evidence for some adverse events related to vaccines. For example, people who have had the chickenpox vaccine can develop pneumonia, meningitis or hepatitis late in life if they suffer an unrelated illness, such as cancer, that compromises their immune systems. And the HPV vaccine rarely causes a life-threatening allergic reaction.

The committee also found the evidence rejected five adverse relationships related to vaccines, including the link between the MMR vaccine and autism.

But for the majority of adverse events, the committee could not find enough evidence to determine whether vaccines contributed to the problems or not.  Often times, this was because the event was extremely rare, making it difficult to study.

You can read a summary of the report, with information about all of the vaccines studied, by clicking here.  The bottom line is, it’s important to understand the vaccines that you and your children are receiving, and be prepared for potential side effects that could occur based on the evidence.

Wash your hands! And other ways to ward off food poisoning

Following last week’s recall of 36 million pounds of ground turkey, we thought it’d be a good time to review the evidence on Salmonella poisoning.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, the bacteria Salmonella live in the intestinal tracts of humans and other animals, including birds. People usually contract the bacteria by eating foods contaminated with animal feces, which typically look and smell normal even though they are carrying the bacteria. Salmonella is also be found in the feces of pets, especially, reptiles and young birds.

An estimated 1.4 million people contract Samonella poisoning every year in the U.S.  A total of 107 cases in 31 states have been identified in the most recent outbreak spread by the ground turkey meat. Infection typically results in diarrhea, fever, and abdominal cramps 12 to 72 hours contact with the bacteria. The illness usually runs its course in 4 to 7 days, and most people don’t require treatment.  But severe cases require hospitalization for dehydration.

So what’s the best way to prevent the spread of Samonella?  The evidence shows there are some simple steps you can take to reduce your risk of Samonella poisoning.

  • Cook poultry, ground beef, and eggs thoroughly.
  • Wash hands, kitchen work surfaces, and utensils with soap and water immediately after they have been in contact with raw meat or poultry.
  • Wash hands with soap after handling reptiles, birds, or baby chicks, and after contact with pet feces.
  • Avoid direct or even indirect contact between reptiles and infants or immunocompromised persons.

Beyond these common-sense measures, researchers at Cornell are trying to do more. Two Cornell faculty members recently received a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to study how tomato plants interact with the Samonella bacteria, with the hopes of eventually breeding new varieties of produce that suppress Samonella. 

Until then, keep up the hand-washing!

The evidence on U.S. debt

As the federal government struggles this week to raise the federal debt limit, we thought it’d be a good time to review the evidence on household debt over here at EBL. 

A business columnist at the Detroit News made the point this week that American families actually hold more debt than the federal government, with households owing more than $2.4 trillion of credit card debt alone. (That compares to approximately $1.4 trillion in the total debt for the U.S. government in 2011.)

What else do we know about Americans and debt?   Family Economics and Resource Management, a project by Cornell Cooperative Extension to people achieve more  secure financial situations, compiled an interesting list of facts about Americans and debt management.  Among them:

  • 40 percent of U.S. households live beyond their means.
  • the net worth of the average middle-class American household after accounting for debt is less than $10,000.
  • and 48 percent of American credit card holders only pay the minimum payment amount each month.

Essentially, the evidence shows that Americans are no more responsible with their borrowing habits than the federal government.

But there is a way out.  Rutgers Cooperative Extension has compiled 20 tips for smart borrowing, such as:

  • Borrow as little as possible by making the largest down payment you can afford.  This will help you to avoid becoming “upside down” or owing more than your purchase is worth.
  • Shop for credit, just like other purchases. Compare at least three different banks for the lowest interest rates and fees.
  • Always pay more than the minimum monthly payment. For example, send 6 percent of a $5,000 outstanding balance on an 18 percent APR credit card, instead of 3 percent, and you’ll save 9 years of payments and $2,975 in interest.

Be sure to understand the facts about any money you borrow or credit cards you hold.  Smart borrowing will help you achieve financial success over the long run.

Skip to toolbar