Effects of Three Pre-Competition meals Upon Subsequent Performance in a Two-Mile Run

It has always been desired that the meal consumed prior to competition would enhance the athlete\u27s performance. The problem is that no one knows how different pre-competition meals affect the performance of the athlete. Sixty-eight Oklahoma State University football players ran a two-mile run after consuming one of four treatments-- steak and eggs, pancakes, oatmeal and eggs, and a control meal. Subjects were grouped by football position and blocked in fours based on a pre-test time. Subjects were assigned treatments randomly with each subject in each block having a different treatment. A questionnaire was filled out after testing by the subjects to get their feelings toward their performance with their assigned treatment. Using the analysis of variance, the data indicated that according to the requirements of the F value, the four treatments had no effect on performance in the two-mile run. The questionnaire indicated that a greater number of the subjects did not feel they were affected by their treatments. The majority of the subjects who ate steak and eggs showed a preference for that meal, whereas the subjects who ate the other meals disliked them or indicated that it did not matter to them what they ate. The treatments did not have an effect on the subjects\u27 performance in the two-mile run, and the questionnaire suggested that the psychological factors involving the precompetition meal may be more important than the meal itself

Synopsis of researcher meeting -- Bottlenose Dolphin Health & Risk Assessment Project, February 22-24, 2005

A meeting was convened on February 22-24, 2005 in Charleston, South Carolina to bring together researchers collaborating on the Bottlenose Dolphin Health and Risk Assessment (HERA) Project to review and discuss preliminary health-related findings from captured dolphins during 2003 and 2004 in the Indian River Lagoon (IRL), FL and Charleston (CHS), SC. Over 30 researchers with diverse research expertise representing government, academic and marine institutions participated in the 2-1/2 day meeting. The Bottlenose Dolphin HERA Project is a comprehensive, integrated, multi-disciplinary research program designed to assess environmental and anthropogenic stressors, as well as the health and long-term viability of Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Standardized and comprehensive protocols are being used to evaluate dolphin health in the coastal ecosystems in the IRL and CHS. The Bottlenose Dolphin Health and Risk Assessment (HERA) Project was initiated in 2003 by Dr. Patricia Fair at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Ocean Service/Center for Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research and Dr. Gregory Bossart at the Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution under NMFS Scientific Research Permit No. 998-1678-00 issued to Dr. Bossart. Towards this end, this study focuses on developing tools and techniques to better identify health threats to these dolphins, and to develop links to possible environmental stressors. Thus, the primary objective of the Dolphin HERA Project is to measure the overall health and as well as the potential health hazards for dolphin populations in the two sites by performing screening-level risk assessments using standardized methods. The screening-level assessment involves capture, sampling and release activities during which physical examinations are performed on dolphins and a suite of nonlethal morphologic and clinicopathologic parameters, to be used to develop indices of dolphin health, are collected. Thus far, standardized health assessments have been performed on 155 dolphins during capture-release studies conducted in Years 2003 and 2004 at the two sites. A major collaboration has been established involving numerous individuals and institutions, which provide the project with a broad assessment capability toward accomplishing the goals and objectives of this project

Detection of brain functional-connectivity difference in post-stroke patients using group-level covariance modeling

Functional brain connectivity, as revealed through distant correlations in the signals measured by functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), is a promising source of biomarkers of brain pathologies. However, establishing and using diagnostic markers requires probabilistic inter-subject comparisons. Principled comparison of functional-connectivity structures is still a challenging issue. We give a new matrix-variate probabilistic model suitable for inter-subject comparison of functional connectivity matrices on the manifold of Symmetric Positive Definite (SPD) matrices. We show that this model leads to a new algorithm for principled comparison of connectivity coefficients between pairs of regions. We apply this model to comparing separately post-stroke patients to a group of healthy controls. We find neurologically-relevant connection differences and show that our model is more sensitive that the standard procedure. To the best of our knowledge, these results are the first report of functional connectivity differences between a single-patient and a group and thus establish an important step toward using functional connectivity as a diagnostic tool

Forecasting the Depression: Harvard versus Yale

Was the Depression forecastable? After the Crash, how long did it take contemporary economic forecasters to realize how severe the downturn was going to be? How long should it have taken them to come to this realization? These questions are addressed by studying the predictions of the Harvard Economic Service and Yale’s Irving Fisher during 1929 and the early 1930’s. The data assembled by the Harvard and Yale forecasters are subjected to modern statistical analysis to learn whether their verbal pronouncements were consistent with the data. We find that both the Harvard and Yale forecasters were systematically too optimistic, yet nothing in the data suggests that the optimum was unwarranted

The origin and prevention of pandemics.

Despite the fact that most emerging diseases stem from the transmission of pathogenic agents from animals to humans, the factors that mediate this process are still ill defined. What is known, however, is that the interface between humans and animals is of paramount importance in the process. This review will discuss the importance of the human-animal interface to the disease emergence process. We also provide an overview of factors that are believed to contribute to the origin and global spread of emerging infectious diseases and offer suggestions that may serve as future prevention strategies, such as social mobilization, public health education, behavioral change, and communication strategies. Because there exists no comprehensive global surveillance system to monitor zoonotic disease emergence, the intervention measures discussed herein may prove effective temporary alternatives

The ontology of causal process theories

There is a widespread belief that the so-called process theories of causation developed by Wesley Salmon and Phil Dowe have given us an original account of what causation really is. In this paper, I show that this is a misconception. The notion of "causal process" does not offer us a new ontological account of causation. I make this argument by explicating the implicit ontological commitments in Salmon and Dowe's theories. From this, it is clear that Salmon's Mark Transmission Theory collapses to a counterfactual theory of causation, while the Conserved Quantity Theory collapses to David Fair's phsyicalist reduction of causation