Monday, September 23, 2013

TOUCH ME - BABY! Or, the importance of human contact in infant development.

TOUCH ME - BABY! Or, the importance of human contact in infant development.

So I was reading about a study on orphanages where the babies were suffering from a lack of  loving touch, and some would actually die from lack of affection. Additionally, their higher functioning capability, their IQ, and even the prevalence of mental and behavioral issues were all affected by the lack of contact. Literally these babies were dying from lack of loving physical touch. Without these loving gestures, skin contact and the physical cuddling of these babies, even though living in a sterile environment, appropriate nutrition and technically correct care, the infants would die.

The power of human touch cannot be overestimated. In humans, the loving touch between people aids in physical and emotional development, lessens pain, improves pulmonary functioning, lowers blood pressure, regulates glucose levels, and aids in immune support. For infants, it aids in proper physical growth, develops mental functioning, and regular touch promotes superior motor development.

As we age, the amount of touching that we receive significantly decreases. We have societal inhibitions, we have a culture wherein touching others becomes prohibited, and we, as a whole, are suffering from it. According to what I've read, the amount of touching we receive from childhood to our teen years is roughly halved, and decreases even more sharply into adulthood. But our need for this comforting human contact does not diminish. From babies to elders, those who receive regular healthy human skin-to-skin contact are happier, better adjusted, less prone to illness, infection or even to aggression or violence. Establishing their worldview as babies through the caring contact leads to more confidence, happier and healthier humans.

Even with so many benefits to human touch and physical interaction, we have created a society wherein touch is taboo as it is primarily relegated to the realm of the sensual. But with touch reducing stress hormones, promoting good social behaviors, and increasing self-esteem, the benefits are clearly defined.

As a technological society, we are touch-deprived. Maybe even touch-starved. With the limitations by our culture, inter-personal relationships, and social norms, we have relegated touch to those between intimate couples, handshakes in business situations, parent-to-child, or very few other acceptable situations between very close friends, such as a hug at meeting or departing. Even in a modern (more) homosexually-accepting culture, touch between two hetero males is nearly forbidden, and certainly not widely accepted. The random high-five, a punch on the shoulder, or mock-aggression (or in some cases, real aggression) is the typical male-to-male interaction, with very few exceptions.  While the incidence of touch varies widely between cultures, overall most Americans maintain a wide berth between themselves and others.Where touch between people has become so widely socially unacceptable, our general population at large is suffering a lack of human contact.

Oddly enough, I am a person who does not particularly like to be touched. Especially by people that I don't know. The whole social phenomenon where waitresses earn larger and better tips by casually touching a customer in a "safe" place, such as a shoulder, does not work for me. I will often go out of my way to avoid accidental touch with strangers.

However, with the people that I like and am close to, then touch is frequent and loving. But it takes time for people to "earn" this level of contact. Our modern socially-enforced barriers to casual touch work fairly well for people like me that would prefer not to have to be in contact with anyone outside of my immediate social circle.
With this said, in situations where I anticipate being touched: booking a massage, a business meeting where introductions will be made and hands shaken, or amongst a crowd, where as much as I might personally dislike it, the touch is infrequent and involuntary (one would hope, anyway!) it is permissible. I'm not so touch-phobic that I avoid social situations. And though I understand the need for physical affection, the casual touching by people that I would not normally allow into my "personal space bubble" is what I dislike. This is a circumstance outside of my control, however. Though I love the affectionate hugs of my family and close friends, and of course, contact with my husband, the social taboo of random touch is strong otherwise.

But where does this social restriction begin? When we are infants, whether animal or human, we have an incontrovertible need to be touched. Babies need to be nurtured, held, coddled, shown affection. The runts of the animal kingdom often die - not only because they are smaller and already seemingly weaker and more frail than their litter mates, but also because this lack of nurturing from the mother. Since the young are programmed to select a specific teat and the process of nursing will encourage the mother to groom, lick and nuzzle the strongest young. Without the stimulation of licking and nuzzling from the mother, growth hormones are not activated. Consequently, the "failure to thrive" response and the runts will die off.

The health benefits of massage have been clearly documented, and the studies with newborn monkeys, when given the choice between a wire-mesh "mother" with a bottle to provide nourishment and a terry-cloth "mother" would spend their time clinging to the tactile "mother" figure, even when the actual nourishment came from the wire figure. So is touch, that tactile contact with another, even more biologically programmed into us than even the drive for sustenance?

In human infants, evolutionary-wise,  humans are born before we are physically competent or remotely capable. Because of our upright bi-pedal posture, our relatively small pelvis and large craniums, humans would be unable to be born later in our gestation, so we're born not fully developed. We are unable to see clearly, to communicate effectively or move in any realistic manner. When compared to say, a newborn foal, which is up and capable of running within an hour or so of birth, humans are painfully slow at developing. Humans are helplessly slow and immobile for nearly a year before we are even remotely capable of independent movement.

So for a baby, the primary method of gathering information about its environment is through touch. And a surprising amount of the information it gathers is through its mouth. With any new toy, object it encounters, food or not, a baby puts it into its mouth. Why? Not because of taste as the primary motivating factor, but instead touch.  The sensory input from the lips and tongue send a message to the infant brain giving it information about what it has in front of it.

As we can see, the sensation of skin being massaged stimulates the young, leading better-adjusted, more capable, and more highly mental and physical development. Lower anxiety, improved self-esteem, and lower incidences of depression occur in those who have regular contact. So, with your friend, your neighbor, your kids, even your dog.... ask for a hug. Sure, it may be momentarily awkward, but odds are, they need it just as much (or even more) than you!

Cited:

Monday, September 9, 2013

Movie Review: Riddick - Rule The Dark

Riddick - Rule The Dark


 Again the trilogy delivers: scary unexpected alien monsters, Riddick's uncanny ability to survive in the most extreme conditions, one-liners delivered straight-laced that make them all the funnier, and some good eye candy (including a really buff chick that I kinda love - though she does take to beating the bloody blazes out of creepers a bit too much to her liking...) The plot line kind of muddles through the Necromongers (apparently Riddick decided instead of fighting to join them as Lord Marshall somehow? Details unclear? And despite having beds full of writhing necromonger sorceresses, he is determined to find FURYA and discover his forgotten (and erased) past before being betrayed and left for dead. Again.

This time, though, Riddick is left on a sizzling alien world in quite a bind, and has to summon mercs to get him off-planet. In a witty game of cat-and-mouse, he alternately lures them out, and invades their safety zone, bargaining for his ticket off-world by raising the stakes with every death. And meanwhile, danger stalks ever closer in every raindrop.

Very little in the way of plot-twists, and fairly standard Riddick plotline: bad guy, but one who we have affinity for, despite being a serial murderer (in self-defense, supposedly, right?), creepy-awesome-scary monsters in the dark, jaw-dropping effects, and this time... a dog friend... a tiger-striped, bat-wing eared jackal that makes us see the softer side of Riddick. 

No deep revelations about his psyche or uncovering Riddick's deep desires (other than to survive desperately unfair odds) , but with good fight scenes both human and alien (though admittedly the last battle was so long-drawn even I lost interest in Vin Diesel kicking alien @$$....) it's worth seeing in theaters in big-screen format.

While another installment in Riddick is always welcome, this movie had very little new material to draw in any other aspects to the storyline, though clearly left open as a set up for another movie. 

Additionally, the potential chemistry between Riddick and the chick is pretty much left to the last few seconds of the film, and while personally I really appreciate Riddick not disintegrating into a chick-flick filled with syrupy inanity, there was potential for much more than the flat stares and little justification for any true attraction between them.

Vin Diesel delivers a standard Riddick performance: deep-voiced, bulging biceps and smolder, but the movie itself fails to compel the viewer to any true emotional highs or lows. The imperiled mercs are so much less emotionally-involved than the alien fodder tourists/love interests in the prior two films that there is no real sense of urgency fueling audience’s to gasp… except in the cleverness of some filming of the … more fatal bits (without giving TOO much away)….

Overall, CG gloriousness and Vin Diesel's quips make this good for the ticket price, (and of course I'll add to my personal BluRay collection,) though I had hoped for more for my favorite anti-hero with a "shine job". 

Tuesday, September 3, 2013

Thermodynamics & Thermostats, or "Why my butt is so dang cold."

Aw, Blogger! The Klutzy Fairy strikes yet again! Tonight in my martial arts class, after taking care of myself through sparring drills, and helpfully coaching (or attempting to be helpful, at any rate! Explaining technique is harder than it would seem - and here I thought I was GOOD at talking!) folks through throws and bear hug releases, I finally got to participate in our last few minutes of class playing a game.... and BLAMMO! I ran full-bore into a teenager playing frisbee. Hours later, I'm still plagued with back spasms and shooting pains... yarrrr...

SO in honor of not sleeping and waiting for the ice packs and pain relievers to DO THEIR DAMN JOBS ALREADY - here's some cognitating that I was pondering on the other day...on a boat... waiting for salmon to bite... you know, much as any other day... NOT! (I haven't fished since I was a pre-teen! And have repeatedly asserted my disinterest in the end-product of fishing. However, I had a BLAST! Read about it here: http://sirensecho.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-one-who-didnt-get-away.html)  :)

First a preface, I notice a couple things when I've dropped some pounds. One is that when I sit in my saddle, (much to the assumed delight of my riding instructor) my seat bones jab me and I think "Aha! There you little buggers are!" and theoretically greatly improve my riding position by the aid of feeling these jabbing bones of the bottom of my pelvis and properly aligning them and so forth. (Hey! I said it was a theory!) I also sit far more gingerly on hard benches as a byproduct of this situation.

Secondly is that I get cold much more easily. This is fact.

So, while weathering a brief rainy, windy squall rolling across the beautiful water just outside Shilshole Bay Marina, sitting on our boat waiting for the fishies to get hungry, I got to thinking about the alleged evolutionary advantage that women have over men by having a greater amount of subcutaneous fat. Naturally. As I was shivering inside my 3 layers, goosebumps coursing over my skin.

This phenomenon is incidentally triggered by teeeeeensy muscles situated at the base of your hair follicles and is, appropriately, I think, called "horripilation." This appears to be a remnant reflex of our much furrier Sasquatchey days - except those notable men at the beach who insist on wearing Speedos to show off their hirsute selves. Good for them for their personal self esteem and bucking societal norms, but when your shoulder hair is long enough to braid and put in pony beads Ala Jack Sparrow... *shudder*

Though after my own experience with waxing, I'm more sympathetic than I used to be: http://sirensecho.blogspot.com/2012/10/todays-eposide-brought-to-you-by.html

But back to goosepimples. I theorized that perhaps it was because men through evolution were in a more active role - being the typical hunters straying afield in search of game, while the women tended the homestead (uh... cave-stead???) and cared for the young, presumably with the advantage of fires and indoor cave plumbing and so forth. (I'm NOT saying they didn't work hard, I'm just saying they were less typically racing alongside mammoths, spearing them, and hauling fuzzy mammoth steaks back the the cave.)

Did men just use up their stores more quickly based on the higher caloric needs of an active life? Wouldn't that predispose men to needing to store GREATER subcutaneous fat, though, not less?

So then I contemplated the biological advantages of women having greater fat stores for the body to subsist on (and hypothetically nurse hypothetical young, hypothetically speaking) during lean times. After all, men, while having nipples, still won't lactate (without hormonal stimulation, of course... and I'm pretty sure hunter-gatherers 20,000 years ago - male or female - were quite busy painting the caves at Lascaux and not injecting hormone cocktails to induce male lactation... just sayin'....)

My best friend proposed that it made great sense to have more females survive a starvation situation using their greater body stores of fat. Realistically speaking, one man could father many children and - ONLY EVOLUTIONARILY-SPEAKING PEOPLE! Don't get your bloomers in a tangle!- men were less prioritized for survival in that light. This is definitely a case of a little goes a long way.

Either way, it is a fact that women have a thicker layer of subcutaneous fat underlying our skin. So if we have this extra layer insulating us, then WHY do women have the incessant argument over the thermostat's settings? Why, at the first drop in temperatures, we're snuggled under a fleece blanket freezing to death while Mister Man is ready to strip to his skivvies if we women are supposedly suited to withstand extreme survival situations?

Is it based on hormonal levels to determine thermodynamic regulation? (Wow, was THAT a sentence, or what?! I'm kinda impressed, and I actually wrote it! Enough vanity... there's pseudo-science to be done here!!!!)

I was curious. So I did some reading. (It's on the Internets!!! It must be true!)

Fact: women have more subcutaneous fat. However, we are typically the ones shivering. And we shivered a lot when certain subjects (thankfully not me!) were subjected to cold water immersion tests. This showed that women did indeed experience colder surface skin temperatures, though (and here's the kicker!) deep skin temperatures remained the same for both men and women -at least in the non-hypothermia-inducing conditions of this particular test. (This also leads me to wonder how they tested deep skin temperatures... injection thermometers??? Oh man, and I thought rectal thermometers were as bad as they could get!) So while on the skin of things women were colder, though we retained our core heat, overall our maximal difference between external and internal temperatures was increased. In plain "Engrish" - we feel colder.

However, we women also have another advantage in our greater aptitude at vasoconstriction - the ability to constrict the blood vessels and retain the blood around the vital organs rather than extremities. (Though apparently you do have to learn to walk again if you lose toes to frostbite, so try to keep them piggly-wigglies warm, eh?) So in this case, having cold hands and feet (the reading I did said nothing of my husband's complaints of a purported refrigerator-temp backside....) is actually an advantage in a matter of ultimate survival. Though playing a piano piece by Chopin is difficult enough with all your fingers in an unfrozen state, it pales in comparison to the difficulty of keeping your internal organs from icing over in extreme weather!

This preferential treatment for your vital bits that keep you actually functioning (albeit fine motor control will disintegrate quickly - forget about Chopin - you'll be struggling with "Chopsticks" when the cold settles in!) Your body will slow and then halt blood flow to those outlying digits, your nose and cheeks (the areas most prone to frostbite) in favor of your heart, lungs and other essential blobs of meat. You will also want to pee, as the blood pulls into the core, reducing the blood volume and raising blood pressure. The body seeks to compensate by reducing the fluid volume through urinary excretion and your involuntary processes will get you shivering to create heat as a by-product. Whew!

So with our feminine advantage of maintaining our core temperatures better through more efficient vasoconstriction, we dames also suffer the proverbial double-edge as women are far more prone to skin surface damage from the cold . Time for the extra-fleecy gloves, ladies!

Additionally, men tend to carry more overall muscle mass. (I know, there will ALWAYS be exceptions to the rule, skinny men and hefty ladies, certain medical conditions will greatly alter these stats, low blood pressure, poor circulation, hot flashes and all that will play a factor. I realize that. Let's stick with sweeping generalizations, shall we?) According to what I have read, muscle generates an estimated third of body heat produced.

Ah ha... so I'm for SURE hitting the weights!!!! But wait... the more fat that a person carries, the better insulated they will be as well. Oh bugger. A trade-off.

Now that I've moved to a much milder climate, the question emerges: does acclimatizing actually work? Can you actually adapt to a colder environment? The answer? Of course! Not only do you get smarter about your layering, get over your fashionista-qualms about wearing a balaclava (which SIGNIFICANTLY differs from baklava, the tasty phyllo-dough, nut & honey Greek delicacy. Wool knit and honey make a frightful mess, subzero temps or not!) but you also have the ability to actually metabolically adapt to your environs.

This was most easily witnessed in my life when, as a kid, my grandparents would come visit from the Arizona desert. They'd venture up north and in the middle of June be wrapped in heavy sweaters outdoors while we played in our swimsuits in the sprinklers. We were acclimatized to the temperatures while they weren't. Of course, age is an enormous factor in the ability to survive temperature extremes, with the majority of temperature-related deaths among the elderly as they are least able to cope with either very hot or very cold weather.

And this same scenario of acclimatization is played out in my own life every Autumn when the temperatures first drop and I am wearing more clothes than that kid from "A Christmas Story" and I'm still shivering... until one winter's day I venture outdoors and invariably remark "What a lovely day! It's above freezing! It practically feels balmy!"


Full circle. Now we know the what and the why, and we even have some ammunition in the fight with menfolk to get to turn the thermostat up a few degrees on a particularly blustery winter's day. (Wind-chill factor is a real killer here people!) Yes, women do have slightly more underlying subcutaneous fat (and I'll thank you for not pointing mine out!) and twitchier blood vessels that presumably slurp more blood into our vital bits and save our uterus for the greater biological good. We have a greater ability to survive temperature extremes. Based on our biological role of reproduction, the demand on our bodies is far greater in the perpetuation of the little pink monkeys we call Homo Sapiens. And our greater differential between skin and core temperatures seemingly explains our cold hands and feet being a particularly effective manner of thermodynamic temperature regulation. (Say that ten times!)

As for me, I'll prepare for cooler fall weather by digging out my poofy jackets, gloves and hats and snuggling up to my nice warm hubby! (After removing said ice pack from my lumbar area. OH HONEY!!! You got some warming up to do! Don't worry, my vasoconstriction is more efficient than yours, so I can retain your radiated body heat better!!! Look how muscly you are! You know that those giant and extremely attractive muscles provide a third of your body heat! Besides, you won't even feel nearly as cold without the greater external-to-internal temperature differential like I have! Seriously dear, I'm more prone to frostbite, biologically speaking! It's your duty as husband to let me put my cold feet on yours! Think of the unborn children! Tee hee!)

For my actual scientific sources, other than our hypothesizing, please see:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2006-04-03-women-extra-fat_x.htm

For a definition of hirsute:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hirsute

For really cool stuff about Antarctica, the process of frostbite and other neat stuff see:
http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/science/cold_humans.htm

For the differences in men and women storage and utilization of fat as it relates to exercise (and why all women should love their glutofemoral fat!) go to:
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/gender-differences-in-fat-metabolism/#axzz2dWSD3xk7

And of course be sure to check out the incredible caves of Lascaux at : http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/lascaux/

Thanks for reading! Stay warm! And don't Google pictures of baklava if you're trying to avoid sweets!