The Debate on Bicycle Helmets

Let me start by saying I am a huge proponent of cycling. I spent all 4 years of my undergraduate experience without a single car, and 2 bicycles as my mode of transportation instead.  Although trips to the grocery store required paneer bags and plenty of speed to conquer Austin hills, I reveled in the freedom my bike afforded me. I wont lie and say I never borrowed a roommates car to run errands or never rode the the bus down town. Of course a bike didn't meet all my traveling needs, but in a small enough city like Austin it was just what a broke undergrad needed.

Besides being an avid cyclist, I'm also a consummate neuro-nerd. This TED Talk piqued my interest by catering to both my passions:

Truthfully, this video isn't the first thing I've seen about the issue, but I think it does a good job of summing up a lot of the problems. I see the problem as both based in neurology and psychology.

In terms of psychology, I'm not surprised that drivers treat cyclists differently based on their appearances. Drivers ignoring safety margins because a cyclist is wearing a helmet? I see that happen all the time. In fact, I've heard stories from my dad of truck drivers purposely trying to run cyclists off the roads in the hill country surrounding Austin proper. This is a problem not with the cyclists, but with the perceptions of the drivers. When I bike in my lycra shorts and bike jersey, I am inevitably treated with indifference at best, contempt at worst when on the road. Drivers seem to think I have a 'holier-than-thou' attitude when I'm in my cycling gear and will be particularly rude. That, or they think I'm an experienced rider and thus are not as cautious around me. Now if I ride my bike around town in day-clothes like jeans or a sundress, I'm treated with much more caution by drivers. To them, I assume I appear more inexperienced and thus someone to be careful around.

And this issue I think extends into the relevance of bike helmets. Wear a helmet and you look safer to drivers or more experienced so they take more chances around you. That attitude increases with the more bike gear you use. So psychologically, I would say you're better off riding with out the spandex and helmet.

This was right after my Dad's crash due to an inattentive driver.

On the other hand, neurologically, I think you are responsible for protecting your brain. A fall from a bike can lead to serious concussions and even traumatic brain injury (especially if a vehicle is involved). This past fall, I had a personal epiphany when my Dad was hit by a car and thrown from his bike. I honestly believe the helmet saved his life. He had a fractured cheekbone and stitches along his left eye but his helmet took the brunt of the fall. Without it, he probably would have fractured his skull and wouldn't be alive to cycle today.

Recently I've seen people citing articles that claim helmets don't perfectly protect your noggin- and I agree. You're not wearing 360 degrees of protection and helmets really aren't meant for high speed impact. Still, I see it like not wearing a helmet during a taekwondo match: really a helmet wont protect from an axe kick to the face, but it's most definitely better than nothing.

So now you might be wondering how this is a debate. I see it as opposing forces of needing to protect my brain, while not giving drivers a false sense of security around me. I certainly don't want drivers running me off the road for looking too much like a cyclist but I don't think I can afford to ride on bustling streets without the protection of a helmet. My ultimate decision has been to save my fancy spandex for protected rides/events and just wear street clothes when commuting (I always wear my helmet, just to be safe).

Oh, and if a car ever does threaten me, I usually ride with my keys in my hand. You wouldn't want a large scratch down the side of your vehicle- right?

The advent of modern day vampires?

No, I don't think this is our potential future...

Sorry, that's a terribly corny title but after hearing about this research I couldn't help it. I'm not talking about the current craze of young adult fiction focusing on Twilight-esque plots. I'm actually referring to some recent research in the mouse model which indicates that young blood may actually help aging animals regain some of their cognitive capacity.

This first article focuses in the regenerative powers of GDF11 for heart hypertrophy. Essentially, they found that by pumping young blood (which has a high concentration of Growth Differentiation Factor 11 in it) into older mice, they could shrink the heart. Intuitively you might think that having a large heart is good, but actually it's not. When the heart muscle enlarges, it becomes less efficient and can be a warning sign for future cardiac problems. Ok, so it may not seem so exciting that 'young blood' can help reverse some of the effects of aging on the heart but what about changes occurring in the brain?

As published in nature, recent research has found that circulating young blood in old animals can also increase synaptic plasticity in the hippocampus. This, in turn, improves cognitive function in the aged mice.

This is the animal model typically used for these studies.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, blood transfusions between animals is nothing new in science. Back in the 1600s, scientists at the Royal Institute tried using blood transfusions to see if it would change the temperament of people. They would give a mad man a transfusion of a docile sheep's blood and would wait to see if it made the man calm and rational again. Many such experiments failed (as there is no real mechanism for changing personality based on blood). Still, they can make for some interesting stories.

But back in track, it seems the field of blood transfusions has once again flourished. I would like to direct you to a final recent publication in science which combines multiple studies into a convincing argument for the effects that young blood has on old mice.  Could this pioneering research advent the renewed search for the fountain of youth? Or will popular press turn this into a growing fear of a black blood market?

I think we need to take a step back and realize the research is only occurring in mice. As far as I can tell, we haven't even reached the primate model so there's no guarantee that we would see the same effects in humans. Humans naturally have less GDF11 circulating in the blood stream so we might not see the pronounced effects found in the mouse model.

I do have one suggestion for future epidemiological research. What if we tracked the age of the blood donors and compared that with the outcome of their recipients? Surely there's a database somewhere that could tell us whether people recover faster when they receive a transfusion of young blood versus old? If anyone knows of such a study, I would love to hear the results!

A short note on 'neuroscience' in movies

Ok, I just had to get this off my chest.

I have seen WAY too many movies who want to use psychology/neuroscience in some science-y fiction way. And they usually go about doing so by talking about how we only use 20% of our brains…. But what if we could use all 100%?

This annoys me because it's totally false. Or at least it's promoting a false idea. There are some people who have 100% of their brain activated at the same time: it's called epilepsy! You do not want your whole brain firing at once because it screws up the circuits and causes all sorts of damage.

Next time you watch a commercial for Limitless or Lucy, please realize that these films to not reflect reality- even in the 'science' they attempt to display.

Ok, rant over.