The Olympic Games and Their Historic Values

The 2018 Olympic Winter Games in south Corea are coming up, an over two-week event offering an innumerable amount of sports. Who came up with the idea of the Olympics, though? The Olympics are always considered to be of Greek descent, but are they really?

The Ancient Games
The first Olympic Games were held in 776 BC in ancient Greece. The Games were held in the city of Olympia, at the foot of Mount Olympus, the mountain where the Greek Gods were said to live. This location was chosen, as the Games were one of the two great religious events celebrated in honor of the Greek Gods. Honor was what drove athletes of every city to participate as well. Winners were awarded with an olive wreath, the symbol of peace and distinction, and eternal prestige. In 394 AD, the Games were banned by the Roman emperor Theodosius I, who considered the Greek celebrations a pagan event [1].

Revival of the Games
For almost 1500 years no-one thought of this Greek festivity. But then the French baron Pierre de Coubartin started sharing his dream of reviving the Ancient Games. His lobbying resulted in the first Modern Olympic Games, held in Greece in 1896. The foundation of the Games was based on what de Coubartin said: ‘The important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle, the essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well’. He founded the International Olympic Committee, which today still decides where the Olympics will be held and which sports will be a part of the Games [2]. In memory of its founder, the Pierre de Coubartin medal was invented and awarded to athletes who show true sportsmanship.

The olympic rings, source: http://bit.ly/1VpM2Gs

Symbols and Traditions
The Olympic motto ‘Citius, Altius, Fortius’ (Latin for ‘faster, higher, stronger’) exists since 1896. The symbol and flag, with the five colored rings intertwined on a white background, were designed in 1914. Both the motto and symbol come from Pierre de Coubartin. The symbol contains all the colors necessary to make the flags of all participating countries at the time. The rings resemble continuity and the human body [3]. New traditions have been added since - the relay carrying the Olympic fire from Greece to the host city of the Games, was started for the 1936 Berlin Games.

Sports
In its final days, the Ancient Games included 7 sports while in the very beginning the festival consisted purely of running events [1]. The first Modern Olympics consisted of nine sports, a number that has risen over the years and has been set to a maximum of 28 sports in the early 2000s. As a rule, a sport can only be admitted to the Summer Olympic program when it is widely practiced in at least 75 countries spread over four continents. Since 1936, the only changes in sports have been the dismissal of baseball and softball in the Olympics of 2008. The 2016 Olympics will see the addition of golf and rugby. The first Winter Games were organized in 1924, and always included skiing, skating, and ice hockey. The maximum number of sports in the Winter Games is seven, and to be included they need to be practiced by 25 countries, spread over three continents [4].

“IMPORTANT IS NOT THE TRIUMPH BUT THE STRUGGLE”

Olympism
The values and ideals of the Olympic Games are written down in the Olympic charter. The philosophy following these fundamental guidelines is called Olympism. The Olympic Movement has six pillars: Sport for All, Development through Sport, Women and Sport, Education through Sport, Peace through Sport, as well as Sport and Environment [1].
To conclude, the Modern Olympic Games, though based on the Greek Ancient Olympic Games, were invented by the French Pierre de Coubartin. The number and types of sports have changed over time, however, fundamental values of sportsmanship and honor have always been the basis of the Olympic Games. As for relations to Greece, one of the traditions of the Modern Games, carrying the Olympic fire from Olympia, Greece, to the host city of the current Games, hints that people still prefer a mythical touch to this event of great emotion and mighty athletes fighting for honor, as it was more than two eras ago in Greece.

Differences between the Ancient and Modern Games:

	Ancient Games	Modern Games
First edition	776 BC	1896 AD
Last edition	394 AD	ongoing
Inventor	'Greek Mythology'	Pierre de Coubartin
Number of sports	7	28
Participants	Free Greek men	Athletes from all over the world
Length	5 days	17 days
Philosophy	Mythology: offerings to Zeus	Olympism

[1] www.olympic.org 
[2] http://bit.ly/1XCUoH4
[3] http://bit.ly/1Q9JZ0S
[4] http://bit.ly/1SPJydY

by Judith Houtman, PhD Student AG Heppner
this article originally appeared June 2016 in Volume 09 Issue 2 "The Sporty Brain" 

Alone Together

A TED talk by Prof. Sherry Turkle
The internet and our mobile devices change our daily behaviour, but also who we are.


In her TED talk, Sherry Turkle explains how technology changed communication over the last decades. She focuses on the social issues that derive from our use of, and dependence on, this technology.

Sherry Turkle, Source: http://bit.ly/18Zpzac

Professor Turkle received a joint doctorate in sociology and personality psychology from Harvard University and is a licensed clinical psychologist. As the director of the MIT Initiative on Technology and Self, she is an expert on mobile technology, social networking, and sociable robotics. Over the last few decades, she has studied people's relationships with technology, especially computers.

Our devices change not just what we do, but who we are

In 2011, she published the book ‘Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other’. This is the basis for her TED talk. Her belief is that all our modern day devices change not just what we do, but who we are. Our continuous but impersonal connection to the world is responsible for the loss of connection with the people around us.
We no longer develop the skill of self-reflection. Some individuals have difficulties having an actual conversation, where thoughts and feelings cannot be edited or deleted before sending a response. Furthermore, Turkle claims that real relationships are in danger of being replaced by the illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship.

Use technology to make reality the life we love

But there is still hope. We need to learn how to use technology to make reality the life we love instead of a cyberlife. Some of her tips: find space for solitude, to think and be without being interrupted by shares, tweets or the latest news. Create sacred spaces at home where no technology is allowed, and actual conversation can arise. Listen to each other, even the boring bits. This will reveal people, their values, and mistakes, so you can get to know them on a personal, human level.

Watch the TED talk here .

by Judith Houtman, PhD Student AG Heppner
This article originally appeared in CNS Volume 7, Issue 4, Communication and Social Media 
 

Love is Chemistry

Though my chemistry classes were never that exciting, people keep saying “love is chemistry”. Does this imply love can be separated into understandable steps and then produced according to a protocol as long as we have the right ingredients? Will we soon be able to develop love potions?

love-potion  source: clipartlog.com

Oxytocin and Vasopressin
The most important ingredients in love chemistry are hormones. They are behind all emotions and also regulate our feelings of love and attachment. Oxytocin and vasopressin are the most prominent hormones implicated in pair-bonding and love, not just between partners, but also between friends, or mother and child [1]. Production of oxytocin, nicknamed the "cuddle and trust" hormone, is initiated by caressing and cuddling and is responsible for the pleasant feeling and comfort this gives us [2]. Principally, oxytocin triggers the muscular contractions required for birth and milk release during lactation, thereby also creating unconditional maternal love. Mothers who have had a caesarian section have, especially in the beginning, a weaker instinct for the cry of their child compared to mums who gave birth the natural way, initiated by oxytocin [3] (read more on maternal love in this issue's 'of Mothers, Methylation and Modernity' on pp. 8). Vasopressin plays its principal role in cardiovascular function and maintains blood pressure [4]. It is however also known as the attachment hormone. It is more important in males; while their oxytocin production is lower than in females, they use this hormone for pair-bonding instead [2,5].

Pair-Bonding
Both hormones are produced by the paraventricular and supraoptic nuclei of the hypothalamus and released into circulation by the pituitary gland, where they will then look for their respective receptors [6]. There are three different types of vasopressin receptors and one type of oxytocin receptor discovered thus far. The vasopressin receptor 1a (V1a) as well as the oxytocin receptor are present in many brain regions associated with love, including the dopamine reward system [7]. This means that at least part of the effect of oxytocin and vasopressin is dopamine-dependent. Research in prairie voles, small monogamous mammals that are used as the animal model for attachment and love, shows that the distribution and density of these receptors play an essential role in pair-bonding [8]. There are also some differences in the effect of oxytocin and vasopressin found in prairie voles. Oxytocin has anxiolytic and stress-reducing effects, and induces partner-bonding in females. Vasopressin on the other hand increases fear and stress responses, and induces partner-bonding in males [2]. This is also true in humans, and it has been suggested that it originates in prehistoric parent-child bonding, where mothers cared and fathers protected against danger [5] (see also "Mono or Poly? Which is our Nature?" on pp. 9).

Dopamine
When binding to the dopamine reward system, oxytocin and vasopressin induce dopamine release, making love a rewarding experience [9]. Dopamine production as well as expression of dopamine receptor 1 (D1) or 2 (D2) in the nucleus accumbens determines the exclusiveness of pair-bonding. Stimulation of D1 induces neuroplasticity and reward-related learning and memory, and blocks the formation of pair-bonds in prairie voles. D2 expressing neurons on the other hand project to the ventral pallidum, which integrates information from the D2-positive neurons with information from the vasopressinergic system to activate neuronal networks that aid in the formation of pair bonds [10]. In prairie voles, D1 expression is up-regulated after the first bonding has taken place, preventing promiscuous behavior [11].

First Phase Hormones
Decreases in serotonin levels are also related to love, especially the rather manic and obsessive behavior during the first phase of romantic love [1]. After this first phase in the relationship serotonin levels recover to normal levels again (see also 'The Course of True Love Never Did Run Smooth' on pp. 5). Norepinephrine [12], cortisol and testosterone [2] levels are also especially important in this first phase.
All in all, many different hormones play an important role in love and how we experience our relationships. However, their effects are not just dependent on hormone levels, but also on number and distribution of receptors. This ensures that the chemistry behind love cannot be summarized and generalized into one protocol, but is an individual mixture.
So, unfortunately, chemistry lessons will stay rather static and not so exciting; love potion brewing is not yet ready to be taught in the classroom.


[1] Zeki, FEBS lett, 2007
[2] De Boer, Neuroscience, 2012
[3] Weisman, Arch Wom Ment Health, 2010
[4] Earley, Ann N Y Acad Sci, 1966
[5] Mieras, Liefde, 2010
[6] Debiec, FEBS lett, 2007
[7] Bartels, Neuroimage, 2004
[8] Insel, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 1992
[9] Young, Nat Neurosci, 2004
[10] Edwards, Nat Neurosci, 2006
[11] Aragona, ILAR J, 2003
[12] uberdionysus.livejournal.com

by Judith Houtman  
This article originally appeared June 2014 volume 7, issue 02, The Neuroscience of Love 

Big, Bigger, Obese

With Christmas around the corner we tend to overindulge. Oh, all these cookies and the huge family dinners! But why is it that some people really struggle with gaining too much weight, whereas others seem to stay slim, even though they apparently eat the same amount? Let's talk about the neuroscience of overeating:

How We Can and Cannot Influence Our Body Weight

Image by Nancy White via Flickr

More and more people in our society are labeled obese. No longer just a problem in Western society, obesity is rising in developing countries as well. In 2008, half a billion adults worldwide suffered from obesity according to the definition of the World Health Organization (WHO). In 2012, the WHO stated that more than 40 million kids worldwide are overweight or obese. Childhood obesity is also associated with a higher risk of obesity in adulthood [1].
But what is the reason behind the obesity epidemic? Can we blame everything on fast food chains and lack of exercise? Or are there some intrinsic factors involved as well?

It’s Not Us ...
The existence of a common ‘fat gene’ causing the obesity epidemic is a myth. However, many genes increase the risk of being obese. By 2006, only 176 cases were reported where obesity is directly caused by a single-gene mutation. The Human Obesity Gene Map shows a total of 127 obesity candidate genes [2]. Identified genetic abnormalities include leptin deficiency, proopiomelanocortin mutations, and melanocortin 3 receptor abnormalities. These mutations all come with multiple detrimental effects [3].

MANY GENES ARE IDENTIFIED 

RISK FACTORS FOR OBESITY

Control of food intake is intrinsically organized by our endocrine system. The pancreatic enzyme amylin suppresses appetite via brainstem mechanisms. Cholecystokinin (CCK) is produced in the intestine and slows down gastric emptying. This helps you get the satisfying feeling of being full after eating. On the other hand, the stomach hormone ghrelin stimulates appetite when the stomach is empty.
Other hormones play an important role in long-term control of body weight. The pancreatic hormone insulin reduces energy intake. Leptin has the same effect, but is produced by adipose tissue. Neuropeptide Y and orexin are produced in the hypothalamus and stimulate appetite. All of these hormones are suggested as neuroendocrine targets for obesity therapy on the molecular level [4,5].
Classic twin studies in the 1980s and 1990s, which relied on pairs of identical and fraternal twins, suggest that 40-70% of variation in body size is due to genetic factors [6]. However, this does not explain the currently expanding obesity epidemic.

... But This Is
Changes in nutrition and activity patterns of children and families over the past decades have most likely had the biggest impact on the current childhood obesity epidemic. Family factors are crucial in the prevention of obesity. Parents that put unreasonable restrictions on their children's diet, pressure their children to eat certain foods, and excessively monitor the child’s behavior may do more harm than good. Such behavior is consistently linked to pediatric weight gain. On the other hand, leading by example, such as parental intake of fruit and vegetables, encourages healthy nutrition in children.
Portion sizes and the caloric value of foods have increased over the past few decades. Nearly 20% of the difference in energy intake is due to increased portion size [7]. The increased added sugar content of foods and beverages coincides with the obesity epidemic. Several epidemiological studies focusing on this issue conclude that intake of sugar-sweetened beverages is strongly correlated with body mass index (BMI).

OVERWEIGHT PARENTS INCREASE 

CHILD OBESITY RISK 13X

 

Reduced activity is also a major factor in the obesity epidemic. Sitting on a couch and watching television increases the risk of obesity [3]. Lack of sleep leads to increased food intake and may reduce physical activity as well (see also "Eat Well and Sleep Sound" 2014 - Volume 7 - Issue 3 ). Meta-analyses calculated an increased risk for obesity of 56-89% for children who sleep less. This is a vicious circle, because increased BMI in children is associated with reduced sleep duration due to an increase in adipose tissue deposits [8].

A Little Bit of Both
Epigenetics also play a role. Some genetic factors might only come into play when the right environmental stimuli are present. Lack of food during pregnancy increases the risk of adulthood obesity, as was shown in Dutch children born in the 1944-1945 famine [9]. Late introduction of solid foods reduces the odds of obesity at the age of 10 years [10]. Adiposity rebound is the point at which body fat levels are lowest and from then on will only increase (usually at 5-6 years of age). Having two overweight parents at this time increases the risk of obesity thirteen times [11]!
Though certain inherited predispositions do exist, our environment is the biggest factor when it comes to obesity risk. Recently, increased luxury, comfort, and meals with higher calories may have created this epidemic, but it is up to us to change this!

[1] WHO on overweight and obesity, http://bit.ly/18pCdAN
[2] Rankinen et al, Obesity, 2006
[3] Skelton et al, Pediatr Clin North Am, 2011
[4] De Kloet and Woods, Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obs, 2010
[5] Crocker and Yankovski, Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am, 2009
[6] Farooqi and O’Rahilly, Arch Dis Child, 2000
[7] McConhay et al, J Am Diet Assoc, 2004
[8] Bayer et al, Sleep, 2009
[9] Willyard, Nature, 2014
[10] Seach et al, Int J Obes, 2010
[11] Whitaker et al, Pediatrics, 1998

by Judith Houtman, PhD student AG Heppner
This article originally appeared September 2014 in Volume 07, Issue 03 "Nature vs Nurture".

Academic Social Networks

The president-elect Donald Trump is already famous for his use of twitter. He says that social networks helped him win without him needing to spend as much as the Clinton campaign on other advertising, both digital and traditional. “I think that social media has more power than the money they spent,” he told host Lesley Stahl, a hypothesis that he said he “proved” to a certain extent. Could this be true for scientists as well? Judith Houtman tested different social networks for us.


Social media like Facebook and Twitter have been around and very popular for a while now. Both have science-related applications. On Facebook, you can find invitation-only group pages for specific research fields. Twitter is a popular discussion forum, especially during conferences. However, neither of them are specifically designed for scientists.

Scientists Care About Social Networking

There have been a number of attempts to launch academic social networks. Until recently, they were unsuccessful. This was blamed on the wariness of scientists to share data, papers, and comments online [1]. The tide has changed, and now there are even three academic social networks competing with each other: ResearchGate, Academia.edu, and Mendeley.
A Nature reporter assessed the popularity of these media among 3500 scientists from different fields (Table 1). Many of the respondents knew of these social networks and had used at least some of them.
So, apparently it is generally accepted, and possibly even expected of you, to be a part of a social network.



Which One Should You Use?
With all academic networks, becoming a member is free and on each website you get a profile page with similar features (Table 2). Based on this, I could say that you may choose whichever webpage design you like better.
However, there are some differences to consider. Mendeley is originally a reference manager and is still used mostly for this purpose. Although networking is encouraged, it is not nearly as interactive as ResearchGate or Academia.edu. But many users of the two networks confessed that they signed up only in case someone wanted to contact them, rather than for the purpose of active networking themselves. Another interesting fact is that social scientists are more fond of Academia.edu while life scientists focus rather on ResearchGate [1]. This also seems to hold true for the Charité scientists (Table 1).
I created a profile with all three of the networks, and browsed around for about a month to get to know them. I found myself more engaged in the ResearchGate community, which in part was due to the regular email updates. Upon registration, and any time after, you can also decide on not receiving these updates, or receiving them less frequently if they annoy you.
ResearchGate also sends out scientific questions from members to other members based on the topic selected as their interest. It works; those who ask usually receive several in-depth answers within a couple of days!
Based on the above-mentioned facts and experience, I decided to keep my profile on ResearchGate. I invite you to do the same (or get your own impression by checking them out for yourself).Take part in interesting scientific discussions, stay up to date on relevant papers, and be available for networking!

[1] R. van Noorden, Nature, 2014

by Judith Houtman, PhD Student AG Heppner
This article originally appeared December 2014 in Volume 07,  Issue 4