Search

New research proves travelling can slow down the ageing process

It turns out that going on holiday is good for you in more ways than one. According to new research conducted at Edith Cowan University in Western Australia, travelling can actually slow the ageing process both physically and mentally. The study, published in the <a title="Journal of Travel Research" href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00472875241269892#:~:text=The%20principle%20of%20entropy%20increase%20provides%20a%20dynamic%20perspective%20to,Silva%20%26%20Annamalai%2C%202008)." target="_blank" rel="noopener">Journal of Travel Research</a>, is believed to be the first-ever that applied the theory of entropy - the general trend of the universe towards death and disorder – to tourism. "Tourism isn't just about leisure and recreation. It could also contribute to people's physical and mental health," ECU PhD candidate Fangli Hu said. "Ageing, as a process, is irreversible. While it can't be stopped, it can be slowed down." According to the research, travelling, exploring new corners of the world and engaging in unique and relaxing activities can stimulate stress responses and elevate metabolic rates, positively influencing metabolic activities and the body's self-organising capabilities. "Leisurely travel activities might help alleviate chronic stress, dampen over-activation of the immune system, and encourage normal functioning of the self-defence system," Fangli added. While some people prefer relaxing holidays, others prefer to stay on their feet and keep active during their travels, enjoying the many well-known benefits of exercise. It can "enhance the body's immune function and self-defence capabilities, bolstering its hardiness to external risks". In response to their study, the experts suggested that "travel therapy could serve as a groundbreaking health intervention." Despite the positive results of the research, experts also warned that travelling can exposed to infectious diseases, accidents, injuries, violence, water and food safety issues, and concerns related to inappropriate tourism engagement, which in turn will have the opposite effect on our health. "Conversely, tourism can involve negative experiences that potentially lead to health problems, paralleling the process of promoting entropy increase," Fangli said. Image credits: Shutterstock

Travel Tips

The voice in your head may help you recall and process words. But what if you don’t have one?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/derek-arnold-106381">Derek Arnold</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-queensland-805">The University of Queensland</a> Can you imagine hearing yourself speak? A voice inside your head – perhaps reciting a shopping list or a phone number? What would life be like if you couldn’t? Some people, including me, cannot have imagined visual experiences. We cannot close our eyes and conjure an experience of seeing a loved one’s face, or imagine our lounge room layout – to consider if a new piece of furniture might fit in it. This is called “<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-blind-and-deaf-mind-what-its-like-to-have-no-visual-imagination-or-inner-voice-226134">aphantasia</a>”, from a Greek phrase where the “a” means without, and “phantasia” refers to an image. Colloquially, people like myself are often referred to as having a “blind mind”. While most attention has been given to the inability to have imagined visual sensations, aphantasics can lack other imagined experiences. We might be unable to experience imagined tastes or smells. Some people cannot imagine hearing themselves speak. A <a href="https://www.sciencealert.com/we-used-to-think-everybody-heard-a-voice-inside-their-heads-but-we-were-wrong">recent study</a> has advanced our understanding of people who cannot imagine hearing their own internal monologue. Importantly, the authors have identified some tasks that such people are more likely to find challenging. <h2>What the study found</h2> Researchers at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark and at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in the United States <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09567976241243004">recruited 93 volunteers</a>. They included 46 adults who reported low levels of inner speech and 47 who reported high levels. Both groups were given challenging tasks: judging if the names of objects they had seen would rhyme and recalling words. The group without an inner monologue performed worse. But differences disappeared when everyone could say words aloud. Importantly, people who reported less inner speech were not worse at all tasks. They could recall similar numbers of words when the words had a different appearance to one another. This negates any suggestion that aphants (people with aphantasia) simply weren’t trying or were less capable. <h2>A welcome validation</h2> The study provides some welcome evidence for the lived experiences of some aphants, who are still often told their experiences are not different, but rather that they cannot describe their imagined experiences. Some people feel anxiety when they realise other people can have imagined experiences that they cannot. These feelings may be deepened when others assert they are merely confused or inarticulate. In my own <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1374349/full">aphantasia research</a> I have often quizzed crowds of people on their capacity to have imagined experiences. Questions about the capacity to have imagined visual or audio sensations tend to be excitedly endorsed by a vast majority, but questions about imagined experiences of taste or smell seem to cause more confusion. Some people are adamant they can do this, including a colleague who says he can imagine what combinations of ingredients will taste like when cooked together. But other responses suggest subtypes of aphantasia may prove to be more common than we realise. The authors of the recent study suggest the inability to imagine hearing yourself speak should be referred to as “anendophasia”, meaning without inner speech. Other authors had suggested <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8551557/">anauralia</a> (meaning without auditory imagery). Still other researchers have referred to all types of imagined sensation as being different types of “imagery”. Having <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010945222000417">consistent names</a> is important. It can help scientists “talk” to one another to compare findings. If different authors use different names, important evidence can be missed. <h2>We have more than 5 senses</h2> Debate continues about how many senses humans have, but some scientists reasonably argue for a <a href="https://www.sensorytrust.org.uk/blog/how-many-senses-do-we-have#:%7E:text=Because%20there%20is%20some%20overlap,sensation%20of%20hunger%20or%20thirst.">number greater than 20</a>. In addition to the five senses of sight, smell, taste, touch and hearing, lesser known senses include thermoception (our sense of heat) and proprioception (awareness of the positions of our body parts). Thanks to proprioception, most of us can close our eyes and touch the tip of our index finger to our nose. Thanks to our vestibular sense, we typically have a good idea of which way is up and can maintain balance. It may be tempting to give a new name to each inability to have a given type of imagined sensation. But this could lead to confusion. Another approach would be to adapt phrases that are already widely used. People who are unable to have imagined sensations commonly refer to ourselves as “aphants”. This could be adapted with a prefix, such as “audio aphant”. Time will tell which approach is adopted by most researchers. <h2>Why we should keep investigating</h2> Regardless of the names we use, the study of multiple types of inability to have an imagined sensation is important. These investigations could reveal the essential processes in human brains that bring about a conscious experience of an imagined sensation. In time, this will not only lead to a better understanding of the diversity of humans, but may help uncover how human brains can create any conscious sensation. This question – how and where our conscious feelings are generated – remains one of the great mysteries of science.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/230973/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/derek-arnold-106381">Derek Arnold</a>, Professor, School of Psychology, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-queensland-805">The University of Queensland</a> Image credits: Shutterstock This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-voice-in-your-head-may-help-you-recall-and-process-words-but-what-if-you-dont-have-one-230973">original article</a>.

Mind

Queen Mary’s wedding dressmaker reveals process behind iconic gown

The Danish designer and dressmaker who designed Queen Mary’s wedding gown has recalled the “rather terrifying” process of making the iconic dress. Birgit Hallstein created the custom gown for the Aussie-born royal for her to marry Prince Frederik in 2004, as the designer recalled having to adhere to an unusual royal tradition when creating the dress. Hallstein said that she put the finishing touches on the dress on the wedding day: a decision that was mentioned to her by Mary's new mother-in-law, Queen Margrethe. Hallstein admits the old tradition, which involves doing the final loops and stitches the morning of the wedding, also helped her process in the long run. "[It] was a thing I did because it's a tradition in some families, but honestly I don't remember if Queen Margrethe would have mentioned such a thing," Hallstein told <a href="https://style.nine.com.au/latest/queen-mary-of-denmark-20th-wedding-anniversary-wedding-dressmaker-birgit-hallstein-interview/9f0c57eb-2d7b-44fd-ae0b-487d1b3592a5">9Honey</a>. "Maybe, because she knows a lot of those things... I am sure we talked about it, but anyway it was practical to gather the dress on the day because it's big." The process for Hallstein began in November 2003, as she admitted it was the most important garment she had ever worked on. "It was rather terrifying," she admitted with a laugh. "It's a bit like an exam, just a really big one, because if you fail everyone will see." Hallstein worked in a dedicated space at Amalienborg Palace to deliver the gown as well as the outfits worn by the bridesmaids, page boys and flower girls. "The sewing took hundreds of hours, starting in January 2004 and ending right before the wedding," she recalled. There was also the added pressure of adhering to royal traditions and protocols around the use of the antique veil and the lace attachment to the petticoat, which was from Queen Margrethe's private collection. "There are rules to follow, [you're] not allowed to cut in it and only skilled repairs [are allowed]," Hallstein said. "I had to hide around two or three metres of the antique lace in between layers of organza inside the dress to make sure it was not damaged by high heels, chairs, cars and carriages during the day." In a social media post to mark 20 years since the world got their first look at the classic gown, the dressmaker explained to fans that "the wedding gown consists of three parts". “There's a big tulle petticoat, edged with almost 60 yards of Chantilly lace, on this a big light blue silk bow were placed, to make sure the first born would be a son," she said. Image credits: Hounsfield-Klein-Zabulon/ABACA/Shutterstock Editorial

Beauty & Style

Not all ultra-processed foods are bad for your health, whatever you might have heard

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/gary-sacks-3957">Gary Sacks</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/deakin-university-757">Deakin University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kathryn-backholer-10739">Kathryn Backholer</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/deakin-university-757">Deakin University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kathryn-bradbury-1532662">Kathryn Bradbury</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-auckland-waipapa-taumata-rau-1305">University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/sally-mackay-1532685">Sally Mackay</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-auckland-waipapa-taumata-rau-1305">University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau</a> In recent years, there’s been <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11036430/">increasing</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/ultra-processed-foods-heres-what-the-evidence-actually-says-about-them-220255#:%7E:text=Hype%20around%20ultra%2Dprocessed%20food,or%20worry%20about%20their%20health.">hype</a> about the potential health risks associated with so-called “ultra-processed” foods. But new evidence published <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/385/bmj-2023-078476">this week</a> found not all “ultra-processed” foods are linked to poor health. That includes the mass-produced wholegrain bread you buy from the supermarket. While this newly published research and associated <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/385/bmj.q793">editorial</a> are unlikely to end the wrangling about how best to define unhealthy foods and diets, it’s critical those debates don’t delay the implementation of policies that are likely to actually improve our diets. <h2>What are ultra-processed foods?</h2> <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30744710/">Ultra-processed foods</a> are industrially produced using a variety of processing techniques. They typically include ingredients that can’t be found in a home kitchen, such as preservatives, emulsifiers, sweeteners and/or artificial colours. Common examples of ultra-processed foods include packaged chips, flavoured yoghurts, soft drinks, sausages and mass-produced packaged wholegrain bread. In <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7719194/#CR13">many other countries</a>, ultra-processed foods make up a large proportion of what people eat. A <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31676952/">recent study</a> estimated they make up an average of 42% of total energy intake in Australia. <h2>How do ultra-processed foods affect our health?</h2> Previous <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33167080/">studies</a> have linked increased consumption of ultra-processed food with poorer health. High consumption of ultra-processed food, for example, has been associated with a <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38418082/">higher risk</a> of type 2 diabetes, and death from heart disease and stroke. Ultra-processed foods are typically high in energy, added sugars, salt and/or unhealthy fats. These have long been <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/healthy-diet">recognised</a> as risk factors for a range of diseases. It has also been suggested that structural changes that happen to ultra-processed foods as part of the manufacturing process <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31105044/">may</a> lead you to eat more than you should. Potential explanations are that, due to the way they’re made, the foods are quicker to eat and more palatable. It’s also <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35952706/">possible</a> certain food additives may impair normal body functions, such as the way our cells reproduce. <h2>Is it harmful? It depends on the food’s nutrients</h2> The <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/385/bmj-2023-078476">new paper</a> just published used 30 years of data from two large US cohort studies to evaluate the relationship between ultra-processed food consumption and long-term health. The study tried to disentangle the effects of the manufacturing process itself from the nutrient profile of foods. The study found a small increase in the risk of early death with higher ultra-processed food consumption. But importantly, the authors also looked at diet quality. They found that for people who had high quality diets (high in fruit, vegetables, wholegrains, as well as healthy fats, and low in sugary drinks, salt, and red and processed meat), there was no clear association between the amount of ultra-processed food they ate and risk of premature death. This suggests overall diet quality has a stronger influence on long-term health than ultra-processed food consumption. When the researchers analysed ultra-processed foods by sub-category, mass-produced wholegrain products, such as supermarket wholegrain breads and wholegrain breakfast cereals, were not associated with poorer health. This finding matches another recent <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38417577/">study</a> that suggests ultra-processed wholegrain foods are not a driver of poor health. The authors concluded, while there was some support for limiting consumption of certain types of ultra-processed food for long-term health, not all ultra-processed food products should be universally restricted. <h2>Should dietary guidelines advise against ultra-processed foods?</h2> Existing national <a href="https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-09/n55_australian_dietary_guidelines.pdf">dietary</a> <a href="https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/publications/eating-activity-guidelines-new-zealand-adults-updated-2020-oct22.pdf">guidelines</a> have been developed and refined based on decades of nutrition evidence. Much of the recent evidence related to ultra-processed foods tells us what we already knew: that products like soft drinks, alcohol and processed meats are bad for health. Dietary guidelines <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35184508/">generally</a> already advise to eat mostly whole foods and to limit consumption of highly processed foods that are high in refined grains, saturated fat, sugar and salt. But some nutrition researchers have <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj.q439">called</a> for dietary guidelines to be amended to recommend avoiding ultra-processed foods. Based on the available evidence, it would be difficult to justify adding a sweeping statement about avoiding all ultra-processed foods. Advice to avoid all ultra-processed foods would likely unfairly impact people on low-incomes, as many ultra-processed foods, such as supermarket breads, are relatively affordable and convenient. Wholegrain breads also provide important nutrients, such as fibre. In many countries, bread is the <a href="https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/publications/a-focus-on-nutrition-ch3_0.pdf">biggest contributor</a> to fibre intake. So it would be problematic to recommend avoiding supermarket wholegrain bread just because it’s ultra-processed. <h2>So how can we improve our diets?</h2> There is strong <a href="https://www.foodpolicyindex.org.au/_files/ugd/7ee332_a2fa1694e42f423195caf581044fccf1.pdf">consensus</a> on the need to implement evidence-based policies to improve population diets. This includes legislation to restrict children’s exposure to the marketing of unhealthy foods and brands, mandatory Health Star Rating nutrition labelling and taxes on sugary drinks. These policies are underpinned by <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37659696/">well-established systems</a> for classifying the healthiness of foods. If new evidence unfolds about mechanisms by which ultra-processed foods drive health harms, these classification systems can be updated to reflect such evidence. If specific additives are found to be harmful to health, for example, this evidence can be incorporated into existing nutrient profiling systems, such as the <a href="http://www.healthstarrating.gov.au/internet/healthstarrating/publishing.nsf/content/home">Health Star Rating</a> food labelling scheme. Accordingly, policymakers can confidently progress food policy implementation using the tools for classifying the healthiness of foods that we already have. Unhealthy diets and obesity are among the <a href="https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/burden-of-disease/burden-of-disease-study-2018-key-findings/contents/key-findings">largest contributors</a> to poor health. We can’t let the hype and academic debate around “ultra-processed” foods delay implementation of globally recommended policies for improving population diets.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/229493/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/gary-sacks-3957">Gary Sacks</a>, Professor of Public Health Policy, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/deakin-university-757">Deakin University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kathryn-backholer-10739">Kathryn Backholer</a>, Co-Director, Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/deakin-university-757">Deakin University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kathryn-bradbury-1532662">Kathryn Bradbury</a>, Senior Research Fellow in the School of Population Health, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-auckland-waipapa-taumata-rau-1305">University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/sally-mackay-1532685">Sally Mackay</a>, Senior Lecturer Epidemiology and Biostatistics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-auckland-waipapa-taumata-rau-1305">University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/not-all-ultra-processed-foods-are-bad-for-your-health-whatever-you-might-have-heard-229493">original article</a>.

Food & Wine

You can’t reverse the ageing process but these 5 things can help you live longer

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hassan-vally-202904">Hassan Vally</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/deakin-university-757">Deakin University</a> At this time of year many of us resolve to prioritise our health. So it is no surprise there’s a <a href="https://digiday.com/marketing/health-food-brands-ramp-up-marketing-efforts-around-consumers-new-years-resolutions/">roaring trade</a> of products purporting to guarantee you live longer, be healthier and look more youthful. While an <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4822264/">estimated</a> 25% of longevity is determined by our genes, the rest is determined by what we do, day to day. There are no quick fixes or short cuts to living longer and healthier lives, but the science is clear on the key principles. Here are five things you can do to extend your lifespan and improve your health. <h2>1. Eat a predominantly plant-based diet</h2> What you eat has a huge impact on your health. The evidence overwhelmingly <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8210981/#:%7E:text=According%20to%20an%20expansive%20review,13%20Given%20that%20so%20many">shows</a> eating a diet high in plant-based foods is associated with health and longevity. If you eat more plant-based foods and less meat, processed foods, sugar and salt, you reduce your risk of a range of illnesses that shorten our lives, including heart disease and cancer. Plant-based foods <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-019-0552-0">are rich</a> in nutrients, phytochemicals, antioxidants and fibre. They’re also anti-inflammatory. All of this protects against damage to our cells as we age, which helps prevent disease. No particular diet is right for everyone but one of the most studied and <a href="https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-weight/diet-reviews/mediterranean-diet/#:%7E:text=%5B6%5D%20Those%20who%20had%20the,who%20had%20the%20lowest%20adherence.">healthiest</a> is the <a href="https://www.eatingwell.com/article/291120/mediterranean-diet-for-beginners-everything-you-need-to-get-started/">Mediterranean diet</a>. It’s based on the eating patterns of people who live in countries around the Mediterranean Sea and emphases vegetables, fruits, wholegrains, legumes, nuts and seeds, fish and seafood, and olive oil. <h2>2. Aim for a healthy weight</h2> Another important way you can be healthier is to try and achieve a healthy weight, as obesity <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/obesity/how-obesity-affects-body">increases the risk</a> of a number of health problems that shorten our lives. Obesity puts strain on all of our body systems and has a whole myriad of physiological effects including causing inflammation and hormonal disturbances. These <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK572076/">increase your chances</a> of a number of diseases, including heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, diabetes and a number of cancers. In addition to affecting us physically, obesity is also <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6052856/">associated with</a> poorer psychological health. It’s linked to depression, low self-esteem and stress. One of the biggest challenges we face in the developed world is that we live in an <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6817492/">environment</a> that promotes obesity. The ubiquitous marketing and the easy availability of high-calorie foods our bodies are hard-wired to crave mean it’s easy to consume too many calories. <h2>3. Exercise regularly</h2> We all know that exercise is good for us – the <a href="https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/au/news/breaking-news/hcf-reveals-australias-most-popular-new-years-resolutions-for-2023-431665.aspx">most common resolution</a> we make this time of year is to do more exercise and to get fitter. Regular exercise <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/physical-activity">protects</a> against chronic illness, lowers your stress and improves your mental health. While one of the ways exercising helps you is by supporting you to control your weight and lowering your body fat levels, the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1402378/#:%7E:text=For%20instance%2C%20routine%20physical%20activity,HDL%5D%20cholesterol%20levels%20and%20decreased">effects</a> are broader and include improving your glucose (blood sugar) use, lowering your blood pressure, reducing inflammation and improving blood flow and heart function. While it’s easy to get caught up in all of the hype about different exercise strategies, the evidence <a href="https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320760">suggests</a> that any way you can include physical activity in your day has health benefits. You don’t have to run marathons or go to the gym for hours every day. Build movement into your day in any way that you can and do things that you enjoy. <h2>4. Don’t smoke</h2> If you want to be healthier and live longer then don’t smoke or vape. Smoking cigarettes affects almost every organ in the body and is associated with both a shorter and lower quality of life. There is no safe level of smoking – every cigarette increases your <a href="https://theconthatkills.org.au/?utm_source=googlesearch&utm_medium=search&utm_campaign=theconthatkills23&utm_content=RSA&gclid=Cj0KCQjwqP2pBhDMARIsAJQ0Czrlep6EQHC-8_9xUhpz0h9v2ZglMF-6-k7_65awq8FxVaIL5HRoivwaAqJwEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds">chances of developing</a> a range of cancers, heart disease and diabetes. Even if you have been smoking for years, by giving up smoking at any age you can experience <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/quit_smoking/how_to_quit/benefits/index.htm">health benefits</a> almost immediately, and you can reverse many of the harmful effects of smoking. If you’re thinking of switching to vapes as a healthy long term option, <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-vaping-help-people-quit-smoking-its-unlikely-204812">think again</a>. The long term health effects of vaping are not fully understood and they come with their own <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-vapes-arent-95-less-harmful-than-cigarettes-heres-how-this-decade-old-myth-took-off-203039">health risks</a>. <h2>5. Prioritise social connection</h2> When we talk about living healthier and longer, we tend to focus on what we do to our physical bodies. But one of the most important discoveries over the past decade has been the recognition of the importance of spiritual and psychological health. People who are lonely and socially isolated have a much higher risk of dying early and are <a href="https://healthnews.com/longevity/healthspan/social-connection-and-longevity/#:%7E:text=One%20of%20the%20biggest%20benefits,the%20following%20factors%20and%20influences.">more likely</a> to suffer from heart disease, stroke, dementia as well as anxiety and depression. Although we don’t fully understand the mechanisms, it’s likely due to both behavioural and biological factors. While people who are more socially connected are <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3150158/">more likely</a> to engage in healthy behaviours, there also seems to be a more direct physiological effect of loneliness on the body. So if you want to be healthier and live longer, build and maintain your connections to others.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/214580/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hassan-vally-202904">Hassan Vally</a>, Associate Professor, Epidemiology, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/deakin-university-757">Deakin University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/you-cant-reverse-the-ageing-process-but-these-5-things-can-help-you-live-longer-214580">original article</a>.

Caring

The 10 step process to get moving and keep moving for a healthier you

Looking at the <a href="https://mind.uci.edu/research-studies/90plus-study/">research</a>, especially around longevity, the answer to a healthier you lies in the way we live. It’s really about the choices we make every day and the little things we do that accumulate to form the larger picture. If we look around, our lifestyles are full and quite sedentary. We run busy schedules, we work long hours and have many commitments that leave us with little to no time to be active. We spend all day at a desk to then go home and relax, sitting some more, this time on the couch. We need to move more. It is really that simple. Life quality goes hand in hand with being (and keeping) active. When I work with my clients to help them uncover their inner athlete, I follow a 10 step process that helps them shift perspective and move from a short term fix to a framework that lasts the test of time. At the heart of this process is the belief that everyone can learn these steps and create their very own formula, embracing what works for them and them alone. Let’s take a look: 1) Rediscover Think back to a time when being active was second nature to you, something you would just do. Follow the clues that lit you up to understand where your passions lie. Your past is the teacher that can help you rekindle your love of movement. 2) Driving Forces Your beliefs, your values as well as those little things that warm your heart and make you smile carry great power and meaning. They can ignite a spark in you so use them to drive change. 3) Athletic Mindset What goes on between your ears is the difference between being active and letting gravity pull you back down to the couch. Look at your mindset, the way you talk to yourself and the questions you ask. The aim is to remove internal hurdles to help you stay on track. 4) Your Why Think of who you want to become and why. Your why will give you strong roots to weather the storms and a reason to keep moving. 5) Realistic Goals When you work towards a realistic goal you automatically bring order into your life. Structure fosters change and tightens our priorities. 6) Energy Boost To bring about change you require energy. There are 5 elements you can tweak (one at a time and gradually) to boost your energy: food, sleep, breath work, timing and movement. 7) Maximum performance It takes time to develop the skills that go hand in hand with an active lifestyle. The secret is to make your movement incremental, follow your pace (slow burn it) and be deliberate in what you do. 8) Rituals and routines How you greet the morning determines the flavour of every day. Slowly build habits that keep you hungry for more and align with the person you want to become. 9) Recognise Progress Recognising your progress helps you shift perspective and understand that every journey has its setbacks. In life’s transitions you are still moving forward and your focus is now the long game. 10) Celebrate the Wins Take time to pat yourself on the back, celebrate you and how far you’ve come. Lightness and laughter are key ingredients in building momentum. There will be bumps along the way. Nothing is a straight line. Moving challenges every aspect of your being: the physical, the emotional and the cognitive. But to make the change you have all you need inside of you. Enjoy the ripple effects that moment brings into your life. Be playful, creative and make it your own. Dr Brett Lillie, author of Rediscover Your Athlete Within, is a sought-after speaker, coach and rehab professional who helps people rekindle their love for movement and find their mojo so they can live their best life. To find out more about Dr Brett’s programs, go to his website www.brettlillie.com Image credits: Getty Images

Body

Is red meat bad for you? And does it make a difference if it’s a processed burger or a lean steak?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/katherine-livingstone-324808">Katherine Livingstone</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/deakin-university-757">Deakin University</a> A juicy burger is a staple in many Australians’ diet. Yet research shows regularly eating red meat can increase your risk of developing <a href="https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/eurheartj/ehad336/7188739?searchresult=1">type 2 diabetes, heart disease</a> and <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)00444-1/fulltext">certain cancers</a>. But is eating a beef burger worse for your health than eating a lean grass-fed steak? And how much red meat should we really be eating? <h2>Types of red meat</h2> First of all, it’s good to clarify that <a href="https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240074828">red meat</a> refers to all mammalian muscle meat. So that includes beef, lamb, pork, veal, mutton and goat. Then we can distinguish red meat types by how the animal has been raised and how the meat is processed. Here are some key terms to know. Conventional meat, also called grain-fed, is meat from animals that are grass-fed for part of their lives and then given a grain-based diet for the remainder. Most red meat available in major supermarkets is grain-fed. Grass-fed meat comes from animals that have grazed on pasture for their entire lives. This means grass-fed meat tends to have higher levels of unsaturated fats than conventional meat, and is why some <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/11/5/646">research</a> suggests it’s healthier. Grass-fed meat is also likely to cost more. Organic meat is seen as a premium product as it has to meet <a href="https://www.agriculture.gov.au/biosecurity-trade/export/controlled-goods/organic-bio-dynamic/national-standard">government standards</a> for organic produce. For example, meat labelled as organic cannot use synthetic pesticides or use hormones or antibiotics to stimulate growth. Processed meats have been preserved by smoking, curing or salting, or by adding chemical preservatives. Examples include sausages, ham, bacon and hot dogs. <h2>What is the nutritional value of red meat?</h2> <a href="https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/food-essentials/five-food-groups/lean-meat-and-poultry-fish-eggs-tofu-nuts-and-seeds-and">Red meat</a> contains many nutrients that are important for health, including protein, vitamin B12, iron and zinc. Red meat is a good source of iron and zinc as they are more easily absorbed by the body from meat than from plant foods. Red meat is often high in saturated fats, but this can <a href="https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/science/monitoringnutrients/ausnut/ausnutdatafiles/Pages/foodnutrient.aspx">range widely</a> from less than 1% to over 25% depending on the cut and whether it’s trimmed of fat or not. Minced meat typically ranges from 2% to 9% saturated fat depending on whether its extra lean or regular. To limit intake of saturated fats, opt for leaner mince and leaner cuts of meat, such as pork tenderloins or beef steak with the fat trimmed off. <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5243954/">Wagyu beef</a> (which simply translates to Wa = Japanese and Gyu = cow) has been touted as a healthier alternative to conventional red meat, as it tends to be higher in unsaturated fats. But research is limited, and ultimately it still contains saturated fat. Processed meats, such as bacon, salami and sausages, contain beneficial nutrients, but they are also high in saturated fat, sodium and contain preservatives. <h2>Is red meat bad for your health? And does the type matter?</h2> It’s widely reported eating too much red meat is bad for your health, because it can increase your risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes and some cancers. But most of the evidence for this comes from observational studies, which cannot determine whether red meat intake actually causes the condition. Most evidence is observational because it’s simply not ethical or feasible to ask someone to eat large amounts of meat every day for many years to see if they develop cancer. So let’s take a look at the evidence: Heart disease and type 2 diabetes In a <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01968-z">review</a> of 37 observational studies, the authors found weak evidence of an association between eating unprocessed red meat and heart disease and type 2 diabetes. But for processed meat, a recent <a href="https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/44/28/2626/7188739">review</a> showed that for each additional 50g of processed meat consumed per day, the risk of heart disease increased by 26% and the risk of type 2 diabetes increased by 44%, on average. Cancer Leading international organisations have declared there’s strong evidence consumption of red and processed meat <a href="https://www.wcrf.org/diet-activity-and-cancer/cancer-prevention-recommendations/limit-red-and-processed-meat/">increases the risk of colorectal cancer</a>. For example, in a <a href="https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/49/1/246/5470096">study</a> of nearly 500,000 people, each additional 50g of red meat consumed per day increased the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. And each additional 25g of processed meat consumed per day, equivalent to a slice of ham, increased the risk by 19%. While <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34455534/">research</a> has linked consumption of red and processed meat with increased risk of other types of cancer, such as lung, pancreatic and breast, the evidence is not consistent. It also matters how red meat is cooked. For example, cooking a steak over a high heat, especially an open flame, chars the outside. This causes <a href="https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/cooked-meats-fact-sheet">chemical compounds</a> to form that have been shown to cause cancer in very high doses in animal models, and some studies in humans have found an <a href="https://aacrjournals.org/cebp/article/16/12/2664/260099/Meat-and-Meat-Mutagen-Intake-and-Pancreatic-Cancer">association</a> with increased cancer rates. When it comes to how the animal was raised or its breed, based on current evidence, it’s unlikely the nutritional differences will have a substantial impact on human health. But research is limited in this area. <h2>How much red meat should you eat?</h2> Our national <a href="https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/the_guidelines/n55a_australian_dietary_guidelines_summary_book.pdf">dietary guidelines</a> recommend the average adult eats a maximum of 455g of cooked lean red meat per week (or less than 65g a day, equivalent to one small lamb chop). This is also what’s recommended by the national <a href="https://www.cancer.org.au/cancer-information/causes-and-prevention/diet-and-exercise/meat-and-cancer-risk">Cancer Council</a>. For heart health specifically, the national <a href="https://www.heartfoundation.org.au/getmedia/d5b9c4a2-8ccb-4fe9-87a2-d4a34541c272/Nutrition_Position_Statement_-_MEAT.pdf">Heart Foundation</a> recommends eating less than 350g of cooked, unprocessed red meat per week (or less than 50g a day). Many dietary guidelines around the world now also recommend limiting red meat consumption for environmental reasons. To optimise both human nutrition and planetary health, the <a href="https://eatforum.org/lancet-commission/eatinghealthyandsustainable/">EAT-Lancet commission</a> recommends consuming no more than 98g a week of red meat and very low intakes of processed meat. <h2>So what does all of this mean for your diet?</h2> The bottom line is that red meat can still be enjoyed as part of a <a href="https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/food-essentials/five-food-groups/lean-meat-and-poultry-fish-eggs-tofu-nuts-and-seeds-and">healthy diet</a>, if not eaten in excess. Where possible, opt for unprocessed or lean cuts, and try to grill less and roast more. Consider swapping red meat for lean chicken or fish occasionally too. If you are looking for alternatives to meat that are better for your health and the environment, minimally processed plant-based alternatives, such as tofu, beans and lentils, are great options.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207927/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/katherine-livingstone-324808">Katherine Livingstone</a>, NHMRC Emerging Leadership Fellow and Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/deakin-university-757">Deakin University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-red-meat-bad-for-you-and-does-it-make-a-difference-if-its-a-processed-burger-or-a-lean-steak-207927">original article</a>.

Food & Wine

ChatGPT, DALL-E 2 and the collapse of the creative process

In 2022, OpenAI – one of the world’s leading artificial intelligence research laboratories – released the text generator <a href="https://chat.openai.com/chat">ChatGPT</a> and the image generator <a href="https://openai.com/dall-e-2/">DALL-E 2</a>. While both programs represent monumental leaps in natural language processing and image generation, they’ve also been met with apprehension. Some critics have <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/12/chatgpt-ai-writing-college-student-essays/672371/">eulogized the college essay</a>, while others have even <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/02/technology/ai-artificial-intelligence-artists.html">proclaimed the death of art</a>. But to what extent does this technology really interfere with creativity? After all, for the technology to generate an image or essay, a human still has to describe the task to be completed. The better that description – the more accurate, the more detailed – the better the results. After a result is generated, some further human tweaking and feedback may be needed – touching up the art, editing the text or asking the technology to create a new draft in response to revised specifications. Even the DALL-E 2 art piece that recently won first prize in the Colorado State Fair’s digital arts competition <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/artificial-intelligence-art-wins-colorado-state-fair-180980703/">required a great deal of human “help”</a> – approximately 80 hours’ worth of tweaking and refining the descriptive task needed to produce the desired result. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> Today's moody <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/AIart?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#AIart</a> style is... 🖤 deep blacks ↘️ angular light 🧼 clean lines 🌅 long shadows More in thread, full prompts in [ALT] text! <a href="https://t.co/tUV0ZfQyYb">pic.twitter.com/tUV0ZfQyYb</a> — Guy Parsons (@GuyP) <a href="https://twitter.com/GuyP/status/1612539185214234624?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 9, 2023</a></blockquote> It could be argued that by being freed from the tedious execution of our ideas – by focusing on just having ideas and describing them well to a machine – people can let the technology do the dirty work and can spend more time inventing. But in our work as philosophers at <a href="https://www.umb.edu/ethics">the Applied Ethics Center at University of Massachusetts Boston</a>, we have written about <a href="https://doi.org/10.1515/mopp-2021-0026">the effects of AI on our everyday decision-making</a>, <a href="https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429470325-28/owning-future-work-alec-stubbs">the future of work</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00245-6">worker attitudes toward automation</a>. Leaving aside the very real ramifications of <a href="https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-12-21/artificial-intelligence-artists-stability-ai-digital-images">robots displacing artists who are already underpaid</a>, we believe that AI art devalues the act of artistic creation for both the artist and the public. <h2>Skill and practice become superfluous</h2> In our view, the desire to close the gap between ideation and execution is a chimera: There’s no separating ideas and execution. It is the work of making something real and working through its details that carries value, not simply that moment of imagining it. Artistic works are lauded not merely for the finished product, but for the struggle, the playful interaction and the skillful engagement with the artistic task, all of which carry the artist from the moment of inception to the end result. The focus on the idea and the framing of the artistic task amounts to <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-paul-mccartneys-the-lyrics-can-teach-us-about-harnessing-our-creativity-170987">the fetishization of the creative moment</a>. Novelists write and rewrite the chapters of their manuscripts. Comedians “write on stage” in response to the laughs and groans of their audience. Musicians tweak their work in response to a discordant melody as they compose a piece. In fact, the process of execution is a gift, allowing artists to become fully immersed in a task and a practice. It allows them to enter <a href="https://www.harpercollins.com/products/flow-mihaly-csikszentmihalyi?variant=32118048686114">what some psychologists call the “flow” state</a>, where they are wholly attuned to something that they are doing, unaware of the passage of time and momentarily freed from the boredom or anxieties of everyday life. This playful state is something that would be a shame to miss out on. <a href="https://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/?id=p073182">Play tends to be understood as an autotelic activity</a> – a term derived from the Greek words auto, meaning “self,” and telos meaning “goal” or “end.” As an autotelic activity, play is done for itself – it is self-contained and requires no external validation. For the artist, the process of artistic creation is an integral part, maybe even the greatest part, of their vocation. But there is no flow state, no playfulness, without engaging in skill and practice. And the point of ChatGPT and DALL-E is to make this stage superfluous. <h2>A cheapened experience for the viewer</h2> But what about the perspective of those experiencing the art? Does it really matter how the art is produced if the finished product elicits delight? We think that it does matter, particularly because the process of creation adds to the value of art for the people experiencing it as much as it does for the artists themselves. Part of the experience of art is knowing that human effort and labor has gone into the work. Flow states and playfulness notwithstanding, art is the result of skillful and rigorous expression of human capabilities. Recall <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUOlnvGpcbs">the famous scene</a> from the 1997 film “<a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/">Gattaca</a>,” in which a pianist plays a haunting piece. At the conclusion of his performance, he throws his gloves into the admiring audience, which sees that the pianist has 12 fingers. They now understand that he was genetically engineered to play the transcendent piece they just heard – and that he could not play it with the 10 fingers of a mere mortal. Does that realization retroactively change the experience of listening? Does it take away any of the awe? <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/04/the-case-against-perfection/302927/">As the philosopher Michael Sandel notes</a>: Part of what gives art and athletic achievement its power is the process of witnessing natural gifts playing out. People enjoy and celebrate this talent because, in a fundamental way, it represents the paragon of human achievement – the amalgam of talent and work, human gifts and human sweat. <h2>Is it all doom and gloom?</h2> Might ChatGPT and DALL-E be worth keeping around? Perhaps. These technologies could serve as catalysts for creativity. It’s possible that the link between ideation and execution can be sustained if these AI applications are simply viewed as mechanisms for creative imagining – <a href="https://openai.com/blog/dall-e-2-extending-creativity/">what OpenAI calls</a> “extending creativity.” They can generate stimuli that allow artists to engage in more imaginative thinking about their own process of conceiving an art piece. Put differently, if ChatGPT and DALL-E are the end results of the artistic process, something meaningful will be lost. But if they are merely tools for fomenting creative thinking, this might be less of a concern. For example, a game designer could ask DALL-E to provide some images about what a Renaissance town with a steampunk twist might look like. A writer might ask about descriptors that capture how a restrained, shy person expresses surprise. Both creators could then incorporate these suggestions into their work. But in order for what they are doing to still count as art – in order for it to feel like art to the artists and to those taking in what they have made – the artists would still have to do the bulk of the artistic work themselves. Art requires makers to keep making. <h2>The warped incentives of the internet</h2> Even if AI systems are used as catalysts for creative imaging, we believe that people should be skeptical of what these systems are drawing from. It’s important to pay close attention to the incentives that underpin and reward artistic creation, particularly online. Consider the generation of AI art. These works draw on images and video that <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/12/when-ai-can-make-art-what-does-it-mean-for-creativity-dall-e-midjourney">already exist</a> online. But the AI is not sophisticated enough – nor is it incentivized – to consider whether works evoke a sense of wonder, sadness, anxiety and so on. They are not capable of factoring in aesthetic considerations of novelty and cross-cultural influence. Rather, training ChatGPT and DALL-E on preexisting measurements of artistic success online will tend to replicate the dominant incentives of the internet’s largest platforms: <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/josp.12489">grabbing and retaining attention</a> for the sake of data collection and user engagement. The catalyst for creative imagining therefore can easily become subject to an addictiveness and attention-seeking imperative rather than more transcendent artistic values. It’s possible that artificial intelligence is at a precipice, one that evokes a sense of “<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/04/the-case-against-perfection/302927/">moral vertigo</a>” – the uneasy dizziness people feel when scientific and technological developments outpace moral understanding. Such vertigo can lead to apathy and detachment from creative expression. If human labor is removed from the process, what value does creative expression hold? Or perhaps, having opened Pandora’s box, this is an indispensable opportunity for humanity to reassert the value of art – and to push back against a technology that may prevent many real human artists from thriving. Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/chatgpt-dall-e-2-and-the-collapse-of-the-creative-process-196461" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>.

Art

Can reading help heal us and process our emotions – or is that just a story we tell ourselves?

The <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/4306897">oldest known library</a>, dating back to the second millennium BC, in Thebes, Egypt, reportedly bore a sign above its portals in Greek: Psyches Iatreion, translated as “healing place of the soul”. The idea that reading may confer healing benefits is not new, but continues to intrigue readers and researchers. Of course, this doesn’t apply to reading about how to put up the tent, or tidy our piles of household stuff. When we talk about books that might offer a balm for the soul, we mean fiction, poetry and narrative non-fiction (including memoir). The idea of emotional catharsis through reading is intuitively appealing. But does it work that way? Or do we read for interest, pleasure, escapism – or love of words? <h2>Reading as catharsis and transport</h2> “The highest aspiration of art is to move the audience,” claims <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/609280/a-swim-in-a-pond-in-the-rain-by-george-saunders/">George Saunders</a>. Who is not still moved by the first book that affected them on a cellular level – whether that’s Storm Boy, The Little Prince, or their high-school reading of To Kill a Mockingbird? According to the authors of <a href="https://www.textpublishing.com.au/books/the-novel-cure">The Novel Cure: an A-Z of Literary Remedies</a>, "novels have the power to transport you into another existence, and see the world from a different point of view […] sometimes it’s the story that charms; sometimes it’s the rhythm of the prose that works on the psyche, stilling or stimulating." Humans imitate or re-present the world through art: poetry, drama and epic. That drive, claimed <a href="https://www.amherst.edu/system/files/media/1812/The%252520Poetics%252520of%252520Aristotle%25252C%252520by%252520Aristotle.pdf">Aristotle</a>, sets humans apart from animals. In 1987 Jerome Bruner proposed that “world making” is the “principal function of mind”, in both the sciences and arts. As humans, we are drawn to the momentum of narrative to tell our stories, <a href="https://ewasteschools.pbworks.com/f/Bruner_J_LifeAsNarrative.pdf">he says</a>. We seek to make sense of the events in our lives, as if life really were a three-act play with a clear narrative arc. (Conveniently summarised as: “Get him up a tree; throw rocks at him; get him down.”) <h2>How reading works</h2> Reading is one way we seek to understand our worlds. Evolutionary psychologists propose the brain is <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/009164710203000101">“designed for reading”</a>, just as it is for language, facial recognition or other drives. The act of reading engages both cognitive and – especially where there’s a narrative – emotional processes. Children learning to read must first grasp the basics of recognition (sound-letter-phoneme-word) and then proceed to the higher-order cognitive skill of comprehension of the meaning of the text (semantics). It is at that next level of meaning-making that words connect and stir the emotions. That might be fear (<a href="https://theconversation.com/frankenstein-how-mary-shelleys-sci-fi-classic-offers-lessons-for-us-today-about-the-dangers-of-playing-god-175520">Frankenstein</a>), love (<a href="https://www.penguin.com.au/books/pride-and-prejudice-9780241374887">Pride and Prejudice</a>), outrage (Germaine Greer’s polemic <a href="https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-the-female-eunuch-at-50-germaine-greers-fearless-feminist-masterpiece-147437">The Female Eunuch</a>) or existential angst (Albert Camus’ philosophical novel L’Etranger/<a href="https://www.penguin.com.au/books/the-outsider-9780141198064">The Outsider</a>). But how does this process “work”? Or, as Saunders puts it: “How does [the writer] seduce, persuade, console, distract?” <h2>How reading between the gaps invites us in</h2> World or meaning making can occur directly by acquiring knowledge (for example, when reading that tent manual) or indirectly, through our engagement with the social world, art and our meaning-making faculties. Works of art invite thought and feeling. This “<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27449184/">indirect communication</a>” of literature is one of the unique affordances (or benefits) it offers readers. Meaning-making <a href="https://www.onfiction.ca/p/books.html">is</a> a transaction between author, text and reader; the “gap” between the words and the reader’s interpretation, shaped by their own experiences and predispositions, is critical. Thus, an author might seek to move a reader – but whether the reader is moved will depend on individual circumstances and preferences. (Not the least among these is the skill of the writer, of course.) <a href="https://theconversation.com/book-week-is-good-for-kids-and-book-clubs-are-great-for-adults-30783">Book clubs</a>, where heated discussions can be motivated by how books and their characters made readers feel, are a great example. So is consumer review site <a href="https://theconversation.com/in-the-world-of-goodreads-do-we-still-need-book-reviewers-56455">Goodreads</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-booktok-and-how-is-it-influencing-what-australian-teenagers-read-182290">#BookTok</a>, the sector of TikTok where books that make readers cry dominate. As <a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/609280/a-swim-in-a-pond-in-the-rain-by-george-saunders/">Flannery O’Connor</a> says, “the writer can choose what he writes about but he cannot choose what he is able to make live” (my italics). In other words, some books will always speak to some readers. And those same books will leave other readers cold – or even make them regret joining a book club. <h2>What neuroscience tells us about reading</h2> Virginia Woolf wrote of books as “<a href="http://lemasney.com/consulting/2015/05/05/books-are-the-mirrors-of-the-soul-virginia-woolf-cc-by-lemasney/">mirrors of the soul</a>”. And contemporary neuropsychologists have proven it, with brain-imaging studies. These studies have demonstrated that when a person indirectly experiences an event associated with an emotion, the same regions of the brain are activated as if they had experienced the event directly. We feel disgust, whether we actually discover (or half-eat) the maggot in the ham sandwich or view a TikTok video of the simulated event. The same fear is elicited in the brain when we walk a tightrope in a virtual reality simulation, view the film of Phillipe Petit in <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3488710/">The Walk</a>, or high-wire walk ourselves (do not try this at home). Mirror neurons prompt us to yawn or smile or frown when another person yawns, smiles or frowns. The other person – the protagonist, in a book – can be completely fictional, the entire plot make-believe: yet we still cry. Who of us hasn’t wept real tears when tragedy befalls a favourite character in a novel? (For me, it’s the death of shell-shocked World War I soldier Septimus in Virginia Woolf’s novel <a href="https://www.penguin.com.au/books/mrs-dalloway-9780241468647">Mrs Dalloway</a>.) <h2>The psychology of fiction</h2> University of Toronto professor emeritus and author-psychologist <a href="https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Such+Stuff+as+Dreams:+The+Psychology+of+Fiction-p-9780470974575">Keith Oatley</a> explains that reading narratives allows us to “simulate” a social world where we identify with characters and their struggles, and observe their way of solving conflicts. This way we can process emotional content and solve life’s problems indirectly. It’s much more effective than being given the solution! Oatley’s research has also demonstrated that readers’ long-term engagement in fiction (especially literary fiction) <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27449184/">improves their empathy</a> and their ability to take the perspective of another person (referred to as “Theory of Mind”). Oatley suggests: “We need not lead one life; through fiction we can lead many lives”. In this sense, reading can prompt us to understand the inner lives of others as well as our own. It can even help us to re-imagine the narrative of our lives – especially if we are not happy with the one we are actually leading. In this way, reading can provide both escape and a way to imagine (and perhaps start to plan for) alternative ways to live. In her book <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1kgqwk8">Why We Read Fiction</a>, Lisa Zunshine argues "fiction helps us to pattern in newly nuanced ways our emotions and perceptions […] it creates new forms of meaning for our everyday existence." Quite apart from the practical benefits of this kind of cognitive and emotional gymnastics, Zunshine says our biggest reason for doing it is enjoyment itself. Does reading prompt emotional catharsis? Marcel Proust wrote that a novelist can, in an hour, “set free all kinds of happiness and misfortune which would take years of our ordinary lives to know”. Reading, as a hard-wired impetus and a form of engaging with art, allows us to process our emotions. Importantly, this can be at a distance. We don’t have to directly, for example, pursue forbidden love and sort out the ensuing mess (Graham Greene’s <a href="https://www.penguin.com.au/books/the-end-of-the-affair-9780099478447">The End of the Affair</a>), or cope alone with alienation or discrimination (Alice Walker’s <a href="https://www.hachette.com.au/alice-walker/the-color-purple-the-classic-pulitzer-prize-winning-novel">The Colour Purple</a>). We can scare ourselves without ever having to go into the dark woods. We can access experiences unavailable to us in life – and the positive feelings they produce can remain with us. For example, we can transform ourselves into magical, powerful heroes and heroines who prevail against impossible odds (<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-tolkien-and-lord-of-the-rings-inspired-the-commercial-and-artistic-success-of-the-fantasy-fiction-genre-170958">Lord of the Rings</a>). Saunders suggests art (including literature) might be "an offering of sorts – a hypothesis for both writer and reader to take up and consider together […] the goal of that offering might be to ease the reader’s way; to make the difficulty of this life less for her. We try to give the reader a way of thinking about reality that is truthful, yes, and harsh, if need be, but not gratuitously harsh, a way of thinking that, somehow, helps her." Image: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-reading-help-heal-us-and-process-our-emotions-or-is-that-just-a-story-we-tell-ourselves-197789" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>. <figure></figure>

Who was that incredibly tall man in the Queen's funeral procession?

With thousands turning out to see Queen Elizabeth II one last time as she was farewelled in a public memorial, one mourner stood out from the procession and sent the internet into a tizzy. The figure in question was Matthew Magee, one of the Queen’s former private secretaries. Standing at an impressive 7ft 2in, he would have towered over the late five-foot Queen. According to The Mirror UK, Magee is often confused with one of the monarch’s most dedicated members of staff, Paul “Tall Paul” Whybrew. Tall Paul, who is slightly shorter than Magee at 6ft 4in, was one of only three of the Queen’s male domestic staff who were invited to join the cortege from Buckingham Palace to Westminster Hall last week. He earned his nickname in comparison to another of Her Majesty’s footmen, Paul Burrell, who was known as Small Paul. Despite tall being in his name, Tall Paul was overshadowed by Magee, having sparked curiosity among many on social media. “Who is this insanely tall man? Is this the royal Slenderman?” one person shared on Twitter. “Anyone know who the exceedingly tall man is?” another asked. A third wrote, “I don’t know who he is, but he is a very tall man”. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> Is this tall man the Royal Giant? <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/tallman?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#tallman</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Queen?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Queen</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/funeral?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#funeral</a> <a href="https://t.co/UKdvFAf6za">pic.twitter.com/UKdvFAf6za</a> — Stephen Griffin (@Stephen_Griffin) <a href="https://twitter.com/Stephen_Griffin/status/1571869435039780864?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 19, 2022</a></blockquote> Some asked whether he was related to English TV presenter Richard Osman, who stands at 6ft 7in, prompting Osman to trend on Twitter. “Curious as to who the tall man is - walking in the Queen’s Funeral Procession. Wearing Morning (sic) Dress and towering above everyone else. Must be knocking on 7ft tall… [Richard Osman] - though it was you!!!” one person wrote. “Wondered why Richard Osman was trending and it turns out it’s because there was a tall man wearing glasses at the Queen’s funeral,” another shared. With so many wondering about the mystery tall man’s identity, others were quick to reveal who he was - and even threw in a joke or two. “Matthew Magee. Private Secretary to the Queen. He’s 7ft 2inch tall. She always looked up to him,” one user joked. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> Queens private secretary oversees everything <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/queensfuneral?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#queensfuneral</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/tallman?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#tallman</a> <a href="https://t.co/bJPE3A7aO9">pic.twitter.com/bJPE3A7aO9</a> — Jade Thomas (@Jadeesther23) <a href="https://twitter.com/Jadeesther23/status/1571869355993866241?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 19, 2022</a></blockquote> “The Queen’s Private Secretary Matthew Magee (the very tall man with glasses in front of the hearse) is as tall as the soldiers with the bear skin hats on,” another revealed. Magee has previously worked as the private secretary to Prince Edward, though The Sun reported that he was chosen to work for the Queen in 2018 because of his “brilliant brain”. “He is a smashing guy with a great sense of humour and the Queen will love working with him on a daily basis,” a royal insider told the outlet at the time. Image: Twitter

International Travel

Ultra-processed foods: it’s not just their low nutritional value that’s a concern

In countries such as the UK, US and Canada, ultra-processed foods now account for <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30744710/">50% or more</a> of calories consumed. This is concerning, given that these foods have been linked to a number of different health conditions, including a greater risk of <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33167080/">obesity</a> and various chronic diseases such as <a href="https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12937-020-00604-1">cardiovascular disease</a> and <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35896436/">dementia</a>. Ultra-processed foods are <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30744710/">concoctions of various industrial ingredients</a> (such as emulsifiers, thickeners and artificial flavours), amalgamated into food products by a series of manufacturing processes. Sugary drinks and many breakfast cereals are ultra-processed foods, as are more recent innovations, such as so-called <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213453019301144,">“plant-based” burgers</a>, which are typically made of protein isolates and other chemicals to make the products palatable. The intense industrial processes used to produced ultra-processed foods destroy the <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35067754/">natural structure</a> of the food ingredients and strip away many beneficial nutrients such as fibre, vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals. Many of us are well aware that ultra-processed foods are harmful for our health. But it’s been unclear if this is simply because these foods are of poor nutritional value. Now, two new studies have shown that poor nutrition may not be enough to explain their health risks. This suggests that other factors may be needed to fully explain their health risks. <h2>The role of inflammation</h2> The <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj-2022-070688">first study</a>, which looked at over 20,000 health Italian adults, found that participants who consumed the highest number of ultra-processed foods had an increased risk of dying prematurely from any cause. The <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj-2021-068921">second study</a>, which looked at over 50,000 US male health professionals, found high consumption of ultra-processed foods was associated with a greater risk of colon cancer. What’s most interesting about these studies is that the health risks from eating a diet high in ultra-processed foods remained even after they had accounted for the poor nutritional quality of their diets. This suggests that <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8747015/">other factors</a> contribute to the harms caused by ultra-processed foods. It also implies that getting the right nutrients elsewhere in the diet may not be enough to cancel out the risk of disease from consuming ultra-processed foods. Similarly, attempts by the food industry to improve the nutritional value of ultra-processed foods by adding a few more vitamins may be side-stepping a more fundamental problem with these foods. So what factors may explain why ultra-processed foods are so harmful to our health? The Italian study found that inflammatory markers – such as a higher white blood cell count – were higher in groups that ate the most ultra-processed foods. Our bodies may trigger an inflammatory response for any number of reasons – for example, if we catch a cold or get cut. The body responds by sending signals to our immune cells (such as white blood cells) to attack any invading pathogens (such as bacteria or viruses). Usually, our inflammatory response resolves quite quickly, but some people may develop chronic inflammation throughout their body. This can cause tissue damage, and is involved in many chronic diseases – such as <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25859884/">cancer</a> and <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28744020/">cardiovascular disease</a>. Many studies have found that poor diets can increase inflammation in the body, and that this is linked to <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28744020/">higher risk</a> of chronic diseases. Given that signs of inflammation were seen in participants of the Italian study who ate the most ultra-processed foods, this could suggest that inflammation may contribute to why ultra-processed foods increase disease risk. Some food additives common in ultra-processed foods (such as emulsifiers and artificial sweeteners) also increase inflammation in the gut by causing <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29899036/">changes to the gut microbiome</a>. <figure class="align-center ">Some researchers have theorised that ultra-processed foods increase inflammation because they are recognised by the body as foreign – much like an invading bacteria. So the body mounts an inflammatory response, which has been dubbed “<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24939238/">fast food fever</a>”. This increases inflammation throughout the body as a result.</figure> Although the US colon cancer study did not establish if inflammation increased in the men consuming the most ultra-processed foods, inflammation is strongly linked with an <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27821485/">increased risk of colon cancer</a>. Research shows that other mechanisms – such as <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj-2022-070688">impaired kidney function</a> and <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19502515/">toxins in packaging</a> – may also explain why ultra-processed foods cause so many dangerous health problems. Since inflammatory responses are hard-wired in our bodies, the best way to prevent this from happening is by not eating ultra-processed foods at all. Some plant-based diets high in natural, unprocessed foods (such as the <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36039924/">Mediterranean diet</a>) have also been shown to be anti-inflammatory. This may also explain why plant-based diets free from ultra-processed foods can help ward off <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26148921/">chronic diseases</a>. It’s currently not known to what extent an anti-inflammatory diet can help counteract the effects of ultra-processed foods. Simply reducing your intake of ultra-processed foods may be a challenge. Ultra-processed foods are designed to be hyper-palatable – and together with persuasive marketing, this can make resisting them an enormous challenge for <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33153827/">some people</a>. These foods are also not labelled as such on food packaging. The best way to identify them is by looking at their ingredients. Typically, things such as emulsifiers, thickeners, protein isolates and other industrial-sounding products are a sign it’s an ultra-processed food. But making meals from scratch using natural foods is the best way to avoid the harms of ultra-processed foods.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/189918/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/richard-hoffman-221275">Richard Hoffman</a>, Associate lecturer, Nutritional Biochemistry, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-hertfordshire-799">University of Hertfordshire</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/ultra-processed-foods-its-not-just-their-low-nutritional-value-thats-a-concern-189918">original article</a>.

Food & Wine

The top 5 hacks to slow down the ageing process

The truth is you no longer have to age the way your parents or grandparents did. You can age on your own terms, starting now. In our crazy, busy world, the struggle to look after yourself is real, let alone decipher what you really can do that will actually make a difference to the way you age. As women, the expectations are high and we are constantly bombarded with messages that we need to be all things to all people, including ourselves. We need to raise children that are healthy, well educated, kept off computer games and social media but entertained with wholesome play. Add to that maintaining a home, keeping on top the bills and activities, maintaining friendships and family relationships. Plus we need to look great, exercise, sleep well and possibly even manifest our dreams and create incredible careers. PHEW, it is a lot! So how do you become more vibrant and youthful without adding complicated routines into your already busy day? It’s about knowing what simple things you can do and understanding the importance of consistency. Small, seemingly insignificant steps taken over time will create a radical difference. You don’t have to be the smartest, fastest or the strongest – you have to be the most consistent. Let’s take a look at 5 anti-ageing hacks: 1) Happiness: Understanding happiness is one of the most significant measures for longevity and it is very empowering to know that we can work on our own happiness. It has now become a scientific field of research, with evidence indicating that happy people are healthier, have a better immune function and have less heart disease. Further, happier people have great mental health and can live up to 10 years longer. We have a certain baseline of happiness and we can raise this with long term strategies rather than the instant gratifications we usually look for. Learning these tools is highly important when slowing the aging process. These include, not comparing ourselves to others, learning that we can only be happy in the present, letting go of resentment, practicing kindness, being grateful and avoiding perfectionism. 2) Fasting: Giving your body a rest from having to process what you are putting in to it has extraordinary results. You can choose to fast for a day, or to restrict the time that you are eat in any one day. For example you may choose to eat only between 11am and 7pm. Going into a fasting state not only helps you lose weight but can propel the genes to function better in repairing the body, it can increase levels of Human Growth Hormone and delay aging. Practicing this a couple of times a week consistently will have amazing results over time. 3) Meditation: Our mind is our most precious and valuable resource and we use it to experience every single moment of our life. We depend on our mind to be focused and perform at our very best and this is the way to take care of it. This can be done in a as little as 15 mins a day. Once again consistency is key and this will reduce blood pressure, stress and anxiety, improve sleep, your immune system is boosted and the aging process is slowed. This is an extremely powerful anti-aging hack. 4) Strength training: This is the biggest physical anti-aging hack you can make and you don’t have to spend long hard hours in the gym – 30 minutes twice a week will do it. Not only does this make you look great it reverses the aging process at a cellular level, increases the production of collagen and the anti-aging hormones oxytocin and progesterone. 5) Sunscreen and the ingredients in your skincare: There is no question that maintaining a consistent skincare routine promotes smooth radiant skin. You just need to be aware of the active ingredients in the products you are using. The most important are Vitamins A B and C. Peptides are also important to support collagen production. Do you know which active ingredients are in the cream you are using? Prevention using sunscreen on the face daily is a major hack in the war against aging. The majority of the above hacks don’t require you to find more time in your day, they are just a change in how you do things. A mindset change. If you were to make these 5 changes to your life right now, you will be a different person in 12 months time. Whatever you do make sure you tell yourself every day that you matter and that you are worth it and start with one simple step. Lyndal Linkin, author of To Age or Not to Age, is a 56-year-old anti-aging expert who’s spent her lifetime learning about anti-aging solutions. A successful entrepreneur, corporate leader and mother, she uses her years of research and personal experience to explain the most effective methods so you can look and feel younger. Find out more at <a href="http://www.lyndallinkin.com.au/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">www.lyndallinkin.com.au</a> or Instagram: @lyndallinkin Image: Getty Images

Mind

Aus-NZ refugee deal is a bandage on a failed policy

Australia has finally accepted New Zealand’s offer to settle some of the refugees from the <a href="https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/sites/kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/files/factsheet_offshore_processing_overview.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">offshore processing</a> regime – about nine years after it was first made in 2013. The NZ deal will provide certainty for <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/mar/24/australia-agrees-450-refugees-can-be-resettled-in-new-zealand-nine-years-after-deal-first-offered" target="_blank" rel="noopener">450 people</a> who have been in limbo, many for more than a decade. But in the March 24 <a href="https://minister.homeaffairs.gov.au/KarenAndrews/Pages/australia-new-zealand-resettlement-arrangement.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announcement</a>, Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews made clear the deal does not change Australia’s <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/australia-and-new-zealand-reach-refugee-resettlement-agreement/20vyv2d8w" target="_blank" rel="noopener">hard-line approach</a>. This makes the deal a bandage on a <a href="https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/sites/kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/files/Policy_Brief_11_Offshore_Processing.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">failed policy</a> that continues to haemorrhage cash, destroy lives and erode the international system for refugee protection. Who is – and isn’t – included in the NZ deal? The original offer, made by the then NZ Prime Minister John Key in 2013, was refused by the Australian government until now. The Coalition government claimed the deal could be a “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/nov/01/decision-to-bring-children-from-nauru-an-admission-of-failure-by-government" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pull factor</a>” for asylum seekers coming by boat to Australia. Under the agreement, NZ will settle up to 150 of Australia’s “offshore processing” refugees per year for three years. These refugees arrived in Australia by sea between 2012 and 2014 and were sent to Nauru or Manus Island “offshore processing” detention centres. The deal can include the <a href="https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about-us-subsite/files/population-and-number-of-people-resettled.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">112 people</a> who are in Nauru or those temporarily in Australia under offshore processing arrangements. Some <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/en-au/news/press/2022/3/623a66584/unhcr-news-comment-on-the-australia-new-zealand-refugee-deal.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">1,100</a> people have been returned temporarily to Australia, mostly for medical treatment. They mostly live in the community with <a href="https://www.amnesty.org.au/potential-return-of-refugees-and-people-seeking-asylum-to-nauru-and-png-proof-of-policy-failure/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">no support and insecure visa status</a> but some remain in detention. Those already being considered for settlement to another country, such as the United States or Canada, aren’t eligible for the NZ program. More than 100 men who remain in Papua New Guinea aren’t included in this deal. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> The always wise, always insightful <a href="https://twitter.com/BehrouzBoochani?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BehrouzBoochani</a> on Australia, the NZ refugee resettlement offer, and why it took nine years...<a href="https://t.co/IdxPBGpAz0">https://t.co/IdxPBGpAz0</a> — Ben Doherty (@BenDohertyCorro) <a href="https://twitter.com/BenDohertyCorro/status/1508944829509926915?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 29, 2022</a></blockquote> Under current known arrangements, people remaining in PNG could be <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/25/australia-new-zealand-refugee-deal-everything-we-know" target="_blank" rel="noopener">referred</a> by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to NZ through its regular refugee programme. Even after the NZ and US options are exhausted, it’s estimated at least <a href="https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/australians-welcome-nzs-generosity-to-refugees-in-offshore-processing/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">500 refugees will be without a solution</a>. And they’re not the only ones. There are some <a href="https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/sites/kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/files/Factsheet_Legacy%20Caseload_final.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">30,000 people</a> in what’s called the “legacy caseload” who arrived by sea between 2012 and 2014 and weren’t transferred to Nauru and PNG. They remain in Australia subject to harmful measures. They’re stuck in limbo on temporary visas, unable to reunify with family members, and receive <a href="https://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/urgent-call-government-protect-asylum-seekers-and-refugees" target="_blank" rel="noopener">inadequate support</a> to secure housing or health care. Australia distorts the global refugee system <a href="https://www.refworld.org/docid/51af82794.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Australia has primary responsibility</a> for refugees who seek its protection. The Australian government has repeatedly tried and failed to find countries willing to settle refugees it refuses to protect. It reportedly offered multiple countries, from the Philippines to Kyrgyzstan, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/may/08/australias-refugee-deal-a-farce-after-us-rejects-all-iranian-and-somali-asylum-seekers" target="_blank" rel="noopener">millions of dollars</a> to settle refugees from Australia’s offshore camps – without success. Resettlement to a third country is an important solution, available to less than 1% of refugees globally whose lives, liberty, safety, health or other fundamental rights are at risk <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/46f7c0ee2.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">in the country where they have sought refuge</a>. This isn’t the case for refugees seeking asylum in Australia, where there’s a well-established asylum system. It’s difficult to think of the NZ solution as “resettlement” in its true meaning. Resettlement places are important to <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/en-au/news/press/2021/6/60d32ba44/un-refugee-agency-releases-2022-resettlement-needs.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">relieve pressure on developing countries</a> that host almost 90% of the world’s refugees. Conflicts in Syria, Yemen, Myanmar, South Sudan, Afghanistan, plus now Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, have created a need for resettlement in a third country for almost <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/en-au/news/press/2021/6/60d32ba44/un-refugee-agency-releases-2022-resettlement-needs.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">1.5 million</a> refugees worldwide. Resettlement has been disrupted over the last two years due to COVID, leaving even more people in urgent need. Under these extraordinary “refugee deals” with the US and NZ, the Australian government is trying to solve a political problem of its own making at the expense of people in desperate need. Like Australia, the US and NZ offer only a limited number of resettlement spots each year. When these spots go to Australia’s refugees, who are Australia’s responsibility, someone else misses out. Continuing damage This is Australia’s second go at offshore processing. Its first iteration, the “Pacific Solution”, lasted from 2001 until 2008. The second commenced in 2012 and continues. Offshore processing remains costly. Australian taxpayers have spent, on average, around <a href="https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/sites/kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/files/Policy_Brief_11_Offshore_Processing.pdf#page=14&zoom=auto,-135,786" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A$1 billion per year</a> to maintain offshore processing since 2014. This is despite a dramatic drop in the number of people held in Nauru and PNG. At the peak in April 2014, Australia detained a total of 2,450 people. By December 2021, there were <a href="https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/operation-sovereign-borders-offshore-detention-statistics/2/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">219 people remaining offshore in Nauru and PNG</a>. People transferred to Manus Island and Nauru suffered mandatory and indefinite detention in harsh conditions. Their treatment has been called out by the United Nations repeatedly as <a href="https://www.unhcr.org/en-au/united-nations-observations.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cruel and inhuman</a> and described by Amnesty International as <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018835563/amnesty-international-celebrates-deal-for-nz-to-take-refugees" target="_blank" rel="noopener">torture</a>. The abuse of men, women and children in offshore processing centres has been thoroughly documented in a <a href="https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/b743d9_e4413cb72e1646d8bd3e8a8c9a466950.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">communiqué</a> to the International Criminal Court, <a href="https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/43063/documents/791#page=27&zoom=auto,-134,1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">parliamentary inquiries</a> and domestic legal challenges. Australia’s offshore processing sets a bad regional precedent for <a href="https://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/20160913_Pathways_to_Protection.pdf#page=20&zoom=page-fit,-625,841" target="_blank" rel="noopener">refugee protection in Southeast Asia</a> and beyond. The policy objective of using cruelty as a deterrent to “stop the boats” and “save lives at sea” didn’t work. If boats didn’t arrive, this was due to Australia’s <a href="https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/sites/kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/files/Policy_Brief_11_Offshore_Processing.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">interception and turnback of boats at sea</a>. What needs to change? Refugee policy can be <a href="https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/publication/principles-australian-refugee-policy" target="_blank" rel="noopener">principled</a> and driven by compassion while protecting borders and respecting international law. Australia should formally end offshore processing. The small number of people still held offshore in Nauru and PNG should be transferred back to Australia. Everyone who has been subject to the policy since 2012 who doesn’t have a permanent solution could be offered settlement in Australia. This <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/about_parliament/parliamentary_departments/parliamentary_library/pubs/bn/2012-2013/pacificsolution" target="_blank" rel="noopener">occurred</a> in the first iteration of offshore processing and could happen again. Money and lives can be saved.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/180241/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/natasha-yacoub-1259499" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Natasha Yacoub</a>, International refugee lawyer and scholar, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-sydney-1414" target="_blank" rel="noopener">UNSW Sydney</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/aus-nz-refugee-deal-is-a-bandage-on-a-failed-policy-its-time-to-end-offshore-processing-180241" target="_blank" rel="noopener">original article</a>. Image: Getty Images

Legal

10 things that happen when you stop eating processed foods

There are different levels of processing Simply picking a blueberry is technically “food processing,” says nutritionist and dietitian, Malina Linkas Malkani. “Food processing has been happening for thousands of years, and virtually everything we eat has undergone some form of processing, so it’s impossible to say that processed foods don’t belong in a healthy diet,” she says. “That said, the level of food processing falls on a spectrum from minimally to heavily processed.” Processing is an issue when it alters a food so much that the nutritional content, quality and value of the food changes, Malkani says. Minimally processed foods have recognisable ingredients, while the heavily processed variety typically include hard-to-pronounce names. Malkani suggests people weigh the pros and cons of any food while taking into account convenience, safety and nutrition. It might get worse before it gets better The body has to get used to the lack of sugar, salt and other added ingredients before reaping the benefits of eating fewer processed foods, according to nutritionist and dietitian, Deborah Malkoff-Cohen. Typical symptoms at first might include anxiety, bloating, cravings and headaches, among others. “These are the typical symptoms we can feel when we cut out processed foods mostly from sugar withdrawals,” she says. “How severe and how many of these you are likely to experience will depend on how processed your diet currently is and how sugar-addicted you are.” After a few days, the sugar metabolism normalises again, and those awful symptoms and cravings go away if you don’t give in and start the vicious cycle all over again, Malkoff-Cohen says. Your mood will eventually improve Eating fewer processed food leads to a better mood. The digestive tract generally absorbs heavily processed, refined carbohydrates and sugary foods rapidly post-meal, Malkani says. So it’s common to experience spikes and dips in blood sugar if you don’t also eat fibre or a balance of other nutrients to help slow the rate of absorption, according to Malkani. Skipping out on these other nutrients causes poor energy levels and irritability. There’s also a link between dopamine, serotonin and processed sugar that shows fewer processed foods in your diet could be better for your mood, too, says dietitian Carol Aguirre. “High fructose corn syrup, sugar and artificial ingredients stimulate the release of a mood-boosting neurotransmitter called serotonin,” she says. “This wouldn’t be so bad if your brain’s serotonin stores weren’t in limited supply; constantly depleting serotonin levels can mimic depression symptoms.” You’ll have better concentration Heavily processed foods usually have lots of sugar and or high fructose corn syrup. Although the human body does need some sugar for the brain to function properly, these sugars are best found naturally in fruits and vegetables, according to Aguirre. Too much sugar-laden processed foods, on the other hand, can throw your brain off balance and make it harder to concentrate, she says. “Having low blood sugar – common after a sugar crash – can cause anxiety, heart palpitations and fatigue, which can all make it next to impossible to focus and complete tasks,” Aguirre says. “Avoiding large amounts of processed foods can keep your head clear.” You’ll feel less bloated Sodium ingredients are mostly used in processed foods to help keep them fresh, according to HuffPost. Cutting out these high-sodium ingredients has a positive impact on belly bloat. “Most highly processed foods are high in sodium, which can cause water retention,” says dietitian Andy Bellatti. Poor hydration levels and lots of sodium make the body retain water. Your body holds onto any and all water causing bloating, puffiness or swelling, Healthline reports. Your flavour sensitivity could change Cutting down on processed foods could change how strongly you taste certain flavours, according to Harvard Medical School. One study on salt found that people on low-sodium diets ended up eventually preferring the taste of salt-less foods the longer they were on low-sodium diets. After their diet, they taste tested regularly salted foods and found them to be too salty. Some studies show a similar pattern for people on low-fat diets. You’ll sleep better Processed foods can disrupt your sleep cycle for a few reasons. One is the effect that eating these foods has on blood sugar. Keeping blood sugar steady – by avoiding refined and processed foods – helps you sleep normally, according to Swinburne University of Technology. They also report that the more sugar you eat during the day, the more often you’re going to wake up in the middle of the night. Heavily processed foods also tend to be higher in fat which – if eating them near bedtime – can contribute to indigestion or heartburn that often disrupts sleep too, Malkani says. Your digestive health will improve The natural fibre in whole grains isn’t in processed foods, Malkani says. The body needs this fibre to have a healthy digestion system. “Fibre helps bulk up stool and keep it travelling through the intestines, preventing constipation,” she says. “It also acts as food for the ‘good’ bacteria that help improve overall digestive health.” So eating more whole foods instead of the processed kind could help your digestive health. You might lose weight Limiting or cutting out processed foods could cause weight loss, according to Aguirre. These foods tend to carry lots of extra, ‘empty’ kilojoules, she says. “Processed foods lack nutrients and fibre that helps fill you up, which can lead to bingeing later,” Aguirre says. A recent study published in JAMA also found that people who cut out highly processed foods, as well as added sugar and refined grains, lost significant amounts of weight throughout a year. The patients didn’t limit kilojoules or portion sizes, and they focused on eating plenty of vegetables and whole foods, the New York Times reports. Aguirre also suggests choosing whole foods to nourish and fuel your body efficiently. Your skin could clear up Recent studies point to a strong link between diet and skin health. In a published review of some of these dermatology studies, researchers found that diets emphasising foods “in their natural state” over highly processed ones have a positive impact on the skin in terms of acne and inflammation. This article originally appeared on <a href="https://www.readersdigest.com.au/food-home-garden/10-things-that-happen-when-you-stop-eating-processed-foods" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Reader’s Digest</a>.

Body

Hollywood has got method acting all wrong, here’s what the process is really about

So-called method acting seems to be having a moment. <a href="https://www.nme.com/features/film-interviews/benedict-cumberbatch-interview-radiohead-the-power-of-the-dog-3097698">Benedict Cumberbatch and Kirsten Dunst</a> apparently didn’t speak to each other on the set of their new film, <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10293406/">Power of the Dog</a>, to help them stay in character. While Lady Gaga is said to have spoken entirely with an Italian accent for nine months while working on her new film, <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11214590/">House of Gucci</a> – using it even when <a href="https://inews.co.uk/culture/film/lady-gaga-method-acting-house-of-gucci-extreme-accent-1308207">calling her mother</a>. Jared Leto is <a href="https://www.thewrap.com/jared-leto-method-acting-examples-movies/">also a fan</a>. While playing the Joker in <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1386697/">Suicide Squad</a>, Leto is said to have sent animal carcasses to his castmates. <a href="https://fabiosa.com/ctclb-rsvlk-auokh-pbimk-phnkz-this-is-extreme-matthew-mcconaughey-nearly-went-blind-as-a-result-of-dramatic-weight-for-a-film-role/">Matthew McConaughey</a>, meanwhile, lost so much weight he started to go blind for his role in <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0790636/">Dallas Buyers Club</a>. And <a href="https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/daniel-day-lewis-method-acting-in-my-left-foot/">Daniel Day-Lewis</a> demanded that production staff pushed him around in a wheelchair and spoon-fed him for his performance in <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097937/">My Left Foot</a>, where he played Christy Brown, a painter born with cerebral palsy. But not everyone is keen. Actor <a href="https://www.thethings.com/martin-freeman-jim-carres-method-acting-controversy-man-on-the-moon-hate/">Martin Freeman</a> recently called out Jim Carrey for his over-the-top antics during the filming of the 1999 film, <a href="https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0125664/">Man on the Moon</a>, which included “stuffing his pockets with smelly cheese and hanging out with Hell’s Angels”. Freeman said: “It was the most self-aggrandising, selfish, narcissistic fucking bollocks I have ever seen…You need to keep grounded in reality, and that’s not to say you don’t lose yourself in the time between ‘action’ and ‘cut’, but I think the rest of it is absolute pretentious nonsense”. <h2>What is method acting?</h2> While many actors may aim to fully “become” their character with the use of method acting it seems there is a serious misunderstanding of the term and what its founder actually had in mind. The originator of “the method” was US acting coach Lee Strasberg who crafted an acting technique in the 1930s that he claimed was based on the work of Konstantin Stanislavski, a Russian theatre practitioner. In his book <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/A_Dream_of_Passion.html?id=jQPsAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y">A Dream of Passion</a>, Strasberg stated his belief that “the fundamental work of the actor – the training of his internal skills – is preceded by the development of the actor’s relaxation and concentration”. The goal of these exercises is to “free the expression of the actor” because “neuromuscular tension makes it difficult for thought, sensations, and emotions to be transmitted and properly experienced”. <iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/LRDPo0CHrko?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe> An exercise in a standard method based training session has the actor sit in a chair and put themselves into a highly relaxed state. They will then explore a memory from their past where they experienced very strong emotions. As the exercise proceeds, the actor describes what they were wearing, what the temperature of the place was like, and how it affected them until they feel the original emotion. Strasberg believed that this exercise created a path for actors to recreate the same emotion over and over, on-demand, with complete control since because it is a “remembered emotion” it will not be felt like a real emotion. It is not about what happened to the actor but rather “what he sees, hears, touches, tastes, smells, and what he is experiencing”. Essentially, the method actor will be “using his own reality to properly relate to that of the character in the scene”. In short, the actor should behave in a real manner, really performing an action or feeling an emotion rather than pretending to do so. At no point does Strasberg expect a method actor to carry this work outside of the theatre or sound stage, instead, they should be feeling real emotions and behaviours in the performance. <h2>Staying in character</h2> Where confusion seems to set in is with the notion that a method actor should “live the life of the character” full time. This paraphrasing derives from Stanislavski but is incomplete. What he said in his seminal acting text, <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/An_Actor_Prepares/Ihl5CgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover">An Actor Prepares</a>, is: “In our art, you must live the part every moment you are playing it, and every time.” Which is to say, live the life of the character on stage. Neither he nor Strasberg ever said to go further than that. But, oddly, it’s what many people consider the method to be – immersing the self so deeply, that the actor is no longer “themselves” but this other person. It might be pedantic to say so, but this is not method acting. It is very much something else. It’s also worth, perhaps, being sceptical of many of the tales of actors immersing themselves so deeply. It makes a great story, but ask yourself if the actor is living the life of a character from 100 years ago, how do they get to the set each day? Do they still carry a smartphone? How do they do their shopping? Looking more deeply at the Cumberbatch story, <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/kirsten-dunst-benedict-cumberbatch-power-of-the-dog-b1963367.html">Dunst has confirmed</a> that they didn’t speak on set because the characters so despised each other. But she continued: “He’s so sweet. And he’s so British. Polite British, you know? I was like, ‘I can’t talk to you!… We didn’t talk at all during the filming unless we were out to dinner on a weekend, all together, or playing with our kids.” It seems then that they didn’t speak on set because they and their families were becoming such good friends, they didn’t want that to accidentally colour their performances. This has nothing to do with method acting.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/172568/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/eric-hetzler-1293767">Eric Hetzler</a>, Senior Lecturer, Department of Media and Performance, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-huddersfield-1226">University of Huddersfield</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/hollywood-has-got-method-acting-all-wrong-heres-what-the-process-is-really-about-172568">original article</a>. Image: Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock

The rise of ultra-processed foods and why they’re really bad for our health

Humans (and our ancestors) have been processing food for at least <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/processed-food-a-two-million-year-history/">1.8 million years</a>. Roasting, drying, grinding and other techniques made food more nutritious, durable and tasty. This helped our ancestors to colonise diverse habitats, and then develop settlements and civilisations. Many traditional foods used in cooking today are processed in some way, such as grains, cheeses, dried fish and fermented vegetables. Processing itself is not the problem. Only much more recently has a different type of food processing emerged: one that is more extensive, and uses new chemical and physical techniques. This is called ultra-processing, and the resulting products <a href="http://www.fao.org/3/ca5644en/ca5644en.pdf">ultra-processed foods</a>. To make these foods, cheap ingredients such as starches, vegetable oils and sugars, are combined with cosmetic additives like colours, flavours and emulsifiers. Think sugary drinks, confectionery, mass-produced breads, snack foods, sweetened dairy products and frozen desserts. Join 130,000 people who subscribe to free evidence-based news. Get newsletter Unfortunately, these foods are terrible for our health. And we’re eating more of them than ever before, partially because of aggressive marketing and lobbying by “Big Food”. Ultra-processed foods are harming our health So concludes our <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/12/7/1955">recent literature review</a>. We found that more ultra-processed foods in the diet associates with higher risks of obesity, heart disease and stroke, type-2 diabetes, cancer, frailty, depression and death. These harms can be caused by the foods’ poor nutritional profile, as many are high in added sugars, salt and trans-fats. Also, if you tend to eat more ultra-processed foods, it means you probably eat fewer fresh and less-processed foods. Industrial processing itself can also be harmful. For example, certain food additives <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5872783/">can disrupt our gut bacteria</a> and trigger inflammation, while plasticisers in packaging can <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412019317416?via%3Dihub">interfere with our hormonal system</a>. Certain features of ultra-processed foods also promote over-consumption. Product flavours, aromas and mouthfeel are designed to make these foods ultra-tasty, and perhaps even <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30439381/">addictive</a>. Ultra-processed foods also harm the environment. For example, food packaging generates much of the plastic waste that enters marine ecosystems. And yet, we’re eating more and more of them In <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343478299_Ultra-processed_foods_and_the_nutrition_transition_Global_regional_and_national_trends_food_systems_transformations_and_political_economy_drivers">our latest study</a>, published in August, we found ultra-processed food sales are booming nearly everywhere in the world. Sales are highest in rich countries like Australia, the United States and Canada. They are rising rapidly in middle-income countries like China, South Africa and Brazil, which are highly populated. The scale of dietary change and harms to health are therefore likely immense. ‘Big Food’ is driving consumption We <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343478299_Ultra-processed_foods_and_the_nutrition_transition_Global_regional_and_national_trends_food_systems_transformations_and_political_economy_drivers">also asked</a>: what explains the global rise in ultra-processed food sales? Growing incomes, more people living in cities, and working families seeking convenience are a few factors that contribute. However, it’s also clear “Big Food” corporations are driving ultra-processed food consumption globally — think Coca-Cola, Nestlé and McDonald’s. Sales growth <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001235">is lower</a> in countries where such corporations have a limited presence. Globalisation has allowed these corporations to make huge investments in their overseas operations. The <a href="https://d1io3yog0oux5.cloudfront.net/_1b69e1e69528e5630a2842ce673df6eb/cocacolacompany/db/734/7242/annual_report/coca-cola-business-and-sustainability-report-2019+%281%29.pdf">Coca-Cola System</a>, for example, now includes 900 bottling plants worldwide, distributing 2 billion servings every day. As Big Food globalises, their advertising and promotion becomes widespread. New digital technologies, such as gaming, are used to target children. By collecting <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09581596.2017.1392483">large amounts of personal data online</a>, companies can even target their advertising at us as individuals. Supermarkets are now spreading throughout the developing world, provisioning ultra-processed foods at scale, and at low prices. Where supermarkets don’t exist, other distribution strategies are used. For example, Nestlé uses its “door-to-door” salesforce to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/09/16/health/brazil-obesity-nestle.html">reach thousands</a> of poor households in Brazil’s urban slums. Rising consumption also reflects <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343478299_Ultra-processed_foods_and_the_nutrition_transition_Global_regional_and_national_trends_food_systems_transformations_and_political_economy_drivers">Big Food’s political power</a> to undermine public health policies. This includes lobbying policymakers, making political donations, funding favourable research, and partnerships with community organisations. Here’s how things can change The evidence that ultra-processed foods are harming our health and the planet is clear. We must now consider using a variety of strategies to decrease consumption. This includes adopting new laws and regulations, for example by using taxation, marketing restrictions and removing these products from schools. We cannot rely on industry-preferred responses such as <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14747731.2016.1239806">product reformulation</a> alone. After all, reformulated ultra-processed foods are usually still ultra-processed. Further, simply telling individuals to “<a href="https://theconversation.com/fat-nation-the-rise-and-fall-of-obesity-on-the-political-agenda-72875">be more responsible</a>” is unlikely to work, when Big Food spends billions every year marketing unhealthy products to undermine that responsibility. Should dietary guidelines now strongly advise people to avoid ultra-processed foods? Brazil and other Latin American countries <a href="http://www.fao.org/3/ca5644en/ca5644en.pdf">are already doing this</a>. And for us as individuals the advice is simple — avoid ultra-processed foods altogether. Written by Phillip Baker, Mark Lawrence and Priscilla Machado. Republished with permission of <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-rise-of-ultra-processed-foods-and-why-theyre-really-bad-for-our-health-140537">The Conversation.</a>

Caring

The inhumanity of Australia’s new offshore detention centre

Papua New Guinea authorities arrested 52 offshore detainees previously held on Manus Island <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/15/leaked-photos-of-papua-new-guinea-prison-reveal-torture-of-18-asylum-seekers-cut-off-from-world">in August last year</a> and incarcerated them in the purpose-built Bomana immigration centre. The facility is part of a large prison complex that goes by the same name on the outskirts of Port Moresby. Opened in April last year, the <a href="https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/news/five-questions-bomana-immigration-centre">$24 million centre</a> was funded and built by the Australian Home Affairs Department. And although it’s been reported to be run solely by the PNG Immigration and Citizenship Authority, it’s also been asserted that <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/401582/australia-coercing-manus-island-asylum-seekers-to-go-home">it’s Canberra-run</a>. Bomana is the end of the line for certain asylum seekers. Those locked up there had been deemed non-refugees, either via assessment or not. And the centre is designed to be so extreme as to force detainees into giving up hope, despite having spent years prior in immigration limbo. And that’s exactly what happened to the men sent to the isolated facility, with no outside contact. The conditions were so torturous that after years of refusing, most signed up to being sent back to their countries of origins. Although, since doing so, they’re still being housed in Port Moresby not able to be returned as yet. And as of last week, authorities can hail the operation a complete success, as the final 18 men were <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/criminal/penalties/nsw/conditional-release-order/">released</a>. This was only after some tinkering from rights groups, so these men were offered resettlement in a third country, rather than being forced to return to the land from which they fled. Employing the techniques of war “The Bomana detention centre was built by the Australian government for the express purposes of holding the Manus people, who’ve been given negative refugee assessments in Papua New Guinea,” explained Ian Rintoul. “It’s a deliberately built facility to hold people in an effort to coerce them into signing to go home and deporting them,” the <a href="http://www.refugeeaction.org.au/">Refugee Action Coalition (RAC)</a> spokesperson told Sydney Criminal Lawyers. And in relation to how the immigration facility manages to coerce detainees in such an efficient manner, Mr Rintoul likened the circumstances within Bomana to something you might expect to find in “prisoner of war camps from the Second World War”. The long-time refugee advocate said that detainees were denied communications with the outside world, including legal representation. They were withheld medication and phones. While the water inside was too hot for showering and the thin mattresses provided, lay directly upon the floor. “They were kept on starvation rations,” Rintoul added, “so everyone who has come out of Bomana has lost between 10 and 15 kilograms.” The final cohort The remaining detainees <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/20/remaining-manus-island-refugees-offered-voluntary-relocation-to-port-moresby">were moved</a> from Manus Island to Port Moresby beginning in August last year, with the final 25 arriving <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/404490/manus-island-refugees-moved-into-port-moresby-apartments">in November</a>. And 52 of these men subsequently ended up in Bomana. Indeed, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/15/leaked-photos-of-papua-new-guinea-prison-reveal-torture-of-18-asylum-seekers-cut-off-from-world">nine of them</a> had already been approved for Medevac transfer to Australia. According to Rintoul, the men weren’t given reasons for their incarceration, but it was known that only those deemed negative were sent to Bomana. And the conditions soon led to most agreeing to be repatriated, as they reasoned possible imprisonment in their country of origin would be better. And last Thursday, 23 January, saw the final 18 asylum seekers released from the Bomana detention centre, after they agreed to third country resettlement, which was not an offer made to detainees that agreed to leave earlier. “We tried to get messages in to tell people to sign and come out. We attempted various measures, but none of them had been forthcoming,” Rintoul outlined. “The final 18 were released on the basis of them signing to be part of the US resettlement deal, under the auspices of the UNHCR.” A fresh gulag Most Australians remain unaware that during the rising calls to end offshore detention, amid the successful campaign to bring the children on Nauru to Australia, and while the enactment and later repeal of Medevac occurred, the government has been intensifying detention for some. The Bomana immigration centre <a href="https://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/news/five-questions-bomana-immigration-centre">is part of the</a> 2013 Regional Resettlement Agreement between Australia and PNG, which allows for the ongoing processing of asylum seekers who arrive in this nation’s waters within the borders of another poorer country. The specially built facility began its operation on 2 April last year. And it has the capacity to hold around 50 detainees, within its 25 rooms, with two individuals in each. These rooms are divided up between <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/15/leaked-photos-of-papua-new-guinea-prison-reveal-torture-of-18-asylum-seekers-cut-off-from-world">five separate compounds</a> fenced off from one another. “The Australian government has overall control of the centre, as it does every other aspect of the people who they’re responsible for sending to Manus in the first place,” Rintoul made clear, adding that Canberra is “very aware of the circumstances in which people were being held”. The RAC spokesperson further explained that some of the employees at the facility are ex-Australian federal police. And the people who own the company that are running Bomana are also former AFP employees. The gift that keeps on giving As for what Bomana will be used for now that all the Manus Island asylum seekers have been released, Rintoul is clear that it’s likely the Papua New Guinean government will continue to use it in the same manner. But, this time, with asylum seekers who arrive in its own country. PNG prime minister James Marape warned <a href="https://www.pngfacts.com/news/png-pm-marape-tells-illegal-foreigners-to-leave">in mid-January</a> that foreign nationals who entered his country without permission and refuse to leave will be thrown in the Bomana centre, which, for the most part, is unused at present. “There’s a Filipino and three Bangladeshi citizens who are now in the Bomana facility,” Mr Rintoul explained. He said that keeping it open for the purposes of using it in a similar vein is what the PNG government seems to have in mind. “But, I suspect it will only be like that as long as Australia is paying for the upkeep,” he concluded. The images are leaked photos of the ex-Manus Island detainees in the Bomana immigration centre. They were supplied by the Refugee Action Coalition. Written by Paul Gregoire. Republished with permission of <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/the-inhumanity-of-australias-new-offshore-detention-centre/">Sydney Criminal Lawyers.</a>

Travel Tips

Why we shouldn't demonise processed food

I have a radical suggestion: let’s ban processed and ultra-processed foods. Not the products, but the terms. With so many diet plans and nutritional instructions offering such varied advice on how to eat healthily, a simple message like avoiding processed food is understandably attractive. As a result, some journalists, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/aug/11/why-we-fell-for-clean-eating">social media influencers</a> and even <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/305/food-and-climate/1-eat-fresh-unprocessed-foods">health charities</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/forget-about-fats-its-processed-food-we-should-be-worried-about-59850">academics</a> have gathered behind the idea that processed food is bad for you – and so-called ultra-processed food is even worse. This position has been taken to <a href="https://medium.com/better-humans/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-whole-foods-diet-e4025c3d116c">detailed extremes</a>, with commandments not to eat food with more than five ingredients, with more than five steps in its manufacture, or even that contains any preservatives, “chemicals” or anything made in a factory. As a food scientist, I think such blanket advice, while easy to remember, is ultimately unhelpful. The demonisation of processing <a href="https://theconversation.com/processed-food-linked-to-cancer-uncritical-media-coverage-ignores-problems-with-study-91935">promotes misunderstanding</a> and mistrust of the ways in which science and manufacturing actually make food better for us. For a start, <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/molecules-microbes-and-meals-9780190687694?cc=us&lang=en&">all food is processed</a>, and that’s a good thing. Processing is anything that transforms food from raw materials to something more suitable for human consumption. It can make food safer, more digestible and less susceptible to undesirable changes, while retaining or improving its nutritional and aesthetic qualities. At its simplest, processing is cooking, the discovery of which <a href="https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/692113">has been highlighted</a> as a <a href="https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2009/06/invention-of-cooking-drove-evolution-of-the-human-species-new-book-argues/">key step in human evolution</a> because it allowed us to absorb more energy to fuel our increasingly powerful bodies and brains. Today, besides a range of heat treatments that kill germs, other common processes used to preserve food include drying, fermentation, filtration, and freezing. In recent years, <a href="https://www.foodsafetymagazine.com/signature-series/an-overview-of-novel-processing-technologies-for-the-food-industry/">advanced treatments</a> involving ultra-high pressures or pulsed electric fields have been proposed to make food safer to eat while preserving its taste, texture and nutritional value. So why has the term “processed food” become so negative? Partly it’s because the term more often now refers to what’s in a food item and its nutritional information. In particular, it’s used to highlight foods with high levels of salt, sugar or fat, which can be linked to a <a href="https://www2.gov.scot/resource/0043/00438754.pdf">range of health problems</a>. Yet “processed food” is also often used to indicate products that contain a large number of ingredients, particularly what some deem “chemical” additives. It’s true that foods that haven’t had anything added to them can’t contain extra salt, sugar or fat. But there is no correlation between the number of ingredients and a product’s quality or safety. Meanwhile even simple food products are likely to be made up of many chemical components. For example, a banana contains fructose, maltose, tocopherol, phylloquinone and 2-methylpropan-1-ol. An apple contains acetic acid (E260), tartaric acid (E334), carotene (E160a), ascorbic acid (vitamin C, E300) and citric acid (E330), among other compounds. Those aren’t ingredients, you might say, but natural components. Mixing them together in a blender in the same proportions would not give the fruit back, or even the same nutritional profile. This may be the case, but they are still very clever assemblages of chemicals, often the exact same chemicals that can be found in manufactured food products with long lists of added ingredients. <h2>Natural isn’t necessarily better</h2> Many of these added chemicals are derived from natural sources. Others are often artificially synthesised versions of naturally occurring compounds, such as beta-carotene, which can be found in carrots, or vanillin, which is responsible for the flavour in vanilla. If the molecules from the factory and those from the carrot are identical, why is one seen as different to the other? Would it be preferable to have much more <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-problem-with-vanilla/">costly and wasteful processes</a> to extract them from their natural sources? Other ingredients are not found in natural food sources, and there is no question that, in the past (indeed for centuries), things were added to food that were not safe. For example, lead and mercury were once used <a href="https://www.safefood.eu/Food-Colour-Resource/History.aspx">as food colouring</a>. However, today the food industry in many countries is highly regulated, and modern understanding of food science and safety has resulted in the prohibition of potentially harmful additives. In Europe, food additives are given codes known as E-numbers. <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17825405">Research from 2007</a> that found six out of the hundreds of existing E-number additives were linked to hyperactivity in children led to the term becoming a pejorative description. But food containing any of those six compounds must now carry a warning label, while in all other cases an E-number actually reflects the fact that an additive has been tested and <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-are-e-numbers-and-should-you-avoid-them-in-your-diet-43908">certified safe</a>. The other thing to remember about all the added ingredients in food products is that including them costs the manufacturers money and so they must serve a function. Today, consumers have an enormously diverse range of needs, and foods are becoming increasingly specialised and tailored, with categories for infants, the elderly, vegans, people with allergies and many other specific markets. Making products that meet these people’s nutritional needs and still taste good often relies on large numbers of ingredients. Specialised products are needed to replace the nutrients of milk, the springiness provided by gluten, or the texture of meat. Food science has solved these problems by carefully optimising ingredients and control of their behaviour, from plant proteins for nutrition to xanthan gum for texture. Ultimately, <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/molecules-microbes-and-meals-9780190687694?q=Molecules%2C%20microbes%20and%20meals&lang=en&cc=ie">all food is made of chemicals</a>, all ingredients have functions, and food products are not random assemblies of compounds added for no reason. These products are formulated to give them the number and type of ingredients they need to provide the nutritional, sensory, stability or safety attributes that consumers demand and legislation allows – no more and no less. The merits of a food should not be judged on the basis of its ingredient list, and food processing is not something of which we should be suspicious. But understanding processing, and what ingredients are in food and why they are there, has never been more important.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/128442/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alan-kelly-893104">Alan Kelly</a>, Professor, Food Science and Technology, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-college-cork-1321">University College Cork</a> This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/demonising-processed-food-undermines-our-trust-in-science-128442">original article</a>.

Food & Wine

7 truths about the grieving process

When journalist, author and therapist Andrew Marshall lost his partner after a gruelling illness, he kept a diary documenting that first grief-stricken year, the things he did to stay sane, and the surprising things he learned. Twenty years on, Andrew opens his diary in <a href="http://t.dgm-au.com/c/185116/69171/1880?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.booktopia.com.au%2Fmy-mourning-year-andrew-marshall%2Fprod9781910453315.html">My Mourning Year</a>, and shares some universal lessons about grief with WYZA that he hopes might help others navigate their way through it. 1. Grieving is a kind of madness “It exhausts you – and you feel like you’re the only one going completely mad. And in a strange sort of way you are, because the rest of the world is out there with their fingers in their ears, going ‘la la la la’ about it and not wanting to talk about death at all despite it being something that affects all of us. We don’t talk about it enough. Twenty years on, I’m happily married, but that loss is still a part of me. With anyone we lose – from lovers to grandparents – we sort of take them with us. And that’s comforting but also a bit complex and painful as well.” 2. The people who are there for you might not be the ones you’d expect “That’s an incredibly comforting discovery. When you need them, if you let them, people will come into your life and give you the things that you need. It doesn’t really matter where the support comes from, but one of the things I’ve learned with the benefit of 20 years hindsight is it’s probably best not to get quite as upset with your family as I did because it’s not about you, it’s probably about them. And others arrive that will help you through it.” 3. Making big decisions in the first year is not a great idea “I always tell clients, don’t move house, don’t have a new relationship in the first year – but I know men are more likely to. One of my friends lasted six months before he started dating after his wife died. As you can imagine, it was a complete and utter disaster, but I told him I thought he was pretty good lasting six months! But no, dating doesn’t help. It’s a distraction, but it’s better to face the madness and dive in rather than pretend it doesn’t exist.” 4. It’s okay to grieve in your own, unique way “Forget ‘grief etiquette’; you’ve got to deal with it how you deal with it at the time. You’ll make mistakes and so will other people. And one of the worst things to do is to criticise yourself for ‘doing it wrong’. There is no right or wrong way to grieve. There is no ‘right time’ by which to have moved on. Be compassionate with yourself.” 5. In a profound way, grief teaches you not to put things off “I’ve learned over the years to have death as a constant companion and though it sounds kind of creepy, it has made me aware of my own mortality and it rather helps with the choices you make. You don’t put stuff off. You very much embrace that Latin idea of carpe diem and seizing the day.” 6. Honour milestones “Especially the first year. On the anniversary, go out to lunch with a good friend. Talk about the person you’ve lost, if you want. Often hearing stories about him or her from someone else can be good, too. Even though they’re not [your] stories, it’s nice to hear them. And doing little things to honour that person is nice too – for me, it’s sometimes filling the house with daffodils around the time he died. But if you have a new partner, it can be a private thing, too.” 7. Do something that alleviates the loneliness “In my case, it was dog-minding a crazy dog called Tyson, which I write about in the book. After my experiences with Tyson, I got a dog of my own and to this very day, going out and walking that dog is something that sort of keeps me sane. I was incredibly lonely, coming back to an empty house – it’s overwhelming. I had no structure to my life because I was freelance. But a dog gives you that. Dogs like a job, too – the dog I got after Tyson, his name was Flash and his job was to go everywhere with me. When you’re lost and alone, what could be better?” Have you lost someone close to you? What helped you get through it? Share your stories below. Written by Rachel Smith. Republished with permission of <a href="https://www.wyza.com.au/articles/lifestyle/wyza-life/7-truths-about-the-grieving-process.aspx">Wyza</a>.

Body

Processed foods that are actually good for you

Eating less processed, packaged foods is one of the most frequent recommendations you’ll receive from a dietician. But some processed foods are nutritionally sound. Here are eights foods that are “processed” but still healthy options: 1. Jarlsberg cheese While this cheese is processed, it’s packed full of calcium, protein and magnesium. Jarlsberg is a particularly good option thanks to its lower fat content. 2. Wholegrain crackers They might be processed, but wholegrain crackers are generally rich sources of fibre and B-group vitamins, in addition to being relatively low in calories. 3. Nut spreads Traditional peanut butter might still not be the smartest option, but new versions of nut spread generally are low on sugar, salt and oil, with plenty of good fats. 4. Tinned beans Legumes like chickpeas, kidney beans, borlotti beans and lentils are processed, but also packed full of protein, fibre and nutrient-rich minerals with minimal additions. 5. Nut-based snack bars Not all snack bars are created equal, and while there are some nasty ones out there, you should be able to find plenty which are made with a minimum of additives. 6. Wholegrain pasta and rice These days carbs get a bit of a bad rap, but if you choose wholegrain options you’re generally cutting down on additives and getting something that’s nutrient-rich. 7. Quick cook oats While varieties in past years contained added sugars, newer options without are starting to become more popular and often offer extra nuts, seeds and fruits. 8. Tinned fish There are hundreds of varieties of tinned fish in the supermarket, and if you scan the list of ingredients it’s easy to find those that are low on additives. Do you eat any of these foods?

Body

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Entertainment

Property

Information

Keep up to date

Search

New research proves travelling can slow down the ageing process

The voice in your head may help you recall and process words. But what if you don’t have one?

Queen Mary’s wedding dressmaker reveals process behind iconic gown

Not all ultra-processed foods are bad for your health, whatever you might have heard

You can’t reverse the ageing process but these 5 things can help you live longer

The 10 step process to get moving and keep moving for a healthier you

Is red meat bad for you? And does it make a difference if it’s a processed burger or a lean steak?

ChatGPT, DALL-E 2 and the collapse of the creative process

Can reading help heal us and process our emotions – or is that just a story we tell ourselves?

Who was that incredibly tall man in the Queen's funeral procession?

Ultra-processed foods: it’s not just their low nutritional value that’s a concern

The top 5 hacks to slow down the ageing process

Aus-NZ refugee deal is a bandage on a failed policy

10 things that happen when you stop eating processed foods

Hollywood has got method acting all wrong, here’s what the process is really about

The rise of ultra-processed foods and why they’re really bad for our health

The inhumanity of Australia’s new offshore detention centre

Why we shouldn't demonise processed food

7 truths about the grieving process

Processed foods that are actually good for you