Search

Research reveals how long it takes Aussies to save for a holiday

Saving up for a holiday can seem like an overwhelming task, but some destinations are easier to save for than others. According to new research by <a href="http://money.com.au/">money.com.au</a>, nearly a third of travellers - or 31 percent - need on average a year to save for a trip, while 29 percent of Aussies save for up to six months before jetting off. For 18 percent of travellers, it takes more than a year to save for a trip, while just 13 percent of Aussies manage to save for a holiday in less than three months. On the flip side, 7 percent of eager travellers decide to skip saving altogether and cover their holiday expenses fully on a credit card, while just 2 percent opt for a personal loan to fund their trips. Money.com.au's Finance Expert, Sean Callery said of the survey, "Our research also shows that travel is the one expense Australians aren't willing to forgo, no matter their financial goals or income level." "Going into debt for a holiday brings additional costs and risks. It's important to have a plan for clearing the debt as quickly as possible." With these saving trends in mind, the experts have crunched the numbers to estimate how long it would take the average Aussie to save for a trip to the most popular overseas holiday destinations. The saving time for each location was calculated based on a 10 per cent savings rate of the average weekly earnings of $1,923.40 (from ABS data). Two of the quickest destinations to save for are China and Thailand, while other destinations the experts say you can save for in around half a year include New Zealand, Vietnam and Singapore. Image credits: Shutterstock

Travel Tips

Music and dementia: researchers are still making discoveries about how songs can help sufferers

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rebecca-atkinson-1288605">Rebecca Atkinson</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/anglia-ruskin-university-1887">Anglia Ruskin University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ming-hung-hsu-2215063">Ming-Hung Hsu</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/anglia-ruskin-university-1887">Anglia Ruskin University</a> Music is woven into the fabric of our everyday lives. Whether it’s lifting our spirits, pushing us to run faster or soothing us to sleep, we can all <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.713818/full">recognise its power</a>. So it’s no wonder it is increasingly being used in medical treatment. As well as proving very useful in <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3863265/">cancer treatment</a>, managing <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1526590022000153">chronic pain</a> and even helping the brain <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00245/full">recover after a stroke</a>, researchers have also been making great strides in using music to help patients with dementia. It reduces patients’ <a href="https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003477/full">anxiety and depression</a>, and <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(23)00401-7/fulltext">improves wellbeing</a> both for them and their carers <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/individual-music-therapy-for-depression-randomised-controlled-trial/A1CD72904929CECCB956F4F3B09605AF">by enhancing</a> everyone’s ability to adapt and cope with adversity or stress. <a href="https://www.bamt.org">Music therapy</a> in the form of playing, singing or listening to music can also have a <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1362361309105660">positive effect</a> on cognitive function – particularly for <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1472-6882-10-39">older adults</a> either with dementia or memory issues. So why does music appear to have such a powerful effect for people with dementia? <h2>Music and the brain</h2> About a decade ago, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053811911013000">researchers discovered that</a> when people listened to music, multiple areas of the brain were involved in processing it. These included the limbic (which processes emotions and memory), cognitive (involved with perception, learning and reaction) and motor areas (responsible for voluntary movement). This challenged preconceptions that music was processed more narrowly in the brain – and helped explain why it has such a unique neurological impact. Not only that, research has shown that music might help <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306987708002880">regenerate the brain</a> and its connections. Many <a href="https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/dementia/about-dementia/causes/">causes of dementia</a> centre around cell death in the brain, raising the possibility that music could help people with dementia by mending or strengthening damaged neural connections and cells. It’s not just any music that has a regenerative effect on the brain, though. <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2016.00103/full">Familiar and favourite music</a> has been shown to have the biggest impact on the way we feel, and is closely linked with memory and emotions. This is because listening to our favourite songs <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.2726">releases feel-good hormones</a> that give us a sense of pleasure. Curated music playlists of favourite music could be the key in helping us deal with the <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/10298649211030318">stress of everyday life</a>. This is relevant to Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia because researchers have discovered that parts of the brain linked with <a href="https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/138/8/2438/330016">musical memories</a> are less affected by these conditions than other areas of the brain. This explains why memories and experiences that are linked to <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.14283/jpad.2018.19">favourite music</a> are often preserved for people with such conditions. Listening to music can also <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34346261/">help manage</a> their experiences of distress, agitation and “<a href="https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/about-dementia/symptoms-and-diagnosis/symptoms/sundowning">sundowning</a>” – where a person is more confused in the afternoon and evening. In a <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0197457224002209?utm_campaign=STMJ_219742_AUTH_SERV_PA&utm_medium=email&utm_acid=224973760&SIS_ID=&dgcid=STMJ_219742_AUTH_SERV_PA&CMX_ID=&utm_in=DM500444&utm_source=AC_">small study</a> conducted by us and our colleagues at the Cambridge Institute for Music Therapy Research, we showed just how great of an effect listening to music can have for people with dementia. We found that when people with dementia repeatedly listened to their favourite music, their heart rate and movements changed in direct response. This showed that people’s physical responses were affected by musical features like rhythm and arrangement. Their heart rate also changed when they sang along to music, or when they began reminiscing about old memories or stories while listening to a song or thinking about the music. These changes are important because they show how music affects movement, emotions and memory recall. Studies have also shown that during and after listening to music, people with dementia <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3425/13/7/1103">experienced less agitation</a>, aggression and anxiety, and their general mood was improved. They even needed less medication when they had regular music sessions. Other researchers have even begun testing the effects of <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/gps.4721?casa_token=VufeKQP7aNsAAAAA%3AMSOgiwUQYKqmmrLsUFv9glmSnc5BMxoqeMmmt3HX4BJX2Fs2UKeXjnN2850o1Umz0j1NvmrpQ3W3Pw">music training programmes</a> to support cognition for people with dementia. Results have been promising so far – with adults in the study showing improved executive functioning (problem solving, emotion regulation and attention) compared to those who took part in just physical exercise. So, music is likely to continue to be a useful medical treatment for people with dementia. But based on what we know so far, it’s important that it comes from the patient’s own music collection – and is used alongside other management techniques such as using drugs that can slow the progression of dementia or help manage symptoms to support self-care and wellbeing.<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/239446/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rebecca-atkinson-1288605">Rebecca Atkinson</a>, Researcher in Music Therapy, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/anglia-ruskin-university-1887">Anglia Ruskin University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ming-hung-hsu-2215063">Ming-Hung Hsu</a>, Senior Research Fellow, Music Therapy, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/anglia-ruskin-university-1887">Anglia Ruskin University</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/music-and-dementia-researchers-are-still-making-discoveries-about-how-songs-can-help-sufferers-239446">original article</a>.

Mind

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

Major breakthrough holds the key to diagnosing Alzheimer's

A new study has found that a simple blood test could be key to diagnosing Alzheimer's more quickly and more accurately. The research, published on the Journal of the American Medical Association, was conducted by a team of scientists at Sweden’s Lund University, was based off 1213 patients there with the condition. They found that a blood test could correctly identify whether patients with memory problems had Alzheimer’s 90 per cent of the time – making it “significantly” more accurate than cognitive tests and CAT scans in diagnosing the condition. The test itself measures tau protein 217, which if there is an abnormal build up of both in and around brain cells, may be the cause of the disease. “Increases in p tau-217 concentrations in the blood are quite profound in Alzheimer’s disease,” study co-author, Lund University associate professor and senior consultant neurologist, Dr Sebastian Palmqvist, told CNN. “At the dementia stage of the disease, levels are more than eight times higher compared with elderly (people) without Alzheimer’s.” As part of the study, the p tau-217 test was combined with one testing for another blood biomarker for Alzheimer’s called the amyloid 42/40 ratio. Other doctors have shared their thoughts on the research findings, with Chief science officer of America’s Alzheimer’s Association, Dr Maria Carrillo, telling CNN that doctors would “love to have a blood test that can be used in a primary care physician’s office, functioning like a cholesterol test but for Alzheimer’s”. “The p tau-217 blood test is turning out to be the most specific for Alzheimer’s and the one with the most validity. It seems to be the frontrunner,” she added. Blood tests like this could “change the game in the speed in which we can conduct Alzheimer’s trials and get to the next new medication”. Dr Jason Karlawish, the co-director at the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Memory Centre, said of the research: “Not too long ago measuring pathology in the brain of a living human was considered just impossible.” “This study adds to the revolution that has occurred in our ability to measure what’s going on in the brain of living humans.” Image: Shutterstock

Caring

‘Sleeping on it’ really does help and four other recent sleep research breakthroughs

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dan-denis-158199">Dan Denis</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-york-1344">University of York</a> Twenty-six years. That is roughly <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-34624-8">how much of our lives</a> are spent asleep. Scientists have been trying to explain why we spend so much time sleeping since at least the <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/alcmaeon/">ancient Greeks</a>, but pinning down the exact functions of sleep has proven to be difficult. During the past decade, there has been a surge of interest from researchers in the nature and function of sleep. New experimental models coupled with advances in technology and analytical techniques are giving us a deeper look inside the sleeping brain. Here are some of the biggest recent breakthroughs in the science of sleep. <h2>1. We know more about lucid dreaming</h2> No longer on the fringes, the neuroscientific study of dreaming has now become mainstream. US researchers in a 2017 study woke their participants up at regular intervals during the night and asked them what was going through their minds prior to the alarm call. Sometimes participants couldn’t recall any dreaming. The study team then looked at what was <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.4545">happening in the participant’s brain</a> moments before waking. Participants’ recall of dream content was associated with increased activity in the posterior hot zone, an area of the brain closely <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05097-x">linked to conscious awareness</a>. Researchers could predict the presence or absence of dream experiences by monitoring this zone in real time. Another exciting development in the study of dreams is research into lucid dreams, in which <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-ability-to-control-dreams-may-help-us-unravel-the-mystery-of-consciousness-52394">you are aware that</a> you are dreaming. A 2021 study established <a href="https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(21)00059-2?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982221000592%3Fshowall%3Dtrue">two-way communication</a> between a dreamer and a researcher. In this experiment, participants signalled to the researcher that they were dreaming by moving their eyes in a pre-agreed pattern. The researcher read out maths problems (what is eight minus six?). The dreamer could respond to this question with eye movements. The dreamers were accurate, indicating they had access to high level cognitive functions. The researchers used <a href="https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/polysomnography/about/pac-20394877">polysomnography</a>, which monitors bodily functions such as breathing and brain activity during sleep, to confirm that participants were asleep. These discoveries have dream researchers excited about the future of “interactive dreaming”, such as practising a skill or solving a problem in our dreams. <h2>2. Our brain replays memories while we sleep</h2> This year marks the centenary of the first demonstration that <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1414040?origin=crossref">sleep improves our memory</a>. However, a 2023 review of recent research has shown that memories formed during the day <a href="https://portlandpress.com/emergtoplifesci/article/7/5/487/233796/Neural-reactivation-during-human-sleep">get reactivated</a> while we are sleeping. Researchers discovered this using machine learning techniques to “decode” the contents of the sleeping brain. <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24357-5">A 2021 study</a> found that training algorithms to distinguish between different memories while awake makes it possible to see the same neural patterns re-emerge in the sleeping brain. A different study, also in 2021, found that the more times these patterns re-emerge during sleep, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23520-2">the bigger the benefit</a> to memory. In other approaches, scientists have been able to reactivate certain memories by <a href="https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(19)31035-8?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982219310358%3Fshowall%3Dtrue">replaying sounds</a> associated with the memory in question while the participant was asleep. A <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7144680/">2020 meta-analysis of 91 experiments</a> found that when participants’ memory was tested after sleep they remembered more of the stimuli whose sounds were played back during sleep, compared with control stimuli whose sounds were not replayed. Research has also shown that sleep strengthens memory for the <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2202657119">most important aspects</a> of an experience, restructures our memories to form <a href="https://www.jneurosci.org/content/40/9/1909">more cohesive narratives</a> and helps us come up with <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797619873344">solutions to problems</a> we are stuck on. Science is showing that sleeping on it really does help. <h2>3. Sleep keeps our minds healthy</h2> We all know that a lack of sleep makes us feel bad. Laboratory sleep deprivation studies, where researchers keep willing participants awake throughout the night, have been combined with <a href="https://www.open.edu/openlearn/body-mind/health/health-sciences/how-fmri-works">functional MRI brain scans</a> to paint a detailed picture of the sleep-deprived brain. These studies have shown that a lack of sleep severely disrupts the <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn.2017.55">connectivity between</a> different brain networks. These changes include a breakdown of connectivity between brain regions <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11682-018-9868-2">responsible for cognitive control</a>, and an amplification of those involved in <a href="https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(19)30761-4?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982219307614%3Fshowall%3Dtrue">threat and emotional processing</a>. The consequence of this is that the sleep-deprived brain is worse at <a href="https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/33/5/1610/6573958">learning new information</a>, <a href="https://academic.oup.com/sleep/article/44/6/zsaa289/6053003">poorer at regulating emotions</a>, and unable to <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2167702620951511">suppress intrusive thoughts</a>. Sleep loss may even make you less likely to <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001733">help other people</a>. These findings may explain why poor sleep quality is so <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jsr.13930">ubiquitous in poor mental health</a>. <h2>4. Sleep protects us against neurodegenerative diseases</h2> Although we naturally <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-34624-8">sleep less as we age</a>, mounting evidence suggests that sleep problems earlier in life <a href="https://jnnp.bmj.com/content/91/3/236">increase the risk</a> of dementia. The build-up of β-amyloid, a <a href="https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/alzheimers-disease/causes/">metabolic waste product</a>, is one of the mechanisms underlying Alzheimer’s disease. Recently, it has become apparent that deep, undisturbed sleep is good for <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aav5447">flushing these toxins</a> out of the brain. Sleep deprivation increases the the rate of build-up of β-amyloid in parts of the brain involved in memory, <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1721694115">such as the hippocampus</a>. A longitudinal study published in 2020 found that sleep problems were associated with a higher rate of β-amyloid accumulation at a follow-up <a href="https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(20)31171-4?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982220311714%3Fshowall%3Dtrue">four years later</a>. In a different study, published in 2022, sleep parameters <a href="https://elifesciences.org/articles/78191">forecasted the rate</a> of cognitive decline in participants over the following two years. <h2>5. We can engineer sleep</h2> The good news is that research is developing treatments to get a better night’s sleep and boost its benefits. For example, the <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jsr.14035">European Sleep Research Society</a> and the <a href="https://jcsm.aasm.org/doi/10.5664/jcsm.8986">American Academy of Sleep Medicine</a> recommend cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBT-I). <a href="https://www.cntw.nhs.uk/services/nctalkingtherapies/what-do-nc-talking-therapies-offer/cbt-i-cbt-for-insomnia/">CBT-I works by</a> identifying thoughts, feelings and behaviour that contribute to insomnia, which can then be modified to help promote sleep. In 2022, a CBT-I app became the <a href="https://www.nice.org.uk/news/article/nice-recommends-offering-app-based-treatment-for-people-with-insomnia-instead-of-sleeping-pills">first digital therapy</a> recommended by England’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for treatment on the NHS. These interventions can improve other aspects of our lives as well. A <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1087079221001416?via%3Dihub">2021 meta-analysis</a> of 65 clinical trials found that improving sleep via CBT-I reduced symptoms of depression, anxiety, rumination and stress.<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/230484/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dan-denis-158199">Dan Denis</a>, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Senior Research Fellow, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-york-1344">University of York</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/sleeping-on-it-really-does-help-and-four-other-recent-sleep-research-breakthroughs-230484">original article</a>.

Body

Are young people smarter than older adults? My research shows cognitive differences between generations are diminishing

<div class="theconversation-article-body"><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/stephen-badham-1531316">Stephen Badham</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/nottingham-trent-university-1338">Nottingham Trent University</a> We often assume young people are smarter, or at least quicker, than older people. For example, we’ve all heard that scientists, and even more so mathematicians, <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/nextavenue/2014/08/07/who-says-scientists-peak-by-age-50/">carry out their most important work</a> when they’re comparatively young. But my new research, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027322972400008X#:%7E:text=Highlights&text=Three%20review%20studies%20measure%20secular,%2C%20education%2C%20and%20overall%20health.">published in Developmental Review</a>, suggests that cognitive differences between the old and young are tapering off over time. This is hugely important as stereotypes about the intelligence of people in their sixties or older may be holding them back – in the workplace and beyond. Cognitive ageing is often measured by comparing young adults, aged 18-30, to older adults, aged 65 and over. There are a variety of tasks that older adults do not perform well on compared to young adults, such as memory, spatial ability and speed of processing, which often form the basis of <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-iq-test-wars-why-screening-for-intelligence-is-still-so-controversial-81428">IQ tests</a>. That said, there are a few tasks that older people do better at than younger people, such as reading comprehension and vocabulary. Declines in cognition are driven by a process called <a href="https://www.nature.com/collections/cbjacdabdf">cognitive ageing</a>, which happens to everyone. Surprisingly, age-related cognitive deficits start very early in adulthood, and declines in cognition have been measured as dropping in adults as young as just 25. Often, it is only when people reach older age that these effects add up to a noticeable amount. Common complaints consist of walking into a room and forgetting why you entered, as well as difficulty remembering names and struggling to drive in the dark. <h2>The trouble with comparison</h2> Sometimes, comparing young adults to older adults can be misleading though. The two generations were brought up in different times, with different levels of education, healthcare and nutrition. They also lead different daily lives, with some older people having lived though a world war while the youngest generation is growing up with the internet. Most of these factors favour the younger generation, and this can explain a proportion of their advantage in cognitive tasks. Indeed, much existing research shows that <a href="https://theconversation.com/iq-tests-are-humans-getting-smarter-158837">IQ has been improving</a> globally throughout the 20th century. This means that later-born generations are more cognitively able than those born earlier. This is even found when both generations are tested in the same way at the same age. Currently, there is growing evidence that <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1718793115">increases in IQ are levelling off,</a> such that, in the most recent couple of decades, young adults are no more cognitively able than young adults born shortly beforehand. Together, these factors may underlie the current result, namely that cognitive differences between young and older adults are diminishing over time. <h2>New results</h2> My research began when my team started getting strange results in our lab. We found that often the age differences we were getting between young and older adults was smaller or absent, compared to prior research from early 2000s. This prompted me to start looking at trends in age differences across the psychological literature in this area. I uncovered a variety of data that compared young and older adults from the 1960s up to the current day. I plotted this data against year of publication, and found that age deficits have been getting smaller over the last six decades. Next, I assessed if the average increases in cognitive ability over time seen across all individuals was a result that also applied to older adults specifically. Many large databases exist where groups of individuals are recruited every few years to take part in the same tests. I analysed studies using these data sets to look at older adults. I found that, just like younger people, older adults were indeed becoming more cognitively able with each cohort. But if differences are disappearing, does that mean younger people’s improvements in cognitive ability have slowed down or that older people’s have increased? I analysed data from my own laboratory that I had gathered over a seven-year period to find out. Here, I was able to dissociate the performance of the young from the performance of the older. I found that each cohort of young adults was performing to a similar extent across this seven-year period, but that older adults were showing improvements in both processing speed and vocabulary scores. <figure class="align-center "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/591482/original/file-20240501-24-esxcic.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/591482/original/file-20240501-24-esxcic.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=333&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/591482/original/file-20240501-24-esxcic.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=333&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/591482/original/file-20240501-24-esxcic.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=333&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/591482/original/file-20240501-24-esxcic.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/591482/original/file-20240501-24-esxcic.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/591482/original/file-20240501-24-esxcic.png?ixlib=rb-4.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="The figure shows data for a speed-based task where higher scores represent better performance." /><figcaption>The figure shows data for a speed-based task where higher scores represent better performance. <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></figcaption></figure> I believe the older adults of today are benefiting from many of the factors previously most applicable to young adults. For example, the number of children who went to school <a href="https://education-uk.org/history/chapter12.html">increased significantly</a> in the 1960s – with the system being more similar to what it is today than what it was at the start of the 20th century. This is being reflected in that cohort’s increased scores today, now they are older adults. At the same time, young adults have hit a ceiling and are no longer improving as much with each cohort. It is not entirely clear why the young generations have stopped improving so much. Some research has <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2016.10.002">explored maternal age, mental health and even evolutionary trends</a>. I favour the opinion that there is just a natural ceiling – a limit to how much factors such as education, nutrition and health can improve cognitive performance. These data have important implications for research into dementia. For example, it is possible that a modern older adult in the early stages of dementia might pass a dementia test that was designed 20 or 30 years ago for the general population at that time. Therefore, as older adults are performing better in general than previous generations, it may be necessary to revise definitions of dementia that depend on an individuals’ expected level of ability. Ultimately, we need to rethink what it means to become older. And there’s finally some good news. Ultimately, we can expect to be more cognitively able than our grandparents were when we reach their age.<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/229132/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/stephen-badham-1531316">Stephen Badham</a>, Professor of Psychology, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/nottingham-trent-university-1338">Nottingham Trent 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/are-young-people-smarter-than-older-adults-my-research-shows-cognitive-differences-between-generations-are-diminishing-229132">original article</a>. </div>

Mind

How much time should you spend sitting versus standing? New research reveals the perfect mix for optimal health

<div class="theconversation-article-body"><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/christian-brakenridge-1295221">Christian Brakenridge</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/baker-heart-and-diabetes-institute-974">Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute</a> People have a pretty intuitive sense of what is healthy – standing is better than sitting, exercise is great for overall health and getting <a href="https://theconversation.com/could-not-getting-enough-sleep-increase-your-risk-of-type-2-diabetes-225179">good sleep is imperative</a>. However, if exercise in the evening may disrupt our sleep, or make us feel the need to be more sedentary to recover, a key question emerges – what is the best way to balance our 24 hours to optimise our health? <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00125-024-06145-0">Our research</a> attempted to answer this for risk factors for heart disease, stroke and diabetes. We found the optimal amount of sleep was 8.3 hours, while for light activity and moderate to vigorous activity, it was best to get 2.2 hours each. <iframe id="dw4bx" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/dw4bx/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> <h2>Finding the right balance</h2> Current health guidelines recommend you stick to a <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/topics/physical-activity-and-exercise/physical-activity-and-exercise-guidelines-for-all-australians/for-adults-18-to-64-years">sensible regime</a> of moderate-to vigorous-intensity physical activity 2.5–5 hours per week. However <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2019.02.031">mounting evidence</a> now <a href="https://doi.org/10.2337/dc14-2073">suggests</a> how you spend your day can have meaningful ramifications for your health. In addition to moderate-to vigorous-intensity physical activity, this means the time you spend sitting, standing, doing light physical activity (such as walking around your house or office) and sleeping. Our research looked at more than 2,000 adults who wore body sensors that could interpret their physical behaviours, for seven days. This gave us a sense of how they spent their average 24 hours. At the start of the study participants had their waist circumference, blood sugar and insulin sensitivity measured. The body sensor and assessment data was matched and analysed then tested against health risk markers — such as a heart disease and stroke risk score — to create a model. Using this model, we fed through thousands of permutations of 24 hours and found the ones with the estimated lowest associations with heart disease risk and blood-glucose levels. This created many optimal mixes of sitting, standing, light and moderate intensity activity. When we looked at waist circumference, blood sugar, insulin sensitivity and a heart disease and stroke risk score, we noted differing optimal time zones. Where those zones mutually overlapped was ascribed the optimal zone for heart disease and diabetes risk. <h2>You’re doing more physical activity than you think</h2> We found light-intensity physical activity (defined as walking less than 100 steps per minute) – such as walking to the water cooler, the bathroom, or strolling casually with friends – had strong associations with glucose control, and especially in people with type 2 diabetes. This light-intensity physical activity is likely accumulated intermittently throughout the day rather than being a purposeful bout of light exercise. Our experimental evidence shows that <a href="https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/39/6/964/29532/Benefits-for-Type-2-Diabetes-of-Interrupting">interrupting our sitting</a> regularly with light-physical activity (such as taking a 3–5 minute walk every hour) can improve our metabolism, especially so after lunch. While the moderate-to-vigorous physical activity time might seem a quite high, at more than 2 hours a day, we defined it as more than 100 steps per minute. This equates to a brisk walk. It should be noted that these findings are preliminary. This is the first study of heart disease and diabetes risk and the “optimal” 24 hours, and the results will need further confirmation with longer prospective studies. The data is also cross-sectional. This means that the estimates of time use are correlated with the disease risk factors, meaning it’s unclear whether how participants spent their time influences their risk factors or whether those risk factors influence how someone spends their time. <h2>Australia’s adult physical activity guidelines need updating</h2> Australia’s <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/topics/physical-activity-and-exercise/physical-activity-and-exercise-guidelines-for-all-australians/for-adults-18-to-64-years">physical activity guidelines</a> currently only recommend exercise intensity and time. A <a href="https://www.uow.edu.au/media/2023/why-adults-need-to-move-more-stop-sitting-and-sleep-better-.php">new set of guidelines</a> are being developed to incorporate 24-hour movement. Soon Australians will be able to use these guidelines to examine their 24 hours and understand where they can make improvements. While our new research can inform the upcoming guidelines, we should keep in mind that the recommendations are like a north star: something to head towards to improve your health. In principle this means reducing sitting time where possible, increasing standing and light-intensity physical activity, increasing more vigorous intensity physical activity, and aiming for a healthy sleep of 7.5–9 hours per night. Beneficial changes could come in the form of reducing screen time in the evening or opting for an active commute over driving commute, or prioritising an earlier bed time over watching television in the evening. It’s also important to acknowledge these are recommendations for an able adult. We all have different considerations, and above all, movement should be fun.<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/228894/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/christian-brakenridge-1295221">Christian Brakenridge</a>, Postdoctoral research fellow at Swinburne University, Centre for Urban Transitions, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/baker-heart-and-diabetes-institute-974">Baker Heart and Diabetes Institute</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/how-much-time-should-you-spend-sitting-versus-standing-new-research-reveals-the-perfect-mix-for-optimal-health-228894">original article</a>. </div>

Body

What is childhood dementia? And how could new research help?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kim-hemsley-1529322">Kim Hemsley</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/flinders-university-972">Flinders University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nicholas-smith-1529324">Nicholas Smith</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-adelaide-1119">University of Adelaide</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/siti-mubarokah-1529323">Siti Mubarokah</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/flinders-university-972">Flinders University</a> “Childhood” and “dementia” are two words we wish we didn’t have to use together. But sadly, around <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awad242">1,400 Australian children and young people</a> live with currently untreatable childhood dementia. Broadly speaking, childhood dementia is caused by any one of <a href="https://www.childhooddementia.org/what-is-childhood-dementia#what">more than 100</a> rare genetic disorders. Although the causes differ from dementia acquired later in life, the progressive nature of the illness is the same. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awad242">Half</a> of infants and children diagnosed with childhood dementia will not reach their tenth birthday, and most will die <a href="https://www.childhooddementia.org/what-is-childhood-dementia#what">before turning 18</a>. Yet this devastating condition has lacked awareness, and importantly, the research attention needed to work towards treatments and a cure. <h2>More about the causes</h2> Most types of childhood dementia are <a href="https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/146/11/4446/7226999">caused</a> by <a href="https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Mutation">mutations</a> (or mistakes) in our <a href="https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Deoxyribonucleic-Acid">DNA</a>. These mistakes lead to a range of rare genetic disorders, which in turn cause childhood dementia. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awad242">Two-thirds</a> of childhood dementia disorders are caused by “<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459183/">inborn errors of metabolism</a>”. This means the metabolic pathways involved in the breakdown of carbohydrates, lipids, fatty acids and proteins in the body fail. As a result, nerve pathways fail to function, neurons (nerve cells that send messages around the body) die, and progressive cognitive decline occurs. <h2>What happens to children with childhood dementia?</h2> Most children initially appear unaffected. But after a period of apparently normal development, children with childhood dementia <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2023.09.006">progressively lose</a> all previously acquired skills and abilities, such as talking, walking, learning, remembering and reasoning. Childhood dementia also leads to significant changes in behaviour, such as aggression and hyperactivity. Severe sleep disturbance is common and vision and hearing can also be affected. Many children have seizures. The age when symptoms start can vary, depending partly on the particular genetic disorder causing the dementia, but the average is around <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fbrain%2Fawad242">two years old</a>. The symptoms are caused by significant, progressive brain damage. <h2>Are there any treatments available?</h2> Childhood dementia treatments currently <a href="https://www.childhooddementia.org/news/report-reveals-global-research-inequity">under evaluation</a> or approved are for a very limited number of disorders, and are only available in some parts of the world. These include gene replacement, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jmd2.12378">gene-modified cell therapy</a> and protein or <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1712649">enzyme replacement therapy</a>. Enzyme replacement therapy is available in Australia for <a href="https://australianprescriber.tg.org.au/articles/cerliponase-alfa-for-neuronal-ceroid-lipofuscinosis-type-2-disease.html">one form of childhood dementia</a>. These therapies attempt to “fix” the problems causing the disease, and have shown promising results. Other experimental therapies include ones that <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/life12050608">target</a> faulty protein production or <a href="https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2310151">reduce inflammation</a> in the brain. <h2>Research attention is lacking</h2> Death rates for Australian children with cancer <a href="http://www.childhooddementia.org/getasset/2WX39O">nearly halved</a> between <a href="https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/children-youth/australias-children/contents/health/cancer-incidence-survival">1997 and 2017</a> thanks to research that has enabled the development of multiple treatments. But over recent decades, <a href="http://www.childhooddementia.org/getasset/2WX39O">nothing has changed</a> for children with dementia. In 2017–2023, research for childhood cancer received over four times more funding per patient compared to funding for <a href="https://www.childhooddementia.org/getasset/2WX39O">childhood dementia</a>. This is despite childhood dementia causing a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awad242">similar number of deaths</a> each year as childhood cancer. The success <a href="https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/children-youth/australias-children/contents/health/cancer-incidence-survival">for childhood cancer sufferers</a> in recent decades demonstrates how adequately funding medical research can lead to improvements in patient outcomes. Another bottleneck for childhood dementia patients in Australia is the lack of access to clinical trials. An <a href="https://www.childhooddementia.org/news/report-reveals-global-research-inequity">analysis</a> published in March this year showed that in December 2023, only two clinical trials were recruiting patients with childhood dementia in Australia. Worldwide however, 54 trials were recruiting, meaning Australian patients and their families are left watching patients in other parts of the world receive potentially lifesaving treatments, with no recourse themselves. That said, we’ve seen a slowing in the establishment of <a href="https://www.childhooddementia.org/news/report-reveals-global-research-inequity">clinical trials</a> for childhood dementia across the world in recent years. In addition, we know from <a href="https://www.childhooddementia.org/join-us/professionals/impacts">consultation with families</a> that current care and support systems <a href="https://www.childhooddementia.org/getasset/44MLP8">are not meeting the needs</a> of children with dementia and their families. <h2>New research</h2> Recently, we were awarded <a href="https://www.premier.sa.gov.au/media-releases/news-items/major-funding-boost-for-research-into-childhood-dementia">new funding</a> for <a href="https://www.flinders.edu.au/giving/our-donors/impact-of-giving/improving-the-lives-of-children-with-dementia">our research</a> on childhood dementia. This will help us continue and expand studies that seek to develop lifesaving treatments. More broadly, we need to see increased funding in Australia and around the world for research to develop and translate treatments for the broad spectrum of childhood dementia conditions. Dr Kristina Elvidge, head of research at the <a href="https://www.childhooddementia.org/our-people">Childhood Dementia Initiative</a>, and Megan Maack, director and CEO, contributed to this article.<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/228508/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kim-hemsley-1529322">Kim Hemsley</a>, Head, Childhood Dementia Research Group, Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute, College of Medicine and Public Health, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/flinders-university-972">Flinders University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nicholas-smith-1529324">Nicholas Smith</a>, Head, Paediatric Neurodegenerative Diseases Research Group, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-adelaide-1119">University of Adelaide</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/siti-mubarokah-1529323">Siti Mubarokah</a>, Research Associate, Childhood Dementia Research Group, Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute, College of Medicine and Public Health, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/flinders-university-972">Flinders 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/what-is-childhood-dementia-and-how-could-new-research-help-228508">original article</a>.

Mind

Do optimists really live longer? Here’s what the research says

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/fuschia-sirois-331254">Fuschia Sirois</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/durham-university-867">Durham University</a> Do you tend to see the glass as half full, rather than half empty? Are you always looking on the bright side of life? If so, you may be surprised to learn that this tendency could actually be good for your health. A <a href="https://content.apa.org/record/2020-71981-001">number of studies</a> have shown that optimists enjoy higher levels of wellbeing, better sleep, lower stress and even better cardiovascular health and immune function. And now, <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35674052/">a recent study</a> has shown that being an optimist is linked to longer life. To conduct their study, researchers tracked the lifespan of nearly 160,000 women aged between 50 to 79 for a period of 26 years. At the beginning of the study, the women completed a <a href="https://local.psy.miami.edu/people/faculty/ccarver/availbale-self-report-instruments/lot-r/">self-report measure of optimism</a>. Women with the highest scores on the measure were categorised as optimists. Those with the lowest scores were considered pessimists. Then, in 2019, the researchers followed up with the participants who were still living. They also looked at the lifespan of participants who had died. What they found was that those who had the highest levels of optimism were more likely to live longer. More importantly, the optimists were also more likely than those who were pessimists to live into their nineties. Researchers refer to this as “exceptional longevity”, considering the average lifespan for women is about 83 years in developed countries. What makes these findings especially impressive is that the results remained even after accounting for other factors known to predict a long life – including education level and economic status, ethnicity, and whether a person suffered from depression or other chronic health conditions. But given this study only looked at women, it’s uncertain whether the same would be true for men. However, <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1900712116">another study</a> which looked at both men and women also found that people with the highest levels of optimism enjoyed a lifespan that was between 11% and 15% longer than those who were the least optimistic. <h2>The fountain of youth?</h2> So why is it that optimists live longer? At first glance it would seem that it may have to do with their healthier lifestyle. For example, <a href="https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.117.310828">research from several studies</a> has found that optimism is linked to eating a healthy diet, staying physically active, and being less likely to smoke cigarettes. These healthy behaviours are well known to improve heart health and <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/noncommunicable-diseases">reduce the risk</a> for cardiovascular disease, which is a <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cardiovascular-diseases-(cvds)">leading cause of death</a> globally. Adopting a healthy lifestyle is also <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3857242/">important for reducing the risk</a> of other potentially deadly diseases, such as diabetes and cancer. But having a healthy lifestyle may only be part of the reason optimists live a longer than average life. This latest study found that lifestyle only accounted for 24% of the link between optimism and longevity. This suggests a number of other factors affect longevity for optimists. Another possible reason could be due to the way optimists manage stress. When faced with a stressful situation, optimists tend to deal with it head-on. They <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16859439/">use adaptive coping strategies</a> that help them resolve the source of the stress, or view the situation in a less stressful way. For example, optimists will problem-solve and plan ways to deal with the stressor, call on others for support, or try to find a “silver lining” in the stressful situation. All of these approaches are well-known to reduce feelings of stress, as well as the biological reactions that occur when we feel stressed. It’s these <a href="https://www.apa.org/topics/stress/body">biological reactions to stress</a> –- such as elevated cortisol (sometimes called the “stress hormone”), increased heart rate and blood pressure, and impaired immune system functioning –- that can take a toll on health over time and increase the risk for developing <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889159115004316?via%3Dihub">life-threatening diseases</a>, such as cardiovascular disease. In short, the way optimists cope with stress may help protect them somewhat against its harmful effects. <h2>Looking on the bright side</h2> Optimism is typically viewed by researchers as a relatively stable personality trait that is determined by both <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/twin-research-and-human-genetics/article/sex-differences-in-the-genetic-architecture-of-optimism-and-health-and-their-interrelation-a-study-of-australian-and-swedish-twins/58F21AA11943D44B4BA4C63A966E6AC7">genetic</a> and early childhood influences (such as having a <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6541423/">secure and warm relationship</a> with your parents or caregivers). But if you’re not naturally prone to seeing the glass as half full, there are some ways you can increase your <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17439760.2016.1221122?journalCode=rpos20">capacity to be optimistic</a>. Research shows optimism can change over time, and can be cultivated by engaging in simple exercises. For example, visualising and then writing about your “<a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/what-matters-most/201303/what-is-your-best-possible-self">best possible self</a>” (a future version of yourself who has accomplished your goals) is a technique that studies have found can <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17439760.2016.1221122">significantly increase optimism</a>, at least temporarily. But for best results, the goals need to be both positive and reasonable, rather than just wishful thinking. Similarly, simply <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3200/SOCP.149.3.349-364">thinking about positive future events</a> can also be effective for boosting optimism. It’s also crucial to temper any expectations for success with an accurate view of what you can and can’t control. Optimism is reinforced when we experience the positive outcomes that we expect, and <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1970-20680-001">can decrease</a> when these outcomes aren’t as we want them to be. Although more research is needed, it’s possible that regularly envisioning yourself as having the best possible outcomes, and taking realistic steps towards achieving them, can help develop an optimistic mindset. Of course, this might be easier said than done for some. If you’re someone who isn’t naturally optimistic, the best chances to improve your longevity is by <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003332">living a healthy lifestyle</a> by staying physically active, eating a healthy diet, managing stress, and getting a good night’s sleep. Add to this cultivating a more optimistic mindset and you might further increase your chances for a long life.<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/184785/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/fuschia-sirois-331254">Fuschia Sirois</a>, Professor in Social & Health Psychology, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/durham-university-867">Durham University</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/do-optimists-really-live-longer-heres-what-the-research-says-184785">original article</a>.

Caring

Eating some chocolate really might be good for you – here’s what the research says

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dan-baumgardt-1451396">Dan Baumgardt</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-bristol-1211">University of Bristol</a> Although it always makes me scoff slightly to see Easter eggs making their first appearance in supermarkets at the end of December, there are few people who aren’t delighted to receive a bit of chocolate every year. It makes sense that too much chocolate would be bad for you because of the high fat and sugar content in most products. But what should we make of common claims that eating some chocolate is actually good for you? Happily, there is a fair amount of evidence that shows, in the right circumstances, chocolate may be both beneficial for your heart and good for your mental state. In fact, chocolate – or more specifically cacao, the raw, unrefined bean – is a medicinal wonder. It contains many different active compounds which can evoke pharmacological effects within the body, like medicines or drugs. Compounds that lead to neurological effects in the brain have to be able to cross the <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-13443-2_7">blood-brain barrier</a>, the protective shield which prevents harmful substances – like toxins and bacteria – entering the delicate nervous tissue. One of these is the compound <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3672386/">theobromine</a>, which is also found in tea and contributes towards its bitter taste. Tea and chocolate also contain caffeine, which theobromine is related to as part of the purine family of chemicals. These chemicals, among others, contribute to chocolate’s addictive nature. They have the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier, where they can influence the nervous system. They are therefore known as <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15549276/">psychoactive</a> chemicals. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HloqayQdR6M?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> What effects can chocolate have on mood? Well, <a href="https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article/71/10/665/1931144?login=false">a systematic review</a> looked at a group of studies which examined the feelings and emotions associated with consuming chocolate. Most demonstrated improvements in mood, anxiety, energy and states of arousal. Some noted the feeling of guilt, which is perhaps something we’ve all felt after one too many Dairy Milks. <h2>Health benefits of cocoa</h2> There are other organs, aside from the brain, that might benefit from the medicinal effects of cocoa. For centuries, chocolate has been used as a medicine to treat a <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10917925/">long list of diseases</a> including anaemia, tuberculosis, gout and even low libido. These might be spurious claims but there is evidence to suggest that eating cacao has a positive effect on the cardiovascular system. First, it can prevent <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8068178/">endothelial dysfunction</a>. This is the process through which arteries harden and get laden down with fatty plaques, which can in turn lead to heart attacks and strokes. Eating dark chocolate may also reduce <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1537189115001135?via%3Dihub">blood pressure</a>, which is another risk factor for developing arterial disease, and prevent formation of clots which block up blood vessels. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8VUcPCbSSCY?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> Some studies have suggested that dark chocolate might be useful in adjusting ratios of <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20968113/">high-density lipoprotein cholesterol</a>, which can help protect the heart. Others have examined insulin resistance, the phenomenon associated with Type 2 diabetes and weight gain. They suggest that the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0963996900000697#:%7E:text=Cocoa%20is%20rich%20in%20polyphenols%20particularly%20in%20catechins,and%20cocoa%20powder%20have%20been%20published%20only%20recently.">polyphenols</a> – chemical compounds present in plants – found in foodstuffs like chocolate may also lead to <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29993262/">improved control of blood sugars</a>. <h2>Chocolate toxicity</h2> As much as chocolate might be considered a medicine for some, it can be a poison for others. It’s well documented that the ingestion of caffeine and theobromine is highly toxic for domestic animals. Dogs are <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4801869/">particularly affected</a> because of their often voracious appetites and generally unfussy natures. The culprit is often dark chocolate, which can provoke symptoms of agitation, rigid muscles and even seizures. In certain cases, if ingested in high enough quantities, it can lead to comas and abnormal, even fatal heart rhythms. Some of the compounds found in chocolate have also been found to have potentially negative effects in humans. Chocolate is a source of oxalate which, along with calcium, is one of the main components of <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20301742/">kidney stones</a>. Some clinical groups have advised against consuming oxalate rich foods, such as spinach and rhubarb – and chocolate, for those who suffer from recurrent kidney stones. So, what should all this mean for our chocolate consumption habits? Science points in the direction of chocolate that has as high a cocoa solid content as possible, and the minimum of extras. The potentially harmful effects of chocolate are more related to fat and sugar, and may counteract any possible benefits. A daily dose of 20g-30g of plain or dark chocolate with cocoa solids above 70% – rather than milk chocolate, which contains fewer solids and white chocolate, which contains none – could lead to a greater health benefit, as well as a greater high. But whatever chocolate you go for, please don’t share it with the dog.<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/226759/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dan-baumgardt-1451396">Dan Baumgardt</a>, Senior Lecturer, School of Physiology, Pharmacology and Neuroscience, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-bristol-1211">University of Bristol</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/eating-some-chocolate-really-might-be-good-for-you-heres-what-the-research-says-226759">original article</a>.

Body

Running or yoga can help beat depression, research shows – even if exercise is the last thing you feel like

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michael-noetel-147460">Michael Noetel</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-queensland-805">The University of Queensland</a> At least <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.665019/full">one in ten people</a> have depression at some point in their lives, with some estimates <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749379720301793">closer to one in four</a>. It’s one of the worst things for someone’s wellbeing – worse than <a href="https://www.happinessresearchinstitute.com/_files/ugd/928487_4a99b6e23f014f85b38495b7ab1ac24b.pdf">debt, divorce or diabetes</a>. <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-are-so-many-australians-taking-antidepressants-221857">One in seven</a> Australians take antidepressants. Psychologists are in <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-cant-solve-australias-mental-health-emergency-if-we-dont-train-enough-psychologists-here-are-5-fixes-190135">high demand</a>. Still, only <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003901">half</a> of people with depression in high-income countries get treatment. Our <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj-2023-075847">new research</a> shows that exercise should be considered alongside therapy and antidepressants. It can be just as impactful in treating depression as therapy, but it matters what type of exercise you do and how you do it. <h2>Walk, run, lift, or dance away depression</h2> We found 218 randomised trials on exercise for depression, with 14,170 participants. We analysed them using a method called a network meta-analysis. This allowed us to see how different types of exercise compared, instead of lumping all types together. We found walking, running, strength training, yoga and mixed aerobic exercise were about as effective as <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-cognitive-behaviour-therapy-37351">cognitive behaviour therapy</a> – one of the <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00004/full">gold-standard treatments</a> for depression. The effects of dancing were also powerful. However, this came from analysing just five studies, mostly involving young women. Other exercise types had more evidence to back them. Walking, running, strength training, yoga and mixed aerobic exercise seemed more effective than antidepressant medication alone, and were about as effective as exercise alongside antidepressants. But of these exercises, people were most likely to stick with strength training and yoga. <iframe id="cZaWb" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" style="border: none;" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/cZaWb/2/" width="100%" height="400px" frameborder="0"></iframe> Antidepressants certainly help <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/article/S0140-6736(17)32802-7/fulltext">some people</a>. And of course, anyone getting treatment for depression should talk to their doctor <a href="https://australia.cochrane.org/news/new-cochrane-review-explores-latest-evidence-approaches-stopping-long-term-antidepressants">before changing</a> what they are doing. Still, our evidence shows that if you have depression, you should get a psychologist and an exercise plan, whether or not you’re taking antidepressants. <h2>Join a program and go hard (with support)</h2> Before we analysed the data, we thought people with depression might need to “ease into it” with generic advice, <a href="https://www.who.int/initiatives/behealthy/physical-activity">such as</a> “some physical activity is better than doing none.” But we found it was far better to have a clear program that aimed to push you, at least a little. Programs with clear structure worked better, compared with those that gave people lots of freedom. Exercising by yourself might also make it hard to set the bar at the right level, given low self-esteem is a symptom of depression. We also found it didn’t matter how much people exercised, in terms of sessions or minutes a week. It also didn’t really matter how long the exercise program lasted. What mattered was the intensity of the exercise: the higher the intensity, the better the results. <h2>Yes, it’s hard to keep motivated</h2> We should exercise caution in interpreting the findings. Unlike drug trials, participants in exercise trials know which “treatment” they’ve been randomised to receive, so this may skew the results. Many people with depression have physical, psychological or social barriers to participating in formal exercise programs. And getting support to exercise isn’t free. We also still don’t know the best way to stay motivated to exercise, which can be even harder if you have depression. Our study tried to find out whether things like setting exercise goals helped, but we couldn’t get a clear result. Other reviews found it’s important to have a <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31923898/">clear action plan</a> (for example, putting exercise in your calendar) and to <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19916637/">track your progress</a> (for example, using an app or smartwatch). But predicting which of these interventions work is notoriously difficult. A <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04128-4">2021 mega-study</a> of more than 60,000 gym-goers <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04128-4/figures/1">found</a> experts struggled to predict which strategies might get people into the gym more often. Even making workouts fun didn’t seem to motivate people. However, listening to audiobooks while exercising helped a lot, which no experts predicted. Still, we can be confident that people benefit from personalised support and accountability. The support helps overcome the hurdles they’re sure to hit. The accountability keeps people going even when their brains are telling them to avoid it. So, when starting out, it seems wise to avoid going it alone. Instead: <ul> <li> join a fitness group or yoga studio </li> <li> get a trainer or an exercise physiologist </li> <li> ask a friend or family member to go for a walk with you. </li> </ul> Taking a few steps towards getting that support makes it more likely you’ll keep exercising. <h2>Let’s make this official</h2> Some countries see exercise as a backup plan for treating depression. For example, the American Psychological Association only <a href="https://www.apa.org/depression-guideline/">conditionally recommends</a> exercise as a “complementary and alternative treatment” when “psychotherapy or pharmacotherapy is either ineffective or unacceptable”. Based on our research, this recommendation is withholding a potent treatment from many people who need it. In contrast, The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists <a href="https://www.ranzcp.org/getmedia/a4678cf4-91f5-4746-99d4-03dc7379ae51/mood-disorders-clinical-practice-guideline-2020.pdf">recommends</a> vigorous aerobic activity at least two to three times a week for all people with depression. Given how common depression is, and the number failing to receive care, other countries should follow suit and recommend exercise alongside front-line treatments for depression. I would like to acknowledge my colleagues Taren Sanders, Chris Lonsdale and the rest of the coauthors of the paper on which this article is based. If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.<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/223441/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michael-noetel-147460">Michael Noetel</a>, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-queensland-805">The University of Queensland</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/running-or-yoga-can-help-beat-depression-research-shows-even-if-exercise-is-the-last-thing-you-feel-like-223441">original article</a>.

Body

Out of the rabbit hole: new research shows people can change their minds about conspiracy theories

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/matt-williams-666794">Matt Williams</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/massey-university-806">Massey University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-kerr-1073102">John Kerr</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-otago-1304">University of Otago</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/mathew-marques-14884">Mathew Marques</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/la-trobe-university-842">La Trobe University</a> Many people <a href="https://theconversation.com/was-phar-lap-killed-by-gangsters-new-research-shows-which-conspiracies-people-believe-in-and-why-158610">believe at least one</a> conspiracy theory. And that isn’t necessarily a bad thing – conspiracies do happen. To take just one example, the CIA really did engage in <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/13/cia-mind-control-1266649">illegal experiments</a> in the 1950s to identify drugs and procedures that might produce confessions from captured spies. However, many conspiracy theories are not supported by evidence, yet still attract believers. For example, in a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12746">previous study</a>, we found about 7% of New Zealanders and Australians agreed with the theory that <a href="https://www.earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-planet/on-the-trail-of-contrails">visible trails behind aircraft</a> are “chemtrails” of chemical agents sprayed as part of a secret government program. That’s despite the theory being <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/8/084011">roundly rejected</a> by the scientific community. The fact that conspiracy theories attract believers despite a lack of credible evidence remains a puzzle for researchers in psychology and other academic disciplines. Indeed, there has been a great deal of research on conspiracy theories published in the past few years. We now know more about how many people believe them, as well as the psychological and political factors that <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-25617-0">correlate with that belief</a>. But we know much less about how often people change their minds. Do they do so frequently, or do they to stick tenaciously to their beliefs, regardless of what evidence they come across? <h2>From 9/11 to COVID</h2> We set out to answer this question using a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-51653-z">longitudinal survey</a>. We recruited 498 Australians and New Zealanders (using the <a href="http://prolific.com">Prolific</a> website, which recruits people to take part in paid research). Each month from March to September 2021, we presented our sample group with a survey, including ten conspiracy theories, and asked them how much they agreed with each one. All of these theories related to claims about events that are either ongoing, or occurred this millennium: the September 11 attacks, the rollout of 5G telecommunications technology, and COVID-19, among others. While there were definitely some believers in our sample, most participants disagreed with each of the theories. The most popular theory was that “pharmaceutical companies (‘Big Pharma’) have suppressed a cure for cancer to protect their profits”. Some 18% of the sample group agreed when first asked. The least popular was the theory that “COVID-19 ‘vaccines’ contain microchips to monitor and control people”. Only 2% agreed. <h2>Conspiracy beliefs probably aren’t increasing</h2> Despite contemporary concerns about a “<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7320252/">pandemic of misinformation</a>” or “<a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30461-X/fulltext">infodemic</a>”, we found no evidence that individual beliefs in conspiracy theories increased on average over time. This was despite our data collection happening during the tumultuous second year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lockdowns were still happening occasionally in both <a href="https://www.timeout.com/melbourne/things-to-do/a-timeline-of-covid-19-in-australia-two-years-on">Australia</a> and <a href="https://covid19.govt.nz/about-our-covid-19-response/history-of-the-covid-19-alert-system/">New Zealand</a>, and anti-government sentiment was building. While we only tracked participants for six months, <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0270429">other studies</a> over much longer time frames have also found little evidence that beliefs in conspiracy theories are increasing over time. <hr /> <iframe class="flourish-embed-iframe" style="width: 100%; height: 600px;" title="Interactive or visual content" src="https://flo.uri.sh/visualisation/16665395/embed" width="100%" height="400" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" sandbox="allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-scripts allow-downloads allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation"></iframe> <div style="width: 100%!; margin-top: 4px!important; text-align: right!important;"><a class="flourish-credit" href="https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/16665395/?utm_source=embed&utm_campaign=visualisation/16665395" target="_top"><img src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/made_with_flourish.svg" alt="Made with Flourish" /></a></div> <hr /> Finally, we found that beliefs (or non-beliefs) in conspiracy theories were stable – but not completely fixed. For any given theory, the vast majority of participants were “consistent sceptics” – not agreeing with the theory at any point. There were also some “consistent believers” who agreed at every point in the survey they responded to. For most theories, this was the second-largest group. Yet for every conspiracy theory, there was also a small proportion of converts. They disagreed with the theory at the start of the study, but agreed with it by the end. There was also a small proportion of “apostates” who agreed with the theory at the start, but disagreed by the end. Nevertheless, the percentages of converts and apostates tended to balance each other pretty closely, leaving the percentage of believers fairly stable over time. <h2>Inside the ‘rabbit hole’</h2> This relative stability is interesting, because <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/2564659">one criticism</a> of conspiracy theories is that they may not be “<a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/criterion-of-falsifiability">falsifiable</a>”: what seems like evidence against a conspiracy theory can just be written off by believers as part of the cover up. Yet people clearly do sometimes decide to reject conspiracy theories they previously believed. Our findings bring into question the popular notion of the “rabbit hole” – that people rapidly develop beliefs in a succession of conspiracy theories, much as Alice tumbles down into Wonderland in Lewis Carroll’s <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11">famous story</a>. While it’s possible this does happen for a small number of people, our results suggest it isn’t a typical experience. For most, the <a href="https://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2023/opinion/how-to-talk-to-someone-about-conspiracy-theories">journey into</a> conspiracy theory belief might involve a more gradual slope – a bit like a <a href="https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1985.tb05649.x">real rabbit burrow</a>, from which one can also emerge. <hr /> Mathew Ling (<a href="https://www.neaminational.org.au/">Neami National</a>), Stephen Hill (Massey University) and Edward Clarke (Philipps-Universität Marburg) contributed to the research referred to in this article.<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/222507/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <hr /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/matt-williams-666794">Matt Williams</a>, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/massey-university-806">Massey University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-kerr-1073102">John Kerr</a>, Senior Research Fellow, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-otago-1304">University of Otago</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/mathew-marques-14884">Mathew Marques</a>, Senior Lecturer in Social Psychology, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/la-trobe-university-842">La Trobe 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/out-of-the-rabbit-hole-new-research-shows-people-can-change-their-minds-about-conspiracy-theories-222507">original article</a>.

Mind

Ballet flats are back. Here’s what the research says about how they affect your feet

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kristin-graham-1427672">Kristin Graham</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-south-australia-1180">University of South Australia</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/helen-banwell-305575">Helen Banwell</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-south-australia-1180">University of South Australia</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/saravana-kumar-181105">Saravana Kumar</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-south-australia-1180">University of South Australia</a> Ballet flat shoes – those thin-heeled lightweight slip-on shoes – are making a fashion <a href="https://www.vogue.com/slideshow/ballet-flats">comeback</a>. And it’s not hard to see why: they’re versatile, easy to wear, soft, flexible and often worn by celebrities. We have often been warned of the dangers of high-heeled shoes, so you might think ballet flats are problem-free. When you look at the research, however, a complicated picture emerges. There’s no definitive evidence to show ballet flats are generally harmful to foot health in the long-term. But ill-fitting ballet flats can be a problem. <h2>Make sure it fits, especially in the toe box</h2> An estimated <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30065787/">70%</a> of the population are wearing ill-fitting shoes. This mismatch between foot and shoe shape can increase foot pain, <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17507530/">reduce stability</a>, and can mean more blisters, corns and calluses. And habitual wearing of tight shoes has been <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0958259207000533">associated</a> with bone changes in the toes and feet over time. Many flats feature a shallow and narrow toe box (the part of the shoe where the toes go). A too-small toe box often doesn’t align with the shape of a foot and ends up squishing the toes. It can also <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0958259206000770">increase</a> pressure on top of and under the foot, and <a href="https://jfootankleres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1757-1146-6-28">restrict</a> the movement of the forefoot during walking. But a too-big toe box is also a problem. Too much foot movement within the shoe can cause pressure and friction on the skin, which can also lead to calluses, corns, blisters, and wounds. A poorly fitting toe box can also cause micro trauma to toenails which, ultimately, can change <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anuva-Bansal/publication/347522694_Traumatic_Nail_Disorders/links/60d6135592851ca94487df7e/Traumatic-Nail-Disorders.pdf">their look and thickness</a>. So if you’re wearing flats, make sure you choose a shoe with the right sized toe box. <h2>What about the heel?</h2> Health professionals often recommend a small heel over a completely flat shoe. Very flat shoes can <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27498844/">place</a> <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268003307002082">more</a> strain on the soft tissues that support the foot arch – specifically, the plantar fascia. <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27498844/">Research</a> has shown moving from a completely flat shoe to a small, raised heel reduces the tension force on the plantar fascia during standing activities. On the other hand, other <a href="https://journals.lww.com/jpojournal/Fulltext/2009/01000/Effects_of_Shoe_Heel_Height_on_the_Roll_Over.7.aspx#:%7E:text=The%20roll%2Dover%20shapes%20seem,without%20a%20change%20in%20alignment.&text=Photographs%20of%20the%20prosthetic%20feet,shapes%20of%20these%20feet%20superimposed">research</a> has shown most people will adapt their ankle and knee motion to accommodate shoes of different heel heights. <h2>What about support?</h2> Ballet flats tend to have very flexible, thin soles and heel counters (the part, coloured red in this picture, that hugs the heel and the back part of the foot). These thin and flexible structures mean flats are often accused of lacking support. But debate rages among foot and shoe experts about how important support is in the first place. <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27729290/">Research</a> on barefoot-style shoes has shown walking in these types of shoes significantly reduces some loads on the knee compared to more stable supportive shoes. Minimalist shoes have also been found to <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30102872/">increase strength</a> in certain foot muscles used when we push off during walking, running or jumping. However, other research found stable supportive shoes can <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33428439/">improve knee pain</a> when walking more than flat flexible shoes. The thin soles in flats mean there is little cushioning under the foot. While more cushioning can improve comfort, and reduce stress and strain on your foot sole <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0021929011001758?casa_token=gecXFCMi0LcAAAAA:TazyTd8TRaAl_bG0jprifYIUIlWRDwEH6bVeymBYTWups2iDGMuUjLs2gaNqsiNGHVJhHC3J9AdB">skin</a>, there is no evidence it reduces loads across the lower leg. In fact, walking in cushioned shoes has been shown to <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20191571/">increase</a> the load on the knee compared to flat, flexible shoes. <h2>So, what’s the verdict?</h2> The verdict is mixed. Yes, there’s evidence poorly fitting shoes and a flat heel can be detrimental, with consequences seen in the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966636221000199">rearfoot</a> (around the ankle) and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966636218300687">knee</a>. But there’s also no hard evidence ballet flats cause long-term foot health problems. What matters is choosing a well-fitted shoe to suit your foot shape and needs. If you’re shopping for ballet flats, try to: <ul> <li> choose a pair with a toe box that does not cramp your toes and has a sole at least as wide as your foot </li> <li> choose flats that offer at least some structure and support </li> <li> choose a pair with a small heel rather being than completely flat.<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/207806/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> </li> </ul> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kristin-graham-1427672">Kristin Graham</a>, Lecturer in Podiatry, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-south-australia-1180">University of South Australia</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/helen-banwell-305575">Helen Banwell</a>, Lecturer in Podiatry, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-south-australia-1180">University of South Australia</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/saravana-kumar-181105">Saravana Kumar</a>, Professor in Allied Health and Health Services Research, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-south-australia-1180">University of South Australia</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/ballet-flats-are-back-heres-what-the-research-says-about-how-they-affect-your-feet-207806">original article</a>.

Beauty & Style

Research reveals who’s been hit hardest by global warming in their lifetime - and the answer may surprise you

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/andrew-king-103126">Andrew King</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ed-hawkins-104793">Ed Hawkins</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-reading-902">University of Reading</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hunter-douglas-1460792">Hunter Douglas</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/te-herenga-waka-victoria-university-of-wellington-1200">Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/luke-harrington-489028">Luke Harrington</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-waikato-781">University of Waikato</a> Earth is warming and the signs of climate change are everywhere. We’ve seen it in the past few weeks as temperatures hit record highs around the world – both in the Northern Hemisphere and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-is-australia-having-such-a-warm-winter-a-climate-expert-explains-210693">warm Australian winter</a>. Global warming is caused by humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions, which continue at <a href="https://theconversation.com/global-carbon-emissions-at-record-levels-with-no-signs-of-shrinking-new-data-shows-humanity-has-a-monumental-task-ahead-193108">near-record pace</a>. These emissions are predominantly generated by people in the world’s wealthiest regions. Our world-first analysis, <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2752-5295/aceff2">published today</a>, examines the experience of global warming over the lifetimes of people around the world: young and old, rich and poor. We sought to identify who has perceived warmer temperatures most keenly. We found middle-aged people in equatorial regions have lived through the most perceptible warming in their lifetimes. But many young people in lower-income countries could experience unrecognisable changes in their local climate later in life, unless the world rapidly tackles climate change. <h2>Measuring the climate change experience</h2> We examined temperature data and population demographics information from around the world. Key to our analysis was the fact that not all warming is due to human activity. Some of it is caused by natural, year-to-year variations in Earth’s climate. These natural ups and downs are due to a number of factors. They include variations in the energy Earth receives from the sun, the effects of volcanic eruptions, and transfers of heat between the atmosphere and the ocean. This variability is stronger in mid-to-high-latitude parts of the world (those further from the equator) than in low-latitude areas (in equatorial regions). That’s because the weather systems further away from the equator draw in hot or cold air from neighbouring areas, but equatorial areas don’t receive cold air at all. That’s why, for example, the annual average temperature in New York is naturally more variable than in the city of Kinshasa (in the Democratic Republic of Congo). To account for this, we applied what’s known as the “<a href="https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/346.htm#:%7E:text=The%20%EF%BF%BDsignal%20to%20noise,to%20this%20natural%20variability%20noise.">signal-to-noise ratio</a>” at each location we studied. That allowed us to separate the strength of the climate change “signal” from the “noise” of natural variability. Making this distinction is important. The less naturally variable the temperature, the clearer the effects of warming. So warming in Kinshasa over the past 50 years has been much more perceptible than in New York. Our study examined two central questions. First, we wanted to know, for every location in the world, how clearly global warming could be perceived, relative to natural temperature variability. Second, we wanted to know where this perceived change was most clear over human lifetimes. <figure class="align-center zoomable"><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/541474/original/file-20230807-17-ogjdti.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/541474/original/file-20230807-17-ogjdti.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/541474/original/file-20230807-17-ogjdti.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541474/original/file-20230807-17-ogjdti.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541474/original/file-20230807-17-ogjdti.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541474/original/file-20230807-17-ogjdti.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541474/original/file-20230807-17-ogjdti.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/541474/original/file-20230807-17-ogjdti.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="Annual-average temperatures at four major cities with signal-to-noise ratios shown for 20, 50 and 80 years up to 2021." /></a><figcaption>Annual-average temperatures at four major cities with signal-to-noise ratios shown for 20, 50 and 80 years up to 2021. Author provided</figcaption></figure> <h2>Our results</h2> So what did we find? As expected, the most perceptible warming is found in tropical regions – those near the equator. This includes developing parts of the world that constitute the Global South – such as Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Asia. Household incomes in the Global South are typically lower than in industrialised nations (known as the Global North). We might, then, conclude people in the poorest parts of the world have experienced the most perceptible global warming over their lifetimes. But that’s not always the case. Why? Because most parts of the Global South have younger populations than wealthier regions. And some people under the age of 20, including in northern India and parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, haven’t experienced warming over their lifetimes. In these places, the lack of recent warming is likely down to a few factors: natural climate variability, and the local cooling effect of particles released into the atmosphere from <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac3b7a">pollution</a> and changes in land use. There’s another complication. Some populated regions of the world also experienced slight cooling in the mid-20th century, primarily driven by human-caused <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10946">aerosol emissions</a>. So, many people born earlier than the 1950s have experienced less perceptible warming in their local area than those born in the 1960s and 1970s. This may seem counter-intuitive. But a cooling trend in the first few decades of one’s life means the warming experienced over an entire lifespan (from birth until today) is smaller and less detectable. So what does all this mean? People in equatorial areas born in the 1960s and 1970s – now aged between about 45 and 65 – have experienced more perceptible warming than anyone else on Earth. <h2>Rich countries must act</h2> Our findings are important, for several reasons. Identifying who has experienced significant global warming in their lives may help explain <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2660">attitudes to tackling climate change</a>. Our findings also raise significant issues of fairness and equity. Humanity will continue to warm the planet until we reach global net-zero emissions. This means many young people in lower-income countries may, later in life, experience a local climate that is unrecognisable to that of their youth. Of course, warming temperatures are not the only way people experience climate change. Others include sea-level rise, more intense drought and rainfall extremes. We know many of these impacts are felt most acutely by <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/5/11/climate-change-is-devastating-the-global-south">the most vulnerable populations</a>. Cumulative greenhouse gas emissions are much higher in the Global North, due to economic development. To address this inequality, rich industrialised nations must take a leading role in reducing emissions to net-zero, and helping vulnerable countries adapt to climate change.<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/211108/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/andrew-king-103126">Andrew King</a>, Senior Lecturer in Climate Science, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ed-hawkins-104793">Ed Hawkins</a>, Professor of Climate Science, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-reading-902">University of Reading</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hunter-douglas-1460792">Hunter Douglas</a>, PhD Candidate, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/te-herenga-waka-victoria-university-of-wellington-1200">Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/luke-harrington-489028">Luke Harrington</a>, Senior Lecturer in Climate Change, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-waikato-781">University of Waikato</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/research-reveals-whos-been-hit-hardest-by-global-warming-in-their-lifetime-and-the-answer-may-surprise-you-211108">original article</a>.

Travel Trouble

Ken’s rights? Our research shows Barbie is surprisingly accurate on how ‘men’s rights activists’ are radicalised

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/lucy-nicholas-145660">Lucy Nicholas</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/western-sydney-university-1092">Western Sydney University</a> In the Barbie movie, we open with a picture of a perfect Barbieland where (almost) everyone is happy, diversity and sisterhood are embraced, and Barbies hold all positions of power. The Kens however, reflecting the popularity of the dolls in the real world, play a mainly decorative role. Spoilers for Barbie follow. In the film, we see a disgruntled Ken (played hilariously by Ryan Gosling) follow “Stereotypical” Barbie (Margot Robbie) to the real world where she has to find her human owner. This is all to fix an error that is allowing the real world to seep into Barbie land, with symptoms such as Barbie having an existential crisis. In the real world, Ken discovers the concept of the patriarchy. This sees him take a journey that is clearly influenced by, and pokes fun at, many aspects of contemporary anti-feminist men’s rights culture. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pBk4NYhWNMM?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> <h2>Barbieland and the matriarchy</h2> It has been proposed that <a href="https://theconversation.com/in-greta-gerwigs-barbie-land-the-matriarchy-can-be-just-as-bad-as-the-patriarchy-209317">Barbieland is a matriarchy</a>, but I would argue that their attitude to Kens is instead indifference. Ken was aggrieved that Barbie didn’t notice him and reciprocate his affections. This is not dissimilar to the grievances of some real-life men under contemporary feminism. Why don’t women’s lives revolve around them? And what can they do to address this perceived injustice? The movie cleverly parallels the emotions, narratives and logics that lead men to extreme antifeminist and misogynistic thinking, and in doing so exposes the flimsiness of their foundations. Having undertaken <a href="https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2020-12/apo-nid307612.pdf">research</a> on online antifeminist discourses, Ken’s journey from aggrievement to masculine “enlightenment” parallels themes we found in Men’s Rights Activist spaces. Radicalisation into this world is often motivated by a feeling among boys and men of being left behind by a feminist world or system that doesn’t value them. This then leads them to long for an imagined natural order of patriarchy where women are back in their place and men regain their entitlements. These logics underpin <a href="https://theconversation.com/yes-the-incel-community-has-a-sexism-problem-but-we-can-do-something-about-it-207206">incel</a> culture, a movement that is increasingly understood as a terror threat, and has been associated with various acts of terror, such as the 2022 Aotearoa New Zealand <a href="https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/closest-to-an-incel-attack-nz-has-had-experts-concern-after-attempted-murder-of-auckland-schoolgirls/HYPEVZ6F4BFT3CV2O4SXS5FR7U/">Epsom crash case</a>. <h2>The manosphere and MRAS</h2> The “<a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-68360-7_2">manosphere</a>” can be understood as a loose coalition of antifeminist online subcultures. This includes MRAs (<a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1097184X15574338">Men’s Rights Activists</a>) who claim reverse discrimination and that feminism has gone too far, and <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1097184X18816118">Redpillers</a> who claim to have swallowed the “red pill” to see the truth about feminism’s dominance. PUAs (<a href="https://repository.upenn.edu/entities/publication/d8971ded-1ec3-4939-8c0a-ab248dad62ba">Pick up Artists</a>) teach men how to manipulate the women they feel they are entitled to, to give them sex; and MGTOWs (<a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1751867">Men Going Their Own Way</a>), who are antifeminist separatists (from women). Some of the most well known members of the manosphere are incels (involuntary celibates) a misogynistic community of self identified “beta-males” who want an end to women’s rights which prevent them from getting sex. <h2>Ken’s grievances</h2> Like many MRAs, Ken struggles with a sense of entitlement romantically (rather than sexually in genital-free Barbieland), and in attitudes to power and respect. Ken was being “<a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/friend%20zone">friend-zoned</a>” by Barbie, who despite being “boyfriend and girlfriend” wouldn’t let him stay over at the Dream House, because “every night is girl’s night”. This is coupled with a feeling of not being special, as Ken is essentially interchangeable with any other Ken. He is also “alpha’d” by other Kens: in the language of the manosphere, Barbie is a <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-27/incels-inside-their-terrifying-online-world/9700932">“Stacy” and the other Ken is an alpha “Chad”</a> preventing him from getting what he wants. In <a href="https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2020-12/apo-nid307612.pdf">our data</a> we found women are often described as “overlords”, man-haters, misandrists and “feminazis”. Among other concerns, men perceive economic loss due to women’s participation in the workplace, and crucially a lack of men’s sexual access to women brought about by the gains of feminism such as the awareness raised around consent by the #metoo movement. These men all share a starting point of grievance at women and their perceived indifference towards them. When Ken goes to the real world, he discovers patriarchy and he LOVES it. He has been “redpilled”. Patriarchy explains his aggrievement, and affirms his feelings. He takes patriarchy back to Barbieland and transforms it to Kendom, where the men change it to a society oriented around men and their power (and horses…). <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y1IgAEejvqM?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> <h2>Redpilled ken</h2> This redpilled Ken is a hilarious parody of the “neomasculinity” of the pick up artist (PUA) movement, that seeks to restore a masculine-centred world. Neomasculinity is about a belief in biological difference, traditional masculinity and heteronormative gender roles. The amusing depiction of the Kens trying to perform traditional <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/hypermasculinity">hypermasculinity</a> and needing their egos stroked – such as in a hilarious scene where the Kens are serenading the Barbies on the beach with an acoustic rendition of Matchbox Twenty’s <a href="https://youtu.be/HAkHqYlqops">Push</a> (“I wanna push you around … I wanna take you for granted”) – brilliantly shows the extent to which toxic masculinity is learned. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HAkHqYlqops?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></figure> Additionally, the competition among the Kens (that the Barbies ultimately stoke to overturn the Kentriarchy) is the perfect illustration of the damage toxic models of masculinity does to men. As Australian sociologist Raewyn Connell has long argued, almost no men can live up to <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/27640853">masculine ideals</a>, resulting in negative outcomes not just for women but also for men themselves. <h2>Finding the real Ken</h2> The movie ends with Barbie, her human (America Ferrera), “Weird Barbie” (Kate McKinnon) and Allan (Michael Cera) deprogramming the brainwashed Barbies and turning the Kens against each other. But what of Just Beach Ken? And what can we learn from this for preventing or managing radicalisation of this feeling of aggrievement in real men or boys? Well, Barbie and Ken reach a middle ground. Barbie encourages Ken to work out who he is outside of his relation to Barbie, and to learn being Just Ken is enough. This isn’t dissimilar to the methods of men’s behaviour change programs and counselling for men who use violence, which use <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10926771.2023.2189043">trauma-informed motivational interviewing</a>, reflect on challenging gender norms and breaking down rigid thought processes, and developing emotional literacy and communication strategies. But it also illustrates that men and boys need alternative narratives to make sense of themselves in the world, and alternative communities for affirmation, before it gets to this stage. In <a href="https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2020-12/apo-nid307612.pdf">our report</a>, we recommended: "Providing alternative narratives and considering how far-right [or MRA] groups provide men with emotional support networks, with a view to providing better alternatives." Feminism has consistently been about separating attributes from their gendered associations, breaking down the Barbie/Ken binary. So if there is one thing we can take away from the Barbie movie, it is that hierarchy and rigid gender benefits nobody, and power and social roles have nothing to do with the genitals you are born with.<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/210273/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/lucy-nicholas-145660">Lucy Nicholas</a>, Associate professor Sexualities and Genders / Sociology, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/western-sydney-university-1092">Western Sydney University</a> Image credits: Warner Bros. 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/kens-rights-our-research-shows-barbie-is-surprisingly-accurate-on-how-mens-rights-activists-are-radicalised-210273">original article</a>.

Caring

Why am I online? Research shows it’s often about managing emotions

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/wally-smith-1450210">Wally Smith</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/greg-wadley-203663">Greg Wadley</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> Most of us <a href="https://wearesocial.com/au/blog/2022/02/digital-2022-australia-online-like-never-before/">go online</a> multiple times a day. About half of 18–29 year olds surveyed in a 2021 <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/03/26/about-three-in-ten-u-s-adults-say-they-are-almost-constantly-online/">Pew Research Study</a> said they are “almost constantly” connected. How are we to make sense of this significant digital dimension of modern life? Many questions have rightly been asked about its broader consequences for society and the economy. But there remains a simpler question about what motivates people across a range of ages, occupations and cultures to be so absorbed in digital connection. And we can turn this question on ourselves: why am I online? <h2>What are we doing when we go online?</h2> As the American sociologist Erving Goffman <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1975/02/16/archives/frame-analysis.html">pointed out</a>, asking “What is it that’s going on here?” about human behaviour can yield answers framed at different levels. These range from our superficial motives to a deeper understanding of what we are “really” doing. Sometimes we might be content to explain our online behaviour in purely practical terms, like checking traffic routes or paying a bill. Other times we might struggle to articulate our reasons for going or remaining online. Why are we continually looking at our phones or computers, when we could be getting on with physical tasks, or exercising, or meditating, or engaging more fully with the people who are physically around us? <h2>The ever-present need to manage our emotions</h2> As researchers of human-computer interaction, we are exploring answers in terms of the ever-present need to manage our emotions. Psychologists refer to this activity as <a href="https://www.guilford.com/books/Handbook-of-Emotion-Regulation/James-Gross/9781462520732">emotion regulation</a>. Theories of the nature and function of emotions are complex and contested. However, it is safe to say they are expressions of felt needs and motivations that arise in us through some fusion of physiology and culture. During a typical day, we often feel a need to <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271">alter our emotional state</a>. We may wish to feel more serious about a competitive task or more sad at a funeral. Perhaps we would like to be less sad about events of the past, less angry when meeting an errant family member, or more angry about something we know in our heart is wrong. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PQkNb4CLjJ8?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe><figcaption>Digital emotion regulation is becoming increasingly common in our everyday lives.</figcaption></figure> One way to understand our frequent immersions into online experience is to see them as acts within a broader scheme of managing such daily emotional demands. Indeed, in <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1071581922001732">earlier research</a> we found up to half of all smartphone use may be for the purpose of emotional regulation. <h2>Digital technologies are becoming key tools of emotion regulation</h2> Over the pandemic lockdowns of 2020–21 in Melbourne, Australia, we investigated how digital technologies are becoming <a href="https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3491102.3517573">key tools of emotion regulation</a>. We were surprised to find that people readily talked of their technology use in these emotion-managing terms. Occasionally, this involved specially designed apps, for mindfulness and so on. But more often people relied on mundane tools, such as using social media alongside Zoom to combat feelings of boredom or isolation, browsing for “retail therapy”, playing phone games to de-stress, and searching online to alleviate anxiety about world events. To some extent, these uses of digital technology can be seen as re-packaging <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/026999399379285">traditional methods</a> of emotion management, such as listening to music, strengthening social connections, or enjoying the company of adorable animals. Indeed, people in our study used digital technologies to enact familiar strategies, such as immersion in selected situations, seeking distractions, and reappraising what a situation means. However, we also found indications that digital tools are changing the intensity and nature of how we regulate emotions. They provide emotional resources that are <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubiquitous_computing">nearly always available</a>, and virtual situations can be accessed, juxtaposed and navigated more deftly than their physical counterparts. Some participants in our study described how they built what we called “emotional toolkits”. These are collections of digital resources ready to be deployed when needed, each for a particular emotional effect. <h2>A new kind of digital emotional intelligence</h2> None of this is to say emotion regulation is automatically and always a good thing. It can be a means of avoiding important and meaningful endeavours and it can itself become dysfunctional. In our study of a small sample of Melburnians, we found that although digital applications appeared to be generally effective in this role, they are volatile and can lead to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/27/social-dilemma-media-facebook-twitter-society">unpredictable emotional outcomes</a>. A search for energising music or reassuring social contact, for example, can produce random or unwanted results. A new kind of <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10187756/">digital emotional intelligence</a> might be needed to effectively navigate digital emotional landscapes. <h2>An historic shift in everyday life</h2> Returning to the question: what am I doing online? Emotion regulation may well be the part of the answer. You may be online for valid instrumental reasons. But equally, you are likely to be enacting your own strategies of <a href="https://cis.unimelb.edu.au/hci/projects/digitalemotionregulation">emotion regulation through digital means</a>. It is part of an historic shift playing out in how people negotiate the demands of everyday life. <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/208483/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/wally-smith-1450210">Wally Smith</a>, Professor, School of Computing and Information Systems, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/greg-wadley-203663">Greg Wadley</a>, Senior Lecturer, Computing and Information Systems, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</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/why-am-i-online-research-shows-its-often-about-managing-emotions-208483">original article</a>.

Technology

What are the long-term effects of quitting social media? Almost nobody can log off long enough to find out

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-malouff-313652">John Malouff</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-new-england-919">University of New England</a> Being on social media has become synonymous with living in the 21st century. Year after year, we see new platforms and smarter algorithms roping us into highly addictive online worlds. Now, a growing number of people have noticed this trend and are actively making an effort to resist it. Anecdotally, a case can be made for quitting social media, and there are myriad reasons why someone might want to. But is there evidence that doing so is good for you in the long term? <h2>Drivers for quitting</h2> Although there are too many social media platforms to name, most people tend to think of the “big five”: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok. Research has found people have various reasons for quitting one or more of these apps. Many quit over concerns about negative impacts on their mental and physical health. For example, studies have shown adolescent girls in particular can experience negative body image as a result of viewing manipulated <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-have-all-heard-social-media-can-impact-womens-body-image-but-it-isnt-all-bad-205214">selfies on Instagram</a>. People also <a href="https://www.qscience.com/content/journals/10.5339/connect.2023.spt.3?crawler=true">choose to quit</a> due to disliking ads, feeling like they’re wasting time, or if they’re worried about their privacy. The question then is: does quitting social media resolve these concerns? <h2>Mixed research outcomes</h2> It’s difficult to determine whether there are clear and lasting benefits to quitting social media – and a look at the research explains why. <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17459435.2020.1817140">One 2020 study</a> found people who had quit social media saw improvements in their close relationships, and were pleased to be free of comparison with others. But some also said they <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17459435.2020.1817140">missed</a> the informational and entertainment aspects of it. In a <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328838624_No_More_FOMO_Limiting_Social_Media_Decreases_Loneliness_and_Depression">2018 study</a>, researchers assessed the psychological state of 143 American undergraduates before randomly assigning one group a daily ten-minute limit for Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat, per platform. Three weeks later, those who limited their social media use showed significantly lower levels of loneliness and depression. However, there was no significant effect on anxiety, self-esteem or wellbeing. And in <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0217743&fbclid=IwAR1oLvPyeJDwMhD4WlODKU1A360ttIcaV_tManJs1_qEr-VAVZPsD0xQjq0">one 2019 study</a> with 78 participants, half were asked to take a one-week break from Facebook and Instagram. To the researchers’ surprise, the users in this group who were generally active on social media experienced less positive psychological effects than those in the control group. With research findings painting several different pictures, it’s safe to say our relationship with social media – and how it affects us – is very complex. <h2>Research constraints</h2> There appear to be no published studies that have assessed the long-term impacts of permanently quitting social media. This is probably because it’s difficult to find participants who will agree to be randomly assigned the task of dropping social media forever. One important consideration is that a percentage of individuals who quit social media will eventually <a href="https://cyberleninka.org/article/n/992039/viewer">go back</a>. Reasons for returning include feeling left out, fearing loss of connections, wanting to regain access to interesting or useful information, feeling social pressure to rejoin, or simply feeling that quitting wasn’t the right choice. Even if researchers do find a large enough group of people willing to quit social media for good, conducting long-term follow-ups would be highly resource-intensive. Beyond that, it would be difficult to figure out how much of a participant’s increase (or decrease) in life satisfaction is due to quitting social media, and not other factors. As such, there’s currently no evidence that quitting social media comes with concrete long-term benefits. And in the short term, results are mixed. <h2>To quit, or not to quit?</h2> However, that doesn’t mean quitting (for a short or long period) wouldn’t be beneficial for some people. It’s likely that any potential benefits will depend on the individual doing the quitting, and why they’re doing it. For instance, consensus that does emerge from the research is that <a href="https://theconversation.com/does-social-media-make-us-more-or-less-lonely-depends-on-how-you-use-it-128468">the way you use</a> social media plays a significant role in how negative or positive your experience is. By <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2056305120919105">using social media mindfully</a>, users can minimise potential harms while retaining the benefits. For some, it may only be one platform causing unease. If you strongly dislike Instagram’s tendency to be hyper-focused on people’s private lives, then you could simply stop using Instagram. Another technique is to curate your social media feeds by engaging only with content you find useful and positive. For instance, many young women take steps to avoid seeing <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-have-all-heard-social-media-can-impact-womens-body-image-but-it-isnt-all-bad-205214?fbclid=IwAR3cX7l116GAj0nnKDAk16x6GP6iRCxH_VutjIbxOiCij1yCqWmeOK0s0f0">perfect bodies all day</a> on their social media. If you’re still wondering whether quitting might be good for you, the simplest way to find out is to <a href="https://hbr.org/2018/10/i-ran-4-experiments-to-break-my-social-media-addiction-heres-what-worked">experiment</a> and do it. Take a break from one or more types of social media. After some time ask yourself whether the benefits seem worth it to you. If the answer is “yes”, make the break permanent. <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-malouff-313652">John Malouff</a>, Associate Professor, School of Behavioural, Cognitive and Social Sciences, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-new-england-919">University of New England</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/what-are-the-long-term-effects-of-quitting-social-media-almost-nobody-can-log-off-long-enough-to-find-out-205478">original article</a>. Images: Getty

Technology

Travelers will refuse an upgrade to sit near a loved one – new research into when people want to share experiences

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ximena-garcia-rada-1238853">Ximena Garcia-Rada</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/texas-aandm-university-1672">Texas A&M University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michael-norton-145591">Michael Norton</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/harvard-university-1306">Harvard University</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rebecca-k-ratner-1439964">Rebecca K. Ratner</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-maryland-1347">University of Maryland</a> The <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/research-brief-83231">Research Brief</a> is a short take about interesting academic work. <h2>The big idea</h2> People will often sacrifice a better experience and opt for one that’s less enjoyable if it means they can do it alongside a loved one – whether that’s a romantic partner, close friend or relative. That’s the main finding of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1352">our research</a> published in the Journal of Consumer Psychology in April 2023. For example, when taking a flight, two friends might decide to sit in adjacent seats in coach rather than accept a free upgrade to nonadjacent seats in first class. Failing to choose togetherness can have consequences, as in the “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2JKXbVGq7A">Seinfeld” episode</a> in which Elaine suffers the indignities of economy class, leading to rage against Jerry after he chooses to accept an upgrade. We conducted five studies in a variety of settings and featuring different social bonds, including friendships and romantic relationships. In one study, just over half of people chose two adjacent seats far from the stage over two nonadjacent seats closer to the stage when imagining they were attending a Cirque du Soleil performance with a close friend, compared with only about one-third who chose the adjacent seats when imagining attending with an acquaintance. In another study, we asked students whether they wanted to eat one chocolate with another person – either a new friend or a stranger – or two chocolates alone. Half the people chose the shared experience – but only if the other person was a friend. Fewer people – 38% – opted for the shared experience if the other person was a stranger. <h2>Why it matters</h2> One reason people prioritize physical proximity with close partners is because they want to create shared memories. Importantly, people believe that physical distance can disrupt the creation of shared memories, and so they forgo enjoyable experiences apart from their loved one. This also matters for companies seeking to improve customer experience, such as an airline offering free upgrades or shorter wait times. Our findings suggest that, for example, consumers traveling with a companion might not take advantage of services like TSA PreCheck, an airline VIP lounge or a free upgrade if it is available only for themselves. It also helps explain why consumers do not like when <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/06/travel/airlines-family-seating-dashboard.html">airlines split up families</a> in their seat assignments. However, we also tested a few initiatives marketers can use to encourage people to choose a higher-quality experience that requires them to be apart from their companion. In another experiment, we described a train ride as either a fun part of an excursion or as a practical way to reach a final destination. More participants accepted a free upgrade – even though it required sitting apart from their romantic partner – when they perceived the train ride as utilitarian. That’s because they cared less about creating shared memories during the experience. <h2>What still isn’t known</h2> We still don’t know how this preference affects relationship quality. For example, when can time apart from your partner actually strengthen the relationship? And how should couples split their time between lower-quality activities done together and higher-quality activities done alone? One option for separate activities, for example, might be when one partner’s desired activity does not interest the other. Also, given that people believe physical proximity is a prerequisite for creating shared memories, how can partners who live in different places also cultivate shared memories? This question is especially important in light of how COVID-19 has enabled more people to work and study remotely.<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/205363/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> Image credit: Getty <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ximena-garcia-rada-1238853">Ximena Garcia-Rada</a>, Assistant Professor of Marketing, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/texas-aandm-university-1672">Texas A&M University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michael-norton-145591">Michael Norton</a>, Professor of Business Administration, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/harvard-university-1306">Harvard University</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rebecca-k-ratner-1439964">Rebecca K. Ratner</a>, Professor of Marketing, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-maryland-1347">University of Maryland</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/travelers-will-refuse-an-upgrade-to-sit-near-a-loved-one-new-research-into-when-people-want-to-share-experiences-205363">original article</a>.

International Travel

Huge news for Alzheimer’s sufferers

An experimental new drug by Eli Lilly has demonstrated an ability to slow the progression of Alzheimer’s disease, according to new study reports. The pharmaceutical company has said that its drug, donanemab, met each goal of their 18-month trial, successfully slowing cognitive decline by 35 per cent compared to a placebo. 1,182 individuals in the early stages of Alzheimer’s participated in the study, with each patient receiving monthly infusions of donanemab. After 12 months, half of the participants showed no evidence of amyloid plaques, while 48 per cent of patients in the trial had no disease progression at 12 months, compared to 29 per cent from the placebo group. In the wake of the news, experts are optimistic, but still hold concerns about the risks moving forward. Dr Ronald Petersen, a Mayo Clinic Alzheimer research, told the ABC that “Lilly's trial is the third to show removing amyloid from the brain slows progression of the disease, which could put to rest some lingering doubts about the benefits of drugs in the class and the amyloid-lowering theory. "It's modest, but I think it's real and I think it's clinically meaningful." Washington University neurologist Dr Erik Musiek noted that mounting evidence was suggesting “that these drugs do work”. He also said that the findings were reminding them of the benefits of early treatment, explaining that “it really does suggest that you need to remove these plaques early, before the tau really gets going.” When it comes to the associated risks, Eli Lilly have said that the drug’s side effects could include brain swelling as well as bleeding, with serious swelling occurring in 1.6 per cent of patients. As Dr Eric Reiman, Banner Alzheimer’s Institute’s executive director, explained, “clearly one saw benefits here, but there is some risk that needs to be considered.” From there, Lily plan to file for US approval by the end of June, and to proceed with regulars from other countries in the time after. A spokesperson for the company is confident that a decision over approval in the US should occur by the end of 2023, or early in 2024. Experts in the field want to see the study’s full results, which are likely to be presented at an Amsterdam Alzheimer’s meeting later in the year. As for the cost, the company has not yet finalised a price point, but CEO David Ricks informed CNBC that they intend for it to be similar to other therapies in the same field. Images: Getty

Caring

New study reveals the lifetime health benefits of social interaction

A new meta-analysis study - undertaken by the Centre for Healthy Brain Ageing (otherwise known as the CHeBA) at the University of New South Wales - has revealed that social interaction could have benefits many would never have thought to predict, from a reduced risk of dementia to overall increased longevity. Researches were investigating the link between social connections in senior citizens and the risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), as well as dementia and morality, compiling the results from 13 other international studies following individuals aged 65 years and up over extended periods of time - research published in <a href="https://u26892420.ct.sendgrid.net/ls/click?upn=B8NE7CRkW4hCmh1dHfJbPqy22DjCz8-2Bq3ZidKWozGaZDoG-2FmVx-2BVsAja535jGrbQlYGwKkrcgY4HPBHrSRE-2Bpq1fwuJ0AQZcKTgnOiva5gsjqRFzNLSYGGzJ4hgT-2Bp0b-7Jp_W1g0lLgOQvKHpoedb1QOitWbx1JxegS3ChuQBoUMMSvQphp8oKfzCnK1hk7FLUZqqTLorFP-2FYQB6URmHLHx65PjMZSysYz3YQI-2BzvIxBhVdZr2Z1gRzt72cMfkaib4uVOYXTxECJWWsRmLyHtb8tdUoPs6u4lvqr8I7xD4zbJqJTqeP2zMO2vFFc6dcczrApzJnOWkq2tOchRyvzstzbQnlU1N4WSe4ZAMtqjmGx6sSvfxYICFLpppnmosd6kUUL-2B2zjjEQ61i38e9TYUaT6LZA5aIGcpHJw26Ob-2BXzuvv-2BuHbhihyIqh2AUTJ2WAYsCw6hpo5SJ7JKlgCF4nYeiekLQeVVLm4GRjjckYyIIN48-3D">Alzheimer's & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer's Association</a>. As author, clinical psychologist, and researcher Dr Suraj Samtani explained, “we know from previous research that social connections are important for our health and being isolated puts us at higher risk of dementia and death.” “Our goal was to find which social connections protect us from dementia and death.” Researches drew intel from studies in a number of countries - spanning low, middle, and high-income nations - and compiled a study population more diverse than the meta-analyses to come before, including the likes of Australia, European nations, North and South America, Asia, and Africa, as opposed to the previous North America and European study groups. From there, they looked at information about the connections between the participants, paying close attention to the types of social links (whether they were in a relationship, single, or married, or involved with their community), the function of them (whether or not they had social support on hand, or a close confidante), and the quality (how much satisfaction they did - or did not - receive from their relationships). With this information, they sought to find out if the participants had developed either MCI or dementia - as well as whether or not they had passed away. “We looked at social variables across these studies, such as living with others, interacting with friends and family, engaging in community activities, and social support,” Dr Samtani said. “We wanted to know which of these are associated with risk of getting dementia over time or dying.” And from their research, they discovered that positive social connections did appear to be linked to a lower risk of MCI, dementia, and death. “We found that frequent interactions - monthly or weekly - with family and friends and having someone to talk to reduced the risk of getting dementia. We also found that living with others and doing community activities reduced the risk of dying,” Dr Samtani noted. Recommendations from the researchers suggest that people should be prioritising their social connections if they hope to reduce their risk of cognitive decline - with the added benefit of living longer, too. “Try to meet with friends and family at least once a month, take part in community activities like volunteering or a rotary club, and open your heart to someone when you feel stressed,” Dr Samtani said. “Living with others, for example in an intergenerational household, is also helpful. “Connecting with others helps us to keep our bodies and minds healthy. “We hope that helping people to stay engaged in conversations and maintain healthy friendships and relationships will help them to stay healthy and happy.” Images: Getty

Relationships

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Entertainment

Property

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Research reveals how long it takes Aussies to save for a holiday

Music and dementia: researchers are still making discoveries about how songs can help sufferers

New research proves travelling can slow down the ageing process

Major breakthrough holds the key to diagnosing Alzheimer's

‘Sleeping on it’ really does help and four other recent sleep research breakthroughs

Are young people smarter than older adults? My research shows cognitive differences between generations are diminishing

How much time should you spend sitting versus standing? New research reveals the perfect mix for optimal health

What is childhood dementia? And how could new research help?

Do optimists really live longer? Here’s what the research says

Eating some chocolate really might be good for you – here’s what the research says

Running or yoga can help beat depression, research shows – even if exercise is the last thing you feel like

Out of the rabbit hole: new research shows people can change their minds about conspiracy theories

Ballet flats are back. Here’s what the research says about how they affect your feet

Research reveals who’s been hit hardest by global warming in their lifetime - and the answer may surprise you

Ken’s rights? Our research shows Barbie is surprisingly accurate on how ‘men’s rights activists’ are radicalised

Why am I online? Research shows it’s often about managing emotions

What are the long-term effects of quitting social media? Almost nobody can log off long enough to find out

Travelers will refuse an upgrade to sit near a loved one – new research into when people want to share experiences

Huge news for Alzheimer’s sufferers

New study reveals the lifetime health benefits of social interaction