Placeholder Content Image

6 things you never knew were shrinking

<p> </p> <p><strong>1. Chocolate bars</strong></p> <p>For better or worse, these things are getting smaller and smaller – and you probably haven’t even noticed.</p> <p>Trying to cut back on carbs and sugar? You’re in luck. Many popular chocolate and snack bars are doing the job for you by shrinking ever so slightly, a 2018 BBC study found. A Snickers bar, for instance, is now 28 per cent lighter than it was four years ago, while Twix bars have lost 20 per cent of their original weight. As chocolate bars become more expensive to make, many companies have opted to downsize instead of changing their recipes or charging customers more. They’re counting on the fact that most buyers won’t notice the difference.</p> <p><strong>2. Animals</strong></p> <p>Up until about 100,000 years ago, sloths could be as tall as giraffes and beavers weighed as much as front row forwards. But that changed when homosapiens entered the picture, according to a 2018 study published in the journal Science. Due to rising global temperatures and overhunting of large mammals, the average animal size fell by an estimated 50 to 75 per cent. Experts predict that animals will continue to shrink if humans don’t adjust their behaviour. Worse, many large animals like whales and polar bears could go extinct altogether.</p> <p><strong>3. Calculators</strong></p> <p>When Anita Mark VII, one of the world’s first commercially available calculators, was launched in 1961, it could barely fit on the average school desk. But don’t let its size fool you; it could only do basic arithmetic. This personal number cruncher had a $1000 price tag, to boot. Fortunately, both the size and cost of calculators have declined over time. Today, you can slip a basic calculator into your pocket or just use an app on your smartphone.</p> <p><strong>4. Islands</strong></p> <p>In 2016, Australian researchers made an alarming discovery: Five islands in the Pacific Ocean had completely disappeared. This was no magic trick, though; the real culprit was climate change. Melting glaciers have caused sea levels to rise, covering the islands – which ranged in size from 2.5-12.4 acres – in the process. While the missing islands were not inhabited by humans, shrinking coastlines on six other islands have forced entire villages to relocate, the researchers found.</p> <p><strong>5. Car engines </strong></p> <p>Car engines have come a long way in just a century. Back in 1932, the classic Ford V8 engine weighed a whopping 230 kilograms but delivered just 48 kilowatts of power. Ford’s new EcoBoost engine, by comparison, delivers over triple the amount of power as its predecessor and is only half the weight. Car manufacturing companies are now going greener, too; the new Ford engine reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 7 per cent.</p> <p><strong>6. The Australian population</strong></p> <p>The Australian birth rate dropped to about 1.79 births per woman in 2016, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. That’s almost 16 per cent lower than the replacement rate of 2.1 births per woman, which is the rate predicted to keep a population stable without immigration. Experts believe that the growing number of women waiting to have children – along with a decrease in teen pregnancies – are causing the decline.</p> <p><em>Written by Brooke Nelson. This article first appeared in </em><a href="http://www.readersdigest.com.au/true-stories-lifestyle/thought-provoking/13-things-you-never-knew-were-shrinking?items_per_page=All"><em>Reader’s Digest</em>.</a><em> For more of what you love from the world’s best-loved magazine, </em><a href="http://readersdigest.innovations.co.nz/c/readersdigestemailsubscribe?utm_source=over60&amp;utm_medium=articles&amp;utm_campaign=RDSUB&amp;keycode=WRN87V"><em>here’s our best subscription offer.</em></a></p> <p><img style="width: 100px !important; height: 100px !important;" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7820640/1.png" alt="" data-udi="umb://media/f30947086c8e47b89cb076eb5bb9b3e2" /></p>

Caring

Placeholder Content Image

Do smaller plates make you eat less?

<p><strong><em>Eric Robinson in a behavioural scientist and senior lecturer at the University of Liverpool. His research examines obesity and psychological influences on how much people eat and drink.</em></strong></p> <p>You may have caught the show <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><em><strong><a href="http://www.channel4.com/programmes/food-unwrapped/on-demand/61830-011" target="_blank">Food Unwrapped</a></strong></em></span> on television. The programme covers two topics of interest to me; portion sizes and plate sizes.</p> <p>There is evidence that portion sizes of commercially provided foods have increased over time and the programme covered this story. One of the main reasons this is of relevance to public health is because there is also now <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://advances.nutrition.org/content/5/6/829.full" target="_blank">compelling evidence</a></span></strong> that the amount of food you are served or provided with reliably affects how much you eat – and that larger portions appear to cause most people to eat more. Our modern day “obesity epidemic” is thought to have been caused primarily by an increase in how much we are eating. So this is important stuff.</p> <p>The other topic covered by <em>Food Unwrapped</em>, however, is a pet hate of mine: plate size. There is a commonly held belief that using smaller plates reduces the amount of food that people eat. It sounds plausible; when you use a smaller plate, you serve yourself less and because of this you end up eating less. Right?</p> <p>Wrong.</p> <p>I became interested in the magic of smaller plates after reading an article that discussed some of the research on smaller plates but neglected to mention a number of studies that had found that smaller plates <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24341317" target="_blank">did not reduce how much people ate</a></span></strong>. Not long after that a team of us reviewed and analysed all available studies <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25040672" target="_blank">that addressed this question</a></span></strong>.</p> <p>Our conclusion was that the evidence for the magic of smaller plates was very unconvincing. There were more studies that had found no benefit on calorie consumption of dining with smaller plates than there were studies that supported the smaller plates equals eat less hypothesis. Also, the studies that did support the smaller plate idea all came from the same research group and we noted a number of important limitations in some of those studies’ methodologies. It just so happens that it was the same research group that has recently come under fire <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2017/mar/02/fresh-concerns-raised-over-academic-conduct-of-major-us-nutrition-and-behaviour-lab" target="_blank">for questionable research practices</a></span></strong>.</p> <p>We next <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/dishware-size-and-snack-food-intake-in-a-between-subjects-laboratory-experiment/DB9DE726AA10FCC19B1039A9C559C66A" target="_blank">conducted our own study</a></span></strong> to examine if giving participants smaller bowls to serve themselves with popcorn reduced the amount of popcorn that they ate. We did not find that using a smaller bowl reduced how much participants ate – if anything participants ate more when using a smaller bowl, as opposed to a larger bowl. Likewise, <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="https://synapse.koreamed.org/search.php?where=aview&amp;id=10.4162/nrp.2016.10.5.524&amp;code=0161NRP&amp;vmode=FULL" target="_blank">a further study</a></span></strong> in 2016 from another research group found no evidence that smaller plates promoted reduced food consumption.</p> <p>Now back to <em>Food Unwrapped</em>. The programme tried a similar experiment to the one that we did and what did they find? Again, like us they found no evidence to suggest that giving people smaller plates reduced how much they ate – instead they appeared to find the opposite – participants ate about twice as much when dining with smaller as opposed to larger plates.</p> <p>Why might smaller plates not reduce how much people eat? One good guess is because if you are using a smaller plate you may initially serve yourself a little less but then go back for second helpings – you do have a small plate after all.</p> <p>Rather worryingly though, at the end of the episode we were reassured that there is still clear evidence that smaller plates do make people eat less and <em>Food Unwrapped</em>’s experiment must have been a fluke.</p> <p>The idea that simply giving people smaller plates to eat from will magically reduce how much they eat is an idea that may never die (indeed the <em>Food Unwrapped</em> programme was a repeat of an episode first shown in 2016). But it should do. This is because we need to make sure that we are taking aim at the types of environmental factors that can reliably help people eat more healthily.</p> <p>So what should we be sizing up? There is now <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><a href="http://www.thelancetnorway.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)60813-1/fulltext" target="_blank">accumulating evidence</a></span></strong> that if the food industry made substantial reductions to the number of calories in popular food and drink products then we would be eating less as a nation. Making this kind of change happen will of course be more difficult than simply telling the general public to eat from miniature plates, but if we are to tackle obesity effectively then it is a change that must happen.</p> <p><em>Written by Eric Robinson. First appeared on <a href="http://theconversation.com/" target="_blank"><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">The Conversation</span></strong></a>. </em></p>

Body

Placeholder Content Image

Massive alligator devours smaller gator

<p>An alligator, with little regard for comradery with its own species, was spotted tearing one of its smaller cousins apart in front of a stunned audience earlier this month.</p> <p>Alex Figueroa uploaded the video to YouTube after stumbling across the grisly scene while out for a morning walk at the Circle B Bar Reserve in Lakeland, Florida.</p> <p>In the video, the mammoth alligator can be seen biting on smaller foe and carrying it off into grassland, before giving its prey a good shake. Mr Figueroa estimated the larger alligator to be a whopping 3.6 metres (12ft) long.</p> <p>Shockingly, Gary Morse, an officer at the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission told Fox 13 in Tampa that the attack was “typical alligator behaviour." Research undertaken at Florida swamps and marshlands has determined six to seven percent of all juvenile alligators are attacked and eaten by their elders.</p> <p>Watch the video above to see the footage, but we warned, it’s not for the faint of heart.</p> <p><strong>Related links:</strong></p> <p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><a href="http://www.oversixty.co.nz/lifestyle/family-pets/2015/11/interspecies-animal-friendships/"><em>15 unlikely friendships that will melt your heart</em></a></strong></span></p> <p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><a href="http://www.oversixty.co.nz/lifestyle/family-pets/2015/11/funny-dog-snapchats/"><em>11 funny snapchat pictures that only dog lovers appreciate</em></a></strong></span></p> <p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><a href="http://www.oversixty.co.nz/lifestyle/family-pets/2015/10/why-dogs-so-happy-to-see-you/"><em>The science behind dogs being so happy to see you</em></a></strong></span></p>

News