Many parents believe that letting young children taste alcohol discourages later use

ScienceDaily (Sep. 19, 2012) — One in four mothers believe that letting young children taste alcohol may discourage them from drinking in adolescence and 40 percent believe that not allowing children to taste alcohol will only make it more appealing, according to a new study by RTI International and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The study, published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, explored whether parents purposefully introduce children to alcohol at a young age and, if so, why. It also examined parenting practices that impact children's opportunity to try alcohol.

"The idea that early exposure to alcohol can discourage a child's interest in drinking has a strong foothold among some parents of elementary school aged children," said Christine Jackson, Ph.D., a social ecologist at RTI International and the study's lead author.

The study is based on data collected from interviews with 1,050 mothers and their third-grade children. The participants were recruited for a four-year intervention trial that will examine the long-term implications of children's early sipping experience.

Adult participants in the study were asked about their alcohol-specific attitudes and practices as well as their opinions on providing tastes of alcohol to their children.

At least a quarter of the mothers said allowing their children to taste alcohol would discourage their curiosity in it because they would not like the flavor and because it will remove the "forbidden fruit" appeal of it. Forty percent of the mothers interviewed felt that not allowing children to have alcohol would only increase their desire to have it.

Twenty-two percent of the mothers believed that children who taste alcohol at home with their parents would be better at resisting alcohol-related peer pressure, and 26 percent thought it would make them less likely to experiment with risky drinking in middle school.

"These findings indicate that many parents mistakenly expect that the way children drink at home, under parental supervision, will be replicated when children are with peers," Jackson said. "More research is needed to understand how parents acquire these ideas and to understand the relationship between early sipping and alcohol use in adolescence."

The children who participated in the study were asked whether they had tasted beer, wine or other drinks containing alcohol and whether their parents had ever given them a sip of alcohol. Nearly 33 percent of the children participating in the study reported having tasted beer, wine or other alcohol.

The researchers found a strong association between parents who were in favor of allowing their children to taste alcohol and children's reported alcohol use. According to the study, this finding is noteworthy because early introduction to alcohol is a primary risk factor for problem drinking during adolescence.

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:

---

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by RTI International.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

---

Journal Reference:

1. Jackson C, Ennett ST, Dickinson DM. Letting Children Sip: Understanding Why Parents Allow Alcohol Use by Elementary School–aged Children. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 2012; DOI: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2012.1198

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

20 Sep, 2012

-
Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/living_well/~3/YXyZXZELc9w/120919142010.htm
--
Manage subscription | Powered by rssforward.com

17.58 | 0 komentar | Read More

Yogurt consumption, blood pressure, and incident hypertension

ScienceDaily (Sep. 19, 2012) — Adding more yogurt to your diet without increasing the number of calories you eat may help lower your risk of high blood pressure, according to new research presented at the American Heart Association's High Blood Pressure Research 2012 Scientific Sessions.

A recent study found long-term yogurt-eaters were less likely to develop high blood pressure and on average had lower systolic blood pressure than those who didn't eat yogurt. Systolic blood pressure is the top number in a blood pressure reading. It measures the force of blood against the walls of your arteries when your heart is beating.

During the 15 year study, researchers followed more than 2,000 volunteers who did not have high blood pressure at the start of the study. Yogurt consumption was measured by questionnaires filled out by the volunteers at three intervals over the study period. Study participants were 31 percent less likely to develop high blood pressure if at least 2 percent of their daily calories came from yogurt, which would be like eating at least one six-ounce cup of low-fat yogurt every three days. In addition, their systolic blood pressure increased less than that of people who didn't eat yogurt.

The study was funded by the Framingham Heart Study of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health and by a research grant from the Dannon Company, Inc.

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:

---

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by American Heart Association.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

---

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

20 Sep, 2012

-
Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/living_well/~3/mJMmGBSd0kY/120919190600.htm
--
Manage subscription | Powered by rssforward.com

17.24 | 0 komentar | Read More

Sesame and rice bran oil lowers blood pressure, improves cholesterol

ScienceDaily (Sep. 18, 2012) — People who cooked with a blend of sesame and rice bran oils saw a significant drop in blood pressure and improved cholesterol levels, according to new research presented at the American Heart Association's High Blood Pressure Research 2012 Scientific Sessions.

The researchers found cooking with a combination of these oils in a variety of ways worked nearly as well as a commonly prescribed high blood pressure medication, and that the use of the oil blend with medication yielded even more impressive results.

"Rice bran oil, like sesame oil, is low in saturated fat and appears to improve a patient's cholesterol profile," said Devarajan Sankar, M.D, Ph.D., a research scientist in the Department of Cardiovascular Disease at Fukuoka University Chikushi Hospital in Chikushino, Japan. "Additionally, it may reduce heart disease risk in other ways, including being a substitute for less healthy oils and fats in the diet."

The 60-day study in New Delhi, India, divided 300 people with mild to moderately high blood pressure into three groups. One group was treated with a commonly used blood pressure lowering medication called a calcium-channel blocker (nifedipine). The second group was given the oil blend and told to use about an ounce each day in their meals.

The final group received the calcium channel blocker and the oil blend.

All three groups, with approximately an equal number of men and women, average age of 57, saw drops in their systolic blood pressure. Systolic blood pressure is the top number in a blood pressure reading and measures the force of blood against your artery walls when the heart is pumping.

Systolic blood pressure dropped an average of 14 points for those using only the oil blend and 16 points for those taking medication. Those using both saw a 36-point drop.

Diastolic blood pressure also dropped significantly: 11 points for those eating the oil, 12 for those on medication and 24 for those using both. Diastolic blood pressure is the bottom number in a blood pressure reading that measures the force of blood against your artery walls when your heart is at rest between beats.

As for cholesterol, those using the oils saw a 26 percent drop in their LDL ("bad" cholesterol) and a 9.5 percent increase in the HDL ("good" cholesterol), while no changes in cholesterol were observed for the patients who used only the calcium-channel blocker. Those who took the calcium channel blocker and the oils had a 27 percent drop in LDL levels and a 10.9 percent increase in the HDL.

Healthier fatty acids and antioxidants, such as sesamin, sesamol, sesamolin and oryzanol, in the oil blends may be responsible for the results, Sankar said. These antioxidants, mono and poly unsaturated oils are compounds found in plants and have been linked with lower blood pressure and total cholesterol in earlier studies.

Additional studies are needed to determine if the oil blend is as beneficial as it seems. The combination was made specifically for this study, and there are no plans to market it commercially, Sankar said. Blending these oils yourself would not necessarily produce these effects.

People with high blood pressure should not stop taking their medications and should speak with their doctors before trying any product that might change their blood pressure to ensure they're being properly monitored.

Co-authors are.Ravinder Singh, M.B.B.S., and Biprabuddha Chatterjee, M.Sc.

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:

---

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by American Heart Association.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

---

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

20 Sep, 2012

-
Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/living_well/~3/YlwFL8DVvuE/120919190151.htm
--
Manage subscription | Powered by rssforward.com

17.24 | 0 komentar | Read More

Misinformation: Why it sticks and how to fix it

ScienceDaily (Sep. 19, 2012) — Childhood vaccines do not cause autism. Barack Obama was born in the United States. Global warming is confirmed by science. And yet, many people believe claims to the contrary.

Why does that kind of misinformation stick? A new report published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, explores this phenomenon. Psychological scientist Stephan Lewandowsky of the University of Western Australia and colleagues highlight the cognitive factors that make certain pieces of misinformation so "sticky" and identify some techniques that may be effective in debunking or counteracting erroneous beliefs.

The main reason that misinformation is sticky, according to the researchers, is that rejecting information actually requires cognitive effort. Weighing the plausibility and the source of a message is cognitively more difficult than simply accepting that the message is true -- it requires additional motivational and cognitive resources. If the topic isn't very important to you or you have other things on your mind, misinformation is more likely to take hold.

And when we do take the time to thoughtfully evaluate incoming information, there are only a few features that we are likely to pay attention to: Does the information fit with other things I believe in? Does it make a coherent story with what I already know? Does it come from a credible source? Do others believe it?

Misinformation is especially sticky when it conforms to our preexisting political, religious, or social point of view. Because of this, ideology and personal worldviews can be especially difficult obstacles to overcome.

Even worse, efforts to retract misinformation often backfire, paradoxically amplifying the effect of the erroneous belief.

"This persistence of misinformation has fairly alarming implications in a democracy because people may base decisions on information that, at some level, they know to be false," says Lewandowsky.

"At an individual level, misinformation about health issues -- for example, unwarranted fears regarding vaccinations or unwarranted trust in alternative medicine -- can do a lot of damage. At a societal level, persistent misinformation about political issues (e.g., Obama's health care reform) can create considerable harm. On a global scale, misinformation about climate change is currently delaying mitigative action."

Though misinformation may be difficult to correct, all is not lost. According to Lewandowsky, "psychological science has the potential to counteract all those harms by educating people and communicators about the power of misinformation and how to meet it."

In their report, Lewandowsky and colleagues offer some strategies for setting the record straight.

• Provide people with a narrative that replaces the gap left by false information
• Focus on the facts you want to highlight, rather than the myths
• Make sure that the information you want people to take away is simple and brief
• Consider your audience and the beliefs they are likely to hold
• Strengthen your message through repetition

Research has shown that attempts at "debiasing" can be effective in the real world when based on these evidence-based strategies.

The report, "Misinformation and its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing," is published in the September issue of Psychological Science in the Public Interest and is written by Stephan Lewandowsky and Ullrich Ecker of the University of Western Australia, Colleen Seifert and Norbert Schwarz of the University of Michigan, and John Cook of the University of Queensland and the University of Western Australia.

The report also features a commentary written by Edward Maibach of George Mason University.

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:

---

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Association for Psychological Science.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

---

Journal Reference:

1. S. Lewandowsky, U. K. H. Ecker, C. M. Seifert, N. Schwarz, J. Cook. Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2012; 13 (3): 106 DOI: 10.1177/1529100612451018

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

20 Sep, 2012

-
Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/living_well/~3/YOHIorEP93o/120919191212.htm
--
Manage subscription | Powered by rssforward.com

17.24 | 0 komentar | Read More

Reading food labels helps shoppers stay thinner

ScienceDaily (Sep. 19, 2012) — Shoppers -- particularly women -- who take the time to read food labels are thinner than those who don't.

These findings are from a recently released study authored by Steven T. Yen, a University of Tennessee professor in the Institute of Agriculture's Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, in conjunction with researchers at the University of Santiago de Compostela in Spain, the University of Arkansas and the Norwegian Institute for Agricultural Finance Research.

Women who read food labels weighed nearly 9 pounds less than women who didn't read labels, according to the study. It also found that women read labels more than men, and the smoking population paid even less attention to label information.

"Reading food labels is important because it allows shoppers to improve diet quality by making more informed decisions in food purchases," Yen said.

The researchers used data from the annual "National Health Interview Survey" that was conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The survey collected more than 25,000 observations on health, eating and shopping habits.

The study, which was published in the "Agricultural Economics" journal, examined the relationship between nutritional label use and obesity. The results showed that reading labels played a role in reducing obesity, especially among women.

"These findings imply that health education campaigns can employ nutritional labels as one of the instruments for reducing obesity," the report states.

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:

---

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by University of Tennessee.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

---

Journal Reference:

1. Maria L. Loureiro, Steven T. Yen, Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr. The effects of nutritional labels on obesity. Agricultural Economics, 2012; 43 (3): 333 DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-0862.2012.00586.x

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

20 Sep, 2012

-
Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/living_well/~3/z6plCqVEIs4/120919142012.htm
--
Manage subscription | Powered by rssforward.com

16.57 | 0 komentar | Read More

The more people rely on their intuitions, the more cooperative they become

ScienceDaily (Sep. 19, 2012) — It's an age old question: Why do we do good? What makes people sometimes willing to put "We" ahead of "Me?" Perhaps our first impulse is to be selfish, and cooperation is all about reining in greed. Or maybe cooperation happens spontaneously, and too much thinking gets in the way.

Harvard scientists are getting closer to an answer, showing that people's first response is to cooperate and that stopping to think encourages selfishness.

David Rand, a Post-Doctoral Fellow in Psychology, Joshua Greene, the John and Ruth Hazel Associate Professor of the Social Sciences in the Department of Psychology, and Martin Nowak, Professor of Mathematics and of Biology, and Director of the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, have published their findings in the September 20 issue of Nature. They recruited thousands of participants to play a "public goods game" in which it's "Me" vs. "Us." Subjects were put into small groups and faced with a choice: Keep the money you've been given, or contribute it into a common pool that grows and benefits the whole group. Hold onto the money and you come out ahead, but the group does best when everyone contributes.

The researchers wanted to know whether people's first impulse is cooperative or selfish. To find out, they started by looking at how quickly different people made their choices, and found that faster deciders were more likely to contribute to the common good.

Next they forced people to go fast or to stop and think, and found the same thing: Faster deciders tended to be more cooperative, and the people who had to stop and think gave less.

Finally, the researchers tested their hypothesis by manipulating people's mindsets. They asked some people to think about the benefits of intuition before choosing how much to contribute. Others were asked to think about the virtues of careful reasoning. Once again, intuition promoted cooperation, and deliberation did the opposite.

While some might interpret the results as suggesting that cooperation is "innate" or "hard-wired," if anything they highlight the role of experience. People who had better opinions of those around them in everyday life showed more cooperative impulses in these experiments, and previous experience with these kinds of studies eroded those impulses.

"In daily life, it's generally in your interest to be cooperative," Rand said. "So we internalize cooperation as the right way to behave. Then when we come into unusual environments, where incentives like reputation and sanctions are removed, our first response is to keep behaving the way we do in normal life. When we think about it, however, we realize that this is one of those rare situations where we can be selfish and get away with it."

Unlike many psychology studies, which use small numbers of college students, these experiments tested thousands of people from around the world using Amazon Mechanical Turk, an online labor market that's becoming an increasingly popular tool for social science research.

According to Rand, the findings highlight an interesting and counterintuitive truth -- that careful thought and reflection have a dark side. But is reflection always bad?

"When it's 'Me' vs. 'Us,' our intuitions seem to work well. That's what's going on here," explains Joshua Greene. "But what happens when people have different moral intuitions, for example, about abortion or raising taxes? When intuitions clash -- when it's the values of 'Us' vs. 'Them' -- reasoning and reflection may be our best hope for reconciling our differences."

"Over millions of years we've evolved the capacity for cooperation," explains Martin Nowak. "These psychological experiments examine the causes of cooperation on a shorter timescale, on the order of seconds. Both perspectives are essential as we face global problems which require cooperation on a massive scale. We need to understand where cooperation comes from historically and how best to make it happen here and now."

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:

---

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Harvard University, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

---

Journal Reference:

1. David G. Rand, Joshua D. Greene, Martin A. Nowak. Spontaneous giving and calculated greed. Nature, 2012; 489 (7416): 427 DOI: 10.1038/nature11467

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

20 Sep, 2012

-
Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/living_well/~3/sQyIezy4Wss/120919142144.htm
--
Manage subscription | Powered by rssforward.com

12.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

Your memory is like the telephone game, altered with each retelling

ScienceDaily (Sep. 19, 2012) — Remember the telephone game where people take turns whispering a message into the ear of the next person in line? By the time the last person speaks it out loud, the message has radically changed. It's been altered with each retelling.

Turns out your memory is a lot like the telephone game, according to a new Northwestern Medicine study.

Every time you remember an event from the past, your brain networks change in ways that can alter the later recall of the event. Thus, the next time you remember it, you might recall not the original event but what you remembered the previous time. The Northwestern study is the first to show this.

"A memory is not simply an image produced by time traveling back to the original event -- it can be an image that is somewhat distorted because of the prior times you remembered it," said Donna Bridge, a postdoctoral fellow at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and lead author of the paper on the study recently published in the Journal of Neuroscience. "Your memory of an event can grow less precise even to the point of being totally false with each retrieval."

Bridge did the research while she was a doctoral student in lab of Ken Paller, a professor of psychology at Northwestern in the Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences.

The findings have implications for witnesses giving testimony in criminal trials, Bridge noted.

"Maybe a witness remembers something fairly accurately the first time because his memories aren't that distorted," she said. "After that it keeps going downhill."

The published study reports on Bridge's work with 12 participants, but she has run several variations of the study with a total of 70 people. "Every single person has shown this effect," she said. "It's really huge."

"When someone tells me they are sure they remember exactly the way something happened, I just laugh," Bridge said.

The reason for the distortion, Bridge said, is the fact that human memories are always adapting.

"Memories aren't static," she noted. "If you remember something in the context of a new environment and time, or if you are even in a different mood, your memories might integrate the new information."

For the study, people were asked to recall the location of objects on a grid in three sessions over three consecutive days. On the first day during a two-hour session, participants learned a series of 180 unique object-location associations on a computer screen. The next day in session two, participants were given a recall test in which they viewed a subset of those objects individually in a central location on the grid and were asked to move them to their original location. Then the following day in session three, participants returned for a final recall test.

The results showed improved recall accuracy on the final test for objects that were tested on day two compared to those not tested on day two. However, people never recalled exactly the right location. Most importantly, in session three they tended to place the object closer to the incorrect location they recalled during day two rather than the correct location from day one.

"Our findings show that incorrect recollection of the object's location on day two influenced how people remembered the object's location on day three," Bridge explained. "Retrieving the memory didn't simply reinforce the original association. Rather, it altered memory storage to reinforce the location that was recalled at session two."

Bridge's findings also were supported when she measured participants' neural signals --the electrical activity of the brain -- during session two. She wanted to see if the neural signals during session two predicted anything about how people remembered the object's location during session three.

The results revealed a particular electrical signal when people were recalling an object location during session two. This signal was greater when -- the next day -- the object was placed close to that location recalled during session two. When the electrical signal was weaker, recall of the object location was likely to be less distorted.

"The strong signal seems to indicate that a new memory was being laid down," Bridge said, "and the new memory caused a bias to make the same mistake again."

"This study shows how memories normally change over time, sometimes becoming distorted," Paller noted. "When you think back to an event that happened to you long ago -- say your first day at school -- you actually may be recalling information you retrieved about that event at some later time, not the original event."

The research was supported by National Science Foundation grant BCS1025697 and National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke of the National Institutes of Health grant T32 NS047987.

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:

---

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Northwestern University. The original article was written by Marla Paul.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

---

Journal Reference:

1. D. J. Bridge, K. A. Paller. Neural Correlates of Reactivation and Retrieval-Induced Distortion. Journal of Neuroscience, 2012; 32 (35): 12144 DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1378-12.2012

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

20 Sep, 2012

-
Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/living_well/~3/OALb1Y9nFG4/120919125736.htm
--
Manage subscription | Powered by rssforward.com

11.14 | 0 komentar | Read More

Prejudice can cause depression at the societal, interpersonal, and intrapersonal levels

ScienceDaily (Sep. 18, 2012) — Although depression and prejudice traditionally fall into different areas of study and treatment, a new article suggests that many cases of depression may be caused by prejudice from the self or from another person. In an article published in the September 2012 issue of Perspectives on Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, William Cox of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and colleagues argue that prejudice and depression are fundamentally connected.

Consider the following sentence: "I really hate _____. I hate the way _____ look. I hate the way _____ talk."

What words belong in the blanks? It's possible that the statement expresses prejudice toward a stigmatized group: "I really hate Black people," "I hate the way gay men look," or "I hate the way Jews talk." But this statement actually comes from a depressed patient talking about herself: "I really hate me. I hate the way I look. I hate the way I talk."

The fact that the statement could have been completed in two equally plausible ways hints at a deep connection between prejudice and depression. Indeed, Cox and colleagues argue that the kinds of stereotypes about others that lead to prejudice and the kinds of schemas about the self that lead to depression are fundamentally similar. Among many features that they have in common, stereotypes of prejudice and schemas of depression are typically well-rehearsed, automatic, and difficult to change.

Cox and colleagues propose an integrated perspective of prejudice and depression, which holds that stereotypes are activated in a "source" who then expresses prejudice toward a "target," causing the target to become depressed.

This depression caused by prejudice -- which the researchers call deprejudice -- can occur at many levels. In the classic case, prejudice causes depression at the societal level (e.g., Nazis' prejudice causing Jews' depression), but this causal chain can also occur at the interpersonal level (e.g., an abuser's prejudice causing an abusee's depression), or even at the intrapersonal level, within a single person (e.g., a man's prejudice against himself causing his depression).

The researchers state that the focus of their theory is on cases of depression that are driven primarily by the negative thoughts that people have about themselves or that others have about them and does not address "depressions caused by neurochemical, genetic, or inflammatory processes." Understanding that many people with depression are not "just" depressed -- they may have prejudice against themselves that causes their depression -- has powerful theoretical implications for treatment.

Cox and colleagues propose that interventions developed and used by depression researchers -- such as cognitive behavior therapy and mindfulness training -- may be especially useful in combating prejudice. And some interventions developed and used by prejudice researchers may be especially useful in treating depression.

Using a wider lens to see the common processes associated with depression and prejudice will help psychological scientists and clinicians to understand these phenomena better and develop cross-disciplinary interventions that can target both problems.

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:

---

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Association for Psychological Science.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

---

Journal Reference:

1. W. T. L. Cox, L. Y. Abramson, P. G. Devine, S. D. Hollon. Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Depression: The Integrated Perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2012; 7 (5): 427 DOI: 10.1177/1745691612455204

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

19 Sep, 2012

-
Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/living_well/~3/c1q6hsvxF1w/120918185631.htm
--
Manage subscription | Powered by rssforward.com

16.46 | 0 komentar | Read More

Longer exercise provides added benefit to children's health

ScienceDaily (Sep. 18, 2012) — Twenty minutes of daily, vigorous physical activity over just three months can reduce a child's risk of diabetes as well as his total body fat -- including dangerous, deep abdominal fat -- but 40 minutes works even better, researchers report.

"If exercise is good for you, then more exercise ought to be better for you and that is what we found for most of our outcomes," said Dr. Catherine Davis, clinical health psychologist at the Institute of Public and Preventive Health at Georgia Health Sciences University.

Pediatric and adult studies have shown the metabolic benefits of aerobic activity but had yet to dissect differences in the dose response, or the amount of activity needed to elicit a given benefit. The study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association looked at 222 overweight, previously inactive 7- to 11-year olds in the Augusta, Ga., area and found more is better.

"Obesity is a growing public health crisis that is affecting youth throughout the United States, and we know that obesity can contribute to the development of type 2 diabetes," said Dr. Michael Lauer, Director of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute Division of Cardiovascular Sciences of the National Institute of Health. "This research adds to the body of evidence that physical activity improves children's health, that longer periods of exercise provide a greater benefit and that increased physical activity among overweight and obese children could stave off the onset of type 2 diabetes."

A third of the study participants maintained their typically sedentary lifestyle; a third began a 20-minute heart-rate-raising, after-school exercise routine for three months; and a third exercised for 40 minutes after school.

While their primary focus was insulin resistance, a risk factor for diabetes, the researchers also measured total body fat, visceral fat and aerobic fitness over the study's course.

Children who exercised for 40 minutes had a 22 percent reduction in insulin resistance versus the controls, while the 20-minute group experienced an 18 percent reduction, said Davis, the study's lead author.

The extra 20 minutes also helped the children lose more total body fat and visceral fat while fitness, which appeared driven by intensity rather than duration, gained a similar boost from both time periods. Benefits were gained without restrictive diets and worked equally well in black and white boys and girls.

Davis' research team kept both groups moving with running and tag games and modified sports. "Regulation sports tend to have kids standing around a lot waiting for the ball. We had enough balls so everyone was moving all the time," she said. They kept it fun, giving non-food rewards, such as small toys, for children who kept their heart rates high. "It had to be fun or they would not keep coming," said Davis, noting the 94 percent retention rate of study participants.

She hopes the evidence of the solid health benefits of a fun, vigorous and relatively short exercise routine will be used to design public health interventions for a society in which one-third of elementary school children are overweight.

"It's practical in the sense that we were able to quantify the dose required to make these changes," Davis said. "If you are able to get kids active for 20 minutes every day in school, whether through physical education or taking a running break during lunch, that can make a real difference." She noted that while schools are a great place to start, jam-packed curricula likely mean a 40-minute exercise routine will require after-hours programs as well.

"You can reach a lot of kids by making changes at school," Davis said. "We don't want this to just be for athletic or coordinated kids but for all kids, especially the ones who are less likely to be on a sports team."

Childhood obesity rates in the United States have been climbing for more than a decade. While they seem to be plateauing, the unprecedented levels have serious consequences for children's health and longevity, Davis said. A primary example is the emergence of type 2 diabetes, previously considered an adult, lifestyle-related problem with serious implications for cardiovascular health and more. One of the first indications of trouble is increased insulin resistance, how much insulin the pancreas must produce to enable glucose circulating in the blood to become energy for the cells. In this study, researchers showed a benefit of 40 minutes of daily exercise on the disposition index -- the ratio of insulin resistance to the body's ability to secrete insulin -- a proven predictor of diabetes development in adults.

"When your body is no longer able to secrete enough insulin to overcome your body's resistance to it, that's when it becomes diabetes," Davis said, noting that in insulin resistance, pancreases must work overtime producing extra insulin to convert excess blood glucose to usable energy. Without sufficient insulin, a vicious cycle results as energy-starved cells increase the appetite and people eat more creating even more glucose to convert. "Exercise basically gives the pancreas a break and could prevent or delay type 2 diabetes as long as people remain active," Davis said. Longer-term and follow-up studies are needed to find out what happens with these children over time and how to help them sustain a healthy lifestyle.

In 2005, a federal panel, co-chaired by Dr. William B. Strong, a pediatric cardiologist and retired Professor at the Medical College of Georgia at GHSU, recommended 60 minutes or more of daily vigorous physical activity for school-age children. The supervised 40-minute exercise sessions in the study likely resulted in a similar amount of cumulative activity, Davis said. "And, unfortunately 40 minutes is a lot more activity than many children are getting these days."

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:

---

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Georgia Health Sciences University.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

---

Journal Reference:

1. Davis CL, Pollock NK, Waller JL, Allison JD, Dennis BA, Bassali R, Melendez A, Boyle CA, Gower BA. Exercise dose and diabetes risk in overweight and obese children: A randomized, controlled trial. JAMA, 2012

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

18 Sep, 2012

-
Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/living_well/~3/MijcWpzVmtQ/120918112814.htm
--
Manage subscription | Powered by rssforward.com

13.56 | 0 komentar | Read More

Pacifiers may have emotional consequences for boys

ScienceDaily (Sep. 18, 2012) — Pacifiers may stunt the emotional development of baby boys by robbing them of the opportunity to try on facial expressions during infancy.

Three experiments by a team of researchers led by psychologists from the University of Wisconsin-Madison tie heavy pacifier use as a young child to poor results on various measures of emotional maturity.

The study, published September 18 by the journal Basic and Applied Social Psychology, is the first to associate pacifiers with psychological consequences. The World Health Organization and American Academy of Pediatrics already call for limiting pacifier use to promote breast-feeding and because of connections to ear infections or dental abnormalities.

Humans of all ages often mimic -- unwittingly or otherwise -- the expressions and body language of the people around them.

"By reflecting what another person is doing, you create some part of the feeling yourself," says Paula Niedenthal, UW-Madison psychology professor and lead author of the study. "That's one of the ways we understand what someone is feeling -- especially if they seem angry, but they're saying they're not; or they're smiling, but the context isn't right for happiness."

Mimicry can be an important learning tool for babies.

"We can talk to infants, but at least initially they aren't going to understand what the words mean," Niedenthal says. "So the way we communicate with infants at first is by using the tone of our voice and our facial expressions."

With a pacifier in their mouth, a baby is less able to mirror those expressions and the emotions they represent.

The effect is similar to that seen in studies of patients receiving injections of Botox to paralyze facial muscles and reduce wrinkles. Botox users experience a narrower range of emotions and often have trouble identifying the emotions behind expressions on other faces.

"That work got us thinking about critical periods of emotional development, like infancy," says Niedenthal, whose work is supported by the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche. "What if you always had something in your mouth that prevented you from mimicking and resonating with the facial expression of somebody?"

The researchers found six- and seven-year-old boys who spent more time with pacifiers in their mouths as young children were less likely to mimic the emotional expressions of faces peering out from a video.

College-aged men who reported (by their own recollections or their parents') more pacifier use as kids scored lower than their peers on common tests of perspective-taking, a component of empathy.

A group of college students took a standard test of emotional intelligence measuring the way they make decisions based on assessing the moods of other people. Among the men in the group, heavier pacifier use went hand-in-hand with lower scores.

"What's impressive about this is the incredible consistency across those three studies in the pattern of data," Niedenthal says. "There's no effect of pacifier use on these outcomes for girls, and there's a detriment for boys with length of pacifier use even outside of any anxiety or attachment issues that may affect emotional development."

Girls develop earlier in many ways, according to Niedenthal, and it is possible that they make sufficient progress in emotional development before or despite pacifier use. It may be that boys are simply more vulnerable than girls, and disrupting their use of facial mimicry is just more detrimental for them.

"It could be that parents are inadvertently compensating for girls using the pacifier, because they want their girls to be emotionally sophisticated. Because that's a girly thing," Niedenthal says. "Since girls are not expected to be unemotional, they're stimulated in other ways. But because boys are desired to be unemotional, when you plug them up with a pacifier, you don't do anything to compensate and help them learn about emotions."

Suggesting such a simple and common act has lasting and serious consequences is far from popular.

"Parents hate to have this discussion," Niedenthal says. "They take the results very personally. Now, these are suggestive results, and they should be taken seriously. But more work needs to be done."

Sussing out just why girls seem to be immune (or how they may compensate) is an important next step, as is an investigation of what Niedenthal calls "dose response."

"Probably not all pacifier use is bad at all times, so how much is bad and when?" she asks. "We already know from this work that nighttime pacifier use doesn't make a difference, presumably because that isn't a time when babies are observing and mimicking our facial expressions anyway. It's not learning time."

But even with more research planned to further explain the new results, Niedenthal is comfortable telling parents to consider occasionally pocketing the pacifier.

"I'd just be aware of inhibiting any of the body's emotional representational systems," Niedenthal says. "Since a baby is not yet verbal -- and so much is regulated by facial expression -- at least you want parents to be aware of that using something like a pacifier limits their baby's ability to understand and explore emotions. And boys appear to suffer from that limitation."

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:

---

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by University of Wisconsin-Madison. The original article was written by Chris Barncard.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

---

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

19 Sep, 2012

-
Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/living_well/~3/vL89gtT0kzs/120918154112.htm
--
Manage subscription | Powered by rssforward.com

13.24 | 0 komentar | Read More