Statistics on the Undercurrent Societal Problem of Loneliness

Now there is evidence that loneliness itself is directly harmful to human health, and that’s not to mention the indirect damage it causes. How UK doctors are prescribing people social activities also seems like a refreshingly progressive way at combating the problem.

Everyone feels isolated sometimes, but with one in five Americans chronically lonely, has loneliness reached epidemic proportions? In 1988, the journal Science published a landmark study suggesting isolation was as strong a risk factor for morbidity and mortality as sedentary lifestyle, high blood pressure and smoking or obesity. Since then, loneliness has become an increasing public health concern and health officials are now taking the idea of an epidemic seriously. As the population ages, the burden of social isolation on public health will only increase.

Loneliness is one aspect of interrelated conditions such as isolation due to illness, disability or age; the social and language-based isolation of being an immigrant; depression; poverty; discrimination, etc.

This past summer, two surveys made news, marking the extent of loneliness in the U.S. and other economically developed countries. Since these and other studies are new, we can anticipate learning more about the interrelationships of factors that contribute to loneliness over time. That shouldn’t stop us from addressing the problem now, but may help provide better perspective.

The most recent survey, from The Economist and the Kaiser Family Foundation, finds that 9 percent of adults in Japan, 22 percent in America and 23 percent in Britain “always” or “often” feel lonely or lack companionship. Another study of 20,000 U.S. adults, 18 and older, published in May by Cigna and market research firm Ipsos, reveals nearly half of American adults reported “sometimes” or “always” feeling alone (46 percent) or left out (47 percent); more than one in four Americans (27 percent) “rarely” or “never” feel that people understand them; and 43 percent of Americans “sometimes” or “always” feel their relationships lack meaning and they are isolated. One finding stands out: Generation Z (22 years and younger) scored the lowest of every age-group and appears to be more prone to experiencing significant loneliness. Gen Z may be the loneliest generation.

Regarding health impacts, several recent studies have found that loneliness is a risk factor for decreased resistance to infection, cognitive decline and conditions such as depression and dementia.

A UC San Francisco 2010 study found loneliness to be a predictor of functional decline and death among adults 60 and older. Over six years, lonely subjects were more likely to experience decline in activities of daily living (24.8 percent vs. 12.5 percent); develop difficulties with upper extremity tasks (41.5 percent vs. 28.3 percent); experience decline in mobility (38.1 percent vs. 29.4 percent) or climbing (40.8 percent vs. 27.9 percent); and face increased risk of death (22.8 percent vs. 14.2 percent). It appears that without social interaction, we languish and decline, though it’s possible that greater longevity, coupled with functional decline, leads to social isolation.

At the other end of the spectrum are challenges faced by young adults. Two 2017 national surveys of adolescents, in grades eight to 12, found among lonely individuals, especially females, depressive symptoms and suicide rates increased between 2010 and 2015. The studies found adolescents who spent more time on social media and devices such as smartphones more likely to report mental health issues, though it’s not clear if the self-directed isolation of screen time leads to or results from loneliness.

While we need to know more about causes to stanch this epidemic, many studies identify ways to minimize the effect of loneliness. Socializing with friends and family and increasing meaningful face-to-face interactions decreases loneliness. Those with active social lives report better health. Strong social affiliations — such as being part of a religious group, hobbyist circle or exercise group — have positive effects. Doctors in the United Kingdom make “social prescriptions,” specifying patients take part in structured social activity.

Research Into How to Best Ask for a Pay Raise

This is relevant research in some respects, although it’s unclear how true all of it actually is. Timing is pretty important — employers probably have to be given an incentive, and subtle hints that a valuable employee may look for a job elsewhere with higher pay may make the difference.

To avoid the common fear of sounding greedy or obnoxious, don’t simply ask for more money. Instead say, “I would like to make $X. What would it take for me to get there?”

You might then elaborate with follow-up questions: Would it mean adding extra duties? Changing roles? Improving some aspect of the way I work now?

What’s brilliant about this approach is that it basically says, this isn’t about me and what I feel entitled to. It makes the conversation about the bargaining. And because you’re not asking a yes/no question, it immediately sets up the expectation that some deal will be struck, and we just need to find out what it is. (Sales people use this tactic when they ask, “What would it take for you to accept?”)

[…]

Economists and psychologists have conducted multiple studies on pay negotiation tactics and human behavior. In 2014, psychologists at Columbia University found that naming a salary range with a high “floor” (i.e. the lowest amount you’ll accept) led to higher offers. In 2016, a Columbia Business School study said that cracking a joke about a ridiculous amount of money you’d like to make can “anchor” a conversation, and subtly influence the employer’s thought process so that they’re more likely to go high, too. If you know the job pays in the $60,000 range, ask for half a million. Ha, ha!

These ideas sound promising in theory, but they don’t address that initial obstacle— the fear that asking for what you want, however you go about it, will be off-putting. In this sense, Coffey’s non-scientific method feels more doable. It’s not manipulative, either. You’re asking how your employer values particular contributions for a given role, but you’re flagging your own agenda, too. Your ambition exists and you’ve declared it.

It applies equally well to men as to women, though its basic premise is in keeping with advice Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook, shared at a forum last year about improving policies specifically to advance women’s economic opportunities. Sandberg said that although it shouldn’t be so, women generally are not treated the same way as men when they ask for money.

“If you are negotiating for a raise and you are a man, you can walk in and say ‘I deserve this.’ That will not backfire on you,” Sandberg said. “We know the data says it will backfire on a woman. So I think along with saying ‘I deserve this,’ [women should explain] that, you know, ‘This is important for [my] performance,’ and ‘This will make [me] more effective as a team member.’”

Sandberg said at the time that she hates to share this advice. Women shouldn’t have to adjust their behavior to accommodate a sexist structure. Men who happen to have less confidence than the average dude shouldn’t have to, either, of course, but they might feel more comfortable if they did. This compromise will get you further than not asking at all.

[…]

Anyone considering a job offer should probably attempt to secure a higher starting salary, experts say, because it could work, and it likely will not tarnish your reputation or jeopardize your opportunity. Andréa Mallard, chief marketing officer of athleisure wear company Athleta, who also spoke at the Well + Good panel, told the young women in the crowd that they should never hesitate, because it’s an impressive move.

Whenever she has hired someone who asked for more money, she said, the pushback made her respect that person more, not less. And, if it’s possible, most employers want to hit that number that will make someone feel excited about the job.

Some Antidepressants Are Actually Worsening Antibiotic Resistance

Another side effects of antidepressants, which are overall overrated for effectively solving mental health problems. The real solutions (antidepressants don’t help everyone and in general inadequately help many who take them) to mental health crises are methods such as creating an improved society for the general public, making concrete improvements in people’s lives through means such as better diet, use of valuable therapeutic treatments, and more exercise, and the use of mental techniques (e.g., changing thinking patterns in major depressive disorder) that make use of the human mind’s power.

Specifically though, fluoxetine, the essential ingredient in Prozac and an SSRI, has been implicated in spreading antibiotic resistance. The researchers who found this have previously reported in another study that triclosan — a typical ingredient in hand wash and toothpaste — also causes antibiotic resistance to worsen.

It was recently found that there are thousands of new antibiotic combinations that are quite effective, however, and it’s important enough to note. Antibiotic resistance is becoming a major problem that may do serious damage to the foundations of modern medicine if more research like that isn’t done and used effectively.

11 EU Countries to Supposedly Make Public Science Research Results Freely Available by 2020

Science should be much less about profit for paywalls and more about positively advancing humanity. More openness can enable more collaboration, which is beneficial to scientific researchers. If research is closed off, it may also be the case that more than one group of highly competent researchers is working on a specific problem, which can be inefficient since those people could be working on another important problem.

The UK, France, Italy, and eight other countries have formed a bold pact called cOAlition S, designed to ensure that from 1 January 2020, all publicly funded scientific research is freely, immediately available and fully open access (OA).

For the nations taking part, the plan represents the imminent realisation of an open access dream that began decades ago, and looks destined to signify the end of the paywall as we know it.

“‘Knowledge is power’ and I firmly believe that free access to all scientific publications from publicly funded research is a moral right of citizens,” the EU’s Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation, Carlos Moedas, said in a statement.

“It is one of the most important political commitments on science of recent times and puts Europe at the forefront of the global transition to open science.”

[…]

The key principle of Plan S is that from 2020 forward, all scientific research funded by public grants awarded by the 11 nation funders must be published in compliant Open Access journals or on compliant Open Access platforms – immediately, and with no restrictions.

Regenerative Bandage Hydrogel Boosts Internal Self-Healing for Wounds

A very notable advance that should become a promising part of healing in the future.

A simple scrape or sore might not cause alarm for most people. But for diabetic patients, an untreated scratch can turn into an open wound that could potentially lead to a limb amputation or even death.

A Northwestern University team has developed a new device, called a regenerative bandage, that quickly heals these painful, hard-to-treat sores without using drugs. During head-to-head tests, Northwestern’s bandage healed diabetic wounds 33 percent faster than one of the most popular bandages currently on the market.

“The novelty is that we identified a segment of a protein in skin that is important to wound healing, made the segment and incorporated it into an antioxidant molecule that self-aggregates at body temperature to create a scaffold that facilitates the body’s ability to regenerate tissue at the wound site,” said Northwestern’s Guillermo Ameer, who led the study. “With this newer approach, we’re not releasing drugs or outside factors to accelerate healing. And it works very well.”

Because the bandage leverages the body’s own healing power without releasing drugs or biologics, it faces fewer regulatory hurdles. This means patients could see it on the market much sooner.

The research was published today, June 11, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Although Ameer’s laboratory is specifically interested in diabetes applications, the bandage can be used to heal all types of open wounds.

[…]

The difference between a sore in a physically healthy person versus a diabetic patient? Diabetes can cause nerve damage that leads to numbness in the extremities. People with diabetes, therefore, might experience something as simple as a blister or small scratch that goes unnoticed and untreated because they cannot feel it to know it’s there. As high glucose levels also thicken capillary walls, blood circulation slows, making it more difficult for these wounds to heal. It’s a perfect storm for a small nick to become a limb-threatening — or life-threatening — wound.

The secret behind Ameer’s regenerative bandage is laminin, a protein found in most of the body’s tissues including the skin. Laminin sends signals to cells, encouraging them to differentiate, migrate and adhere to one another. Ameer’s team identified a segment of laminin — 12 amino acids in length — called A5G81 that is critical for the wound-healing process.

[…]

The bandage’s antioxidant nature counters inflammation. And the hydrogel is thermally responsive: It is a liquid when applied to the wound bed, then rapidly solidifies into a gel when exposed to body temperature. This phase change allows it to conform to the exact shape of the wound — a property that helped it out-perform other bandages on the market.

“Wounds have irregular shapes and depths. Our liquid can fill any shape and then stay in place,” Ameer said. “Other bandages are mostly based on collagen films or sponges that can move around and shift away from the wound site.”

Patients also must change bandages often, which can rip off the healing tissue and re-injure the site. Ameer’s bandage, however, can be rinsed off with cool saline, so the regenerating tissue remains undisturbed.

Not only will the lack of drugs or biologics make the bandage move to market faster, it also increases the bandage’s safety. So far, Ameer’s team has not noticed any adverse side effects in animal models. This is a stark difference from another product on the market, which contains a growth factor linked to cancer.

“It is not acceptable for patients who are trying to heal an open sore to have to deal with an increased risk of cancer,” Ameer said.

Next, Ameer’s team will continue to investigate the bandage in a larger pre-clinical model.

Playing Hard to Get is Usually a Turn Off, Study Shows

“…Sexual desire seems to thrive on reduced uncertainty.” It’s not something I typically write much about, but seeing that fallacious reasoning play out enough in my life prompted me into creating an entry on it.

When you first start dating someone, at least one of your friends will tell you to “play it cool.” It’s a piece of advice that’s almost as old as dating itself, and it’s based on the idea that if you act like you’re not really eager for the relationship, you suddenly become irresistible.

According to a new study, published in the journal Computers in Human Behaviour, you can try your best with that method, but it probably won’t work.

The team, led by IDC Herzliya psychology professor Gurit Birnbaum, conducted a series of six studies – some experiments and some looking at diary entries – to see whether uncertainty about a partner’s romantic intentions affected how sexually attractive they were perceived to be.

In the first study, 51 women and 50 men, aged 19 to 31 and all single, were told they were chatting to another participant online who was in another room. Then they were told their photo would be shown to the other person and they could see a photo of who they were talking to in return. In reality, the other person in the chat was one of the researchers, and every participant was shown the same photo of someone of the opposite sex.

At the end of the chat, participants could send one final message. Some were told their chat partner was waiting for them, while others were told they weren’t. The idea was to create certainty or uncertainty about the online partner’s interest. Then, participants rated their partner’s sexual desirability and how much they wanted to talk to them again.

Those who knew the partner was eager to hear from them perceived them as more sexually attractive than those who were uncertain. The rest of the studies showed a similar pattern – that sexual desire seems to thrive on reduced uncertainty. And this was true for men and women in committed relationships too.

So where did the idea come from that playing hard to get is a turn on? According to the study authors, it could all come down to self-preservation.

“People may protect themselves from the possibility of a painful rejection by distancing themselves from potentially rejecting partners,” said Harry Reis, a professor of psychology and Dean’s Professor in Arts, Sciences & Engineering at Rochester, and co-author of the study.

Birnbaum added that the findings suggest sexual desire may “serve as a gut-feeling indicator of mate suitability that motivates people to pursue romantic relationships with a reliable and valuable partner,” and “inhibiting desire may serve as a mechanism aimed at protecting the self from investing in a relationship in which the future is uncertain.”

In other words, we all fear rejection and playing it cool makes us appear less vulnerable. But in reality, by pretending you’re not interested, that’s exactly how you come across – literally not interested.

So if playing it cool is your dating method of choice, good luck with that. It might work if you’re attracting a player or someone with an avoidant attachment style. But if you’re looking for long-term happiness with someone who’s right for you, it seems honesty really might be the best policy.

Moderate Drinking Linked to More Potential Health Problems in New Study

There’s a link to heart problems and more in the study. On a personal note, in my view there’s something pretty wrong with society when you can go to a store and find alcohol around in all corners of it — and the alcohol must sell like that, that’s why it’s done. It also reminds me of the alcohol industry recently funding the NIH (which often does amazing work) in their attempts to dissuade concerns about moderate alcohol usage.

Regularly drinking more than the recommended UK guidelines for alcohol could take years off your life, according to new research from the University of Cambridge. Part-funded by the British Heart Foundation, the study shows that drinking more alcohol is associated with a higher risk of stroke, fatal aneurysm, heart failure and death.

The authors say their findings challenge the widely held belief that moderate drinking is beneficial to cardiovascular health, and support the UK’s recently lowered guidelines.

The study compared the health and drinking habits of over 600,000 people in 19 countries worldwide and controlled for age, smoking, history of diabetes, level of education and occupation.

The upper safe limit of drinking was about five drinks per week (100g of pure alcohol, 12.5 units or just over five pints of 4% ABV beer or five 175ml glasses of 13% ABV wine). However, drinking above this limit was linked with lower life expectancy. For example, having 10 or more drinks per week was linked with one to two years shorter life expectancy. Having 18 drinks or more per week was linked with four to five years shorter life expectancy.

The research, published today in the Lancet, supports the UK’s recently lowered guidelines, which since 2016 recommend both men and women should drink no more than 14 units of alcohol each week. This equates to around six pints of beer or six glasses of wine a week.

However, the worldwide study carries implications for countries across the world, where alcohol guidelines vary substantially.

The researchers also looked at the association between alcohol consumption and different types of cardiovascular disease. Alcohol consumption was associated with a higher risk of stroke, heart failure, fatal aortic aneurysms, fatal hypertensive disease and heart failure and there were no clear thresholds where drinking less did not have a benefit.