Here's how you can 'supersize' your memory

Washington D.C., May 9: Do the middle age feel much stressful now, and seems to have changed over time, if compared to the life in the 90s? Well, this recent study indicates that it might be true.

The study has signalled to the fact that life may become more stressful majorly for middle-aged people than it was in the 1990s. The researchers reached this analysis even before the novel coronavirus started sweeping the globe.

A team of researchers led by Penn State found that across all ages, there was a slight increase in daily stress in the 2010s compared to the 1990s. But when researchers restricted the sample to people between the ages of 45 and 64, there was a sharp increase in daily stress.

"On average, people reported about 2 percent more stressors in the 2010s compared to people in the past," said David M. Almeida, professor of human development and family studies at Penn State.

"That's around an additional week of stress a year. But what really surprised us is that people at mid-life reported a lot more stressors, about 19 percent more stress in 2010 than in 1990. And that translates to 64 more days of stress a year."

Almeida said the findings were part of a larger project aiming to discover whether health during the middle of Americans' lives has been changing over time.

"Certainly, when you talk to people, they seem to think that daily life is more hectic and less certain these days," Almeida said.

For the study, the researchers collected data from 1,499 adults in 1995 and 782 different adults in 2012.

Almeida said the goal was to study two cohorts of people who were the same age at the time the data was collected but born in different decades. All study participants were interviewed daily for eight consecutive days.

During each daily interview, the researchers asked the participants about their stressful experiences throughout the previous 24 hours.

They asked questions related to arguments with family or friends or feeling overwhelmed at home or work, so and so. The participants were also asked how severe their stress was and whether those stressors were likely to impact other areas of their lives.

"We were able to estimate not only how frequently people experienced stress, but also what those stressors mean to them," Almeida said.

"For example, did this stress affect their finances or their plans for the future. And by having these two cohorts of people, we were able to compare daily stress processes in 1990 with daily stress processes in 2010," Almeida added.

After analyzing the data, the researchers found that participants reported significantly more daily stress and lower well-being in the 2010s compared to the 1990s.

Additionally, participants reported a 27 percent increase in the belief that stress would affect their finances and a 17 percent increase in the belief that stress would affect their future plans.

Almeida said he was surprised not that people were more stressed now than in the 90s, but at the age group that was mainly affected.

"We thought that with economic uncertainty, life might be more stressful for younger adults. But we didn't see that. We saw more stress for people at mid-life," Almeida said.

"And maybe that's because they have children who are facing an uncertain job market while also responsible for their own parents. So it's this generational squeeze that's making stress more prevalent for people at mid-life," he concluded.

The Lockdown is not a cure but a critical strategy to prevent the geographical spread of COVID-19.

While pandemics at this level involves actual life threatening situations for individual's or significant others in one's immediate circle, it envisages a marked disruption in routine life. Even after the pandemic has been contained and will come to pass; it's aftermath will leave a trailblazer which demands planning and implementation of a post pandemic reconstruction of society with potentially traumatic experiences varying in intensity, multiplicity and duration.

Degree of Trauma

It would do well for each one of us to realise that the pandemic is "potentially traumatic", since not everyone will experience COVID -19 as a traumatic event in their lives. Yet, there will be those who may develop post pandemic stress reactions, depression and related dysfunction and pathological reactions while still other exhibit healthy reactions to the same set of circumstances.

"Psychological reactions to the pandemic can be distilled into four distinct prototypical patterns, namely, Resilience, Recovery, Chronic and Delayed patterns which may vary in intensity, multiplicity, and duration. Resilient individual have an ability to bounce back from adversity and experience modest or little disruption in normal functioning and are able to maintain a relatively stable, healthy levels of psychological functioning even after enduring the pandemic. Recovery pattern is characterised by relatively rapid reduction in symptoms and return to normal functioning whereas chronic pattern is characterised by symptoms and dysfunction of a long duration," says Pune-based military psychologist Lt Col Dr Samir Rawat.

Challenges at the Individual and Community Levels

From a psychological perspective, post pandemic reconstruction would entail catering to the problems, concerns and needs of those adversely impacted by the COVID -19 with stress symptoms typically characterised by individual's experiencing an overwhelming trauma of the pandemic (for example, recurring nightmares/ breaking into a cold sweat, flashback of stressful events, increasing irritability, low frustration tolerance or emotional numbing).

It could also manifest in depressive symptoms which may result in lack of interest or diminished pleasure in activities and things which you earlier liked to do, feelings of worthlessness or even survivor guilt in case of a loss of a loved one due to COVID-19, fleeting thoughts of death and suicidal ideation. Physical symptoms, on the other hand could be a decrease in appetite, weight and sleep problems, inability to focus and lack of concentration.

Undoubtedly, the pandemic will cause a financial loss of varying magnitude to many, especially the marginalised and economically disadvantaged strata of daily wage earners; it will also lead to loss of jobs (already beginning to show), homelessness, occupational difficulties and new challenges in interpersonal relations at work and on the home front, besides physical health problems and psychological barriers with new norms of accepted social behaviour (social distancing, handshakes, an obsession for cleanliness to name a few).

Emotional battles

Many factors may influence whether individuals come out stronger and more resilient or surrender to the pandemic. Emotion Regulation is one such long term critical factor that can play an important role in contributing to varying degrees of adaptation with negative or positive outcomes. While we know that primary emotions are fear, anger, disgust, joy, anticipation, acceptance, sadness and surprise, other basic emotions include wonder, love, desire, joy, hatred, sadness, attachment, disgust, rage and even expectancy .

To be able to regulate these emotions and avoid negativity , especially on social media platforms is likely to increase efforts in emotion regulation which involves initiating, increasing or maintaining an emotional response.

This means by regulating or on the other hand by stopping, decreasing or avoiding an emotional response, that is, by down-regulating, depending on the individual's objectives and goals or his /her ability to regulate emotions in the valued and given direction.

"One of the best ways to regulate emotions is through cognitive restructuring wherein we change the way we think; after all it is not the event but the interpretation of the event which is perceived as stressful and finding meaning promotes resilience and reduces risk and vulnerability to stress," advises Dr Rawat.

Adding, "Clearly, we need to have a psychological plan to prevent, mitigate and minimise negative outcomes by post pandemic reconstruction of society at an individual and community level all over the country; this has to be integrated by all leaders across verticals in diverse domains."

Washington D.C., May 20: While a dairy-rich diet is helpful in meeting the body's calcium requirement, outcomes of a large international study links eating at least two daily servings of dairy with lower risks of diabetes and high blood pressure.

The dairy-rich diet also proved to lower the cluster of factors that heighten cardiovascular disease risk (metabolic syndrome). The study was published online in journal BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care.

The observed associations were strongest for full-fat dairy products, the findings indicated.

Previously published research has suggested that higher dairy intake is associated with a lower risk of diabetes, high blood pressure, and metabolic syndrome. But these studies have tended to focus on North America and Europe to the exclusion of other regions of the world.

To see whether these associations might also be found in a broader range of countries, the researchers drew on people taking part in the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study.

Participants were all aged between 35 and 70 and came from 21 countries: Argentina; Bangladesh; Brazil; Canada; Chile; China; Colombia; India; Iran; Malaysia; Palestine; Pakistan; Philippines, Poland; South Africa; Saudi Arabia; Sweden; Tanzania; Turkey; United Arab Emirates; and Zimbabwe.

Usual dietary intake over the previous 12 months was assessed by means of Food Frequency Questionnaires. Dairy products included milk, yogurt, yogurt drinks, cheese and dishes prepared with dairy products, and were classified as full or low fat (1-2 percent).

Butter and cream were assessed separately as these are not commonly eaten in some of the countries studied.

Information on personal medical history, use of prescription medicines, educational attainment, smoking and measurements of weight, height, waist circumference, blood pressure and fasting blood glucose were also collected.

Data on all five components of the metabolic syndrome were available for nearly 113,000 people: blood pressure above 130/85 mm Hg; waist circumference above 80 cm; low levels of (beneficial) high-density cholesterol (less than 1-1.3 mmol/l); blood fats (triglycerides) of more than 1.7 mmol/dl; and fasting blood glucose of 5.5 mmol/l or more.

Average daily total dairy consumption was 179 g, with full-fat accounting for around double the amount of low fat: 124.5+ vs 65 g.

Some 46, 667 people had metabolic syndrome--defined as having at least 3 of the 5 components.

Total dairy and full-fat dairy, but not low-fat dairy, was associated with a lower prevalence of most components of metabolic syndrome, with the size of the association greatest in those countries with normally low dairy intakes.

At least 2 servings a day of total dairy were associated with a 24 percent lower risk of metabolic syndrome, rising to 28 percent for full-fat dairy alone, compared with no daily dairy intake.

The health of nearly 190,000 participants was tracked for an average of nine years, during which time 13,640 people developed high blood pressure and 5351 developed diabetes.

At least 2 servings a day of total dairy was associated with a 11-12 percent lower risk of both conditions, rising to a 13-14 percent lower risk for 3 daily servings. The associations were stronger for full fat than they were for low-fat dairy.

This is an observational study, and as such can't establish the cause. Food frequency questionnaires are also subject to recall, and changes in metabolic syndrome weren't measured over time, all of which may have influenced the findings.

Nevertheless, the researchers suggest: "If our findings are confirmed in sufficiently large and long term trials, then increasing dairy consumption may represent a feasible and low-cost approach to reducing [metabolic syndrome], hypertension, diabetes, and ultimately cardiovascular disease events worldwide."