The first of the studies found that reinforcing belief and trust in science may be a strategy to help shift the views of climate change skeptics and make them more open to the facts being presented by the other side.

“Within the United States, bipartisan progress on climate change has essentially come to a standstill because many conservatives doubt the findings of climate science and many liberals cannot fathom that any rational human can doubt the scientific consensus on the issue,” said Carly D. Robinson, MEd, of Harvard University, who presented the research. “These opposing perspectives do not create a starting point for productive conversations to help our country address climate change. Our goal was to find an intervention that might change the current situation.”

Though previous research has shown that social pressure to disbelieve in climate change stems from the political right and that conservatives’ trust in science has eroded, Robinson and her colleagues theorized that most people would find at least some branches of science credible. Leveraging those beliefs could lead climate skeptics to shift their views, they said.

“When people are faced with two or more opposing beliefs, ideas and values, it tends to create discomfort, which can lead people to becoming more open-minded about a particular issue,” said Christine Vriesema, PhD, of the University of California, Santa Barbara and a co-author of the study.

The researchers surveyed nearly 700 participants from the U.S. Half were given surveys about their belief in science (e.g., “How credible is the medical data that germs are a primary cause of disease?” and “How certain are you that physicists’ theory of gravity accurately explains why objects fall when dropped?”) and their belief in climate science (e.g., “How credible is the climate science data that ocean temperatures are rising?” and “How certain are you that global warming explains many of the new weather patterns we are seeing today?”). The other half was only surveyed about their belief in climate science. All participants reported if they considered themselves politically liberal, moderate or conservative.

“As we predicted in our pre-registration, conservatives reported a greater belief in climate science if they were asked questions first about their belief in other areas of science,” said Robinson. “For climate skeptics, it likely became awkward to report on our survey that they believed in science while at the same time, denying the findings of climate science. That dissonance led many to adjust their beliefs to show greater support for the existence of climate change.”

The findings showed that beliefs in climate science are malleable and not fixed, said Robinson.

“We were pleasantly surprised that a brief, two-minute survey changed skeptics’ views on climate change,” said Robinson. “It is exciting to know that in real-world settings, we might be able to have more productive climate conversations by starting from a place of common belief.”

The second study showed that igniting a sense of resilience and perseverance can increase action and engagement around climate change for people who work in aquariums, national parks and zoos.

“Many educators working at these institutions reported wanting to talk about climate change and visitors reported wanting to hear about it, yet many educators still felt uncomfortable bringing the topic into their conversations because they were worried about being able to communicate effectively,” said Nathaniel Geiger, PhD, of Indiana University who presented the research.

The study included 203 science educators from zoos, aquariums and national parks who were part of a yearlong communication training program from the National Network of Ocean and Climate Change Interpretation designed to build participants’ confidence in talking about climate change. The training consisted of study groups, group assignments, readings, discussions and weekend retreats. During the last six months of the program, participants worked to integrate what they had learned into their jobs.

Survey data were collected one month before and one month after the training program and again six to nine months later.

Geiger and his colleagues examined two components of hopeful thinking to see which one might lead to the success of the training program: agency (e.g., enthusiasm, a sense of determination) and pathways (e.g., resilience and perseverance strategies) and how those influenced participants’ reports of engagement about climate change.

Participants rated their “agency thinking” (e.g., “I energetically do all I can do to discuss climate change” and “I anticipate that efforts to discuss climate change will be pretty successful”) and their “pathways thinking” (e.g., “I can think of many ways to discuss climate change”) in each survey. The science educators also reported the frequency with which they discussed climate change with the general public and visitors to their institutions, ranging from never to daily.

Geiger and his team found that pathways thinking was more successful at inspiring conversations about climate change than agency.

“Our findings suggested that portions of the training that taught how to persevere and be resilient in the face of difficult climate change conversations may have been the most effective at promoting discussion,” Geiger said.

The training program also increased the frequency with which the science educators spoke about climate change with visitors, from less than once per month prior to the training to more than two or three times per month afterward, he said.

“We found it uplifting that the training program showed such a robust effect at promoting these difficult discussions,” said Geiger. “We believe that climate change advocates and educators will find this work helpful toward meeting their goal of crafting more effective training programs to boost climate change engagement.”

“Many Americans now feel stressed about being stressed and anxious about being anxious. Unfortunately, by the time someone reaches out to a professional for help, stress and anxiety have already built to unhealthy levels,” said Lisa Damour, PhD, a private-practice psychologist who presented at the meeting. Damour also writes a regular column for The New York Times and is author of the book “Under Pressure: Confronting the Epidemic of Stress and Anxiety in Girls.”

Stress usually occurs when people operate at the edge of their abilities — when they push themselves or are forced by circumstances to stretch beyond their familiar limits, according to Damour. It’s also important to understand that stress can result from both bad and good events. For instance, being fired is stressful but so is bringing a baby home for the first time.

“It’s important for psychologists to share our knowledge about stress with broad audiences: that stress is a given in daily life, that working at the edge of our abilities often builds those capacities and that moderate levels of stress can have an inoculating function, which leads to higher than average resilience when we are faced with new difficulties,” she said.

Anxiety, too, gets an unnecessarily bad rap, according to Damour.

“As all psychologists know, anxiety is an internal alarm system, likely handed down by evolution, that alerts us to threats both external — such as a driver swerving in a nearby lane — and internal — such as when we’ve procrastinated too long and it’s time to get started on our work,” said Damour.

Viewing anxiety as sometimes helpful and protective allows people to make good use of it. For example, Damour said she often tells the teenagers she works with in her practice to pay attention if they start to feel anxious at a party because their nerves may be alerting them to a problem.

“Similarly, if a client shares that she’s worried about an upcoming test for which she has yet to study, I am quick to reassure her that she is having the right reaction and that she’ll feel better as soon as she hits the books, ” she said.

That doesn’t mean that stress and anxiety can’t be harmful, said Damour. Stress can become unhealthy if it is chronic (allowing for no possibility of recovery) or if it is traumatic (psychologically catastrophic).

“In other words, stress causes harm when it exceeds any level that a person can reasonably absorb or use to build psychological strength,” she said. “Likewise, anxiety becomes unhealthy when its alarm makes no sense. Sometimes, people feel routinely anxious for no reason at all. At other times, the alarm is totally out of proportion to the threat, such as when a student has a panic attack over a minor quiz.”

Untreated stress and anxiety can cause persistent misery but can also contribute to a host of additional psychological and medical symptoms, such as depression or an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, according to Damour.

“Anyone feeling overwhelmed by stress should, if possible, take measures to reduce his or her stress and/or seek help from a trained professional to learn stress management strategies. For the management of anxiety, some people find relief through workbooks that help them to evaluate and challenge their own irrational thoughts. If that approach isn’t successful, or preferred, a trained professional should be consulted,” said Damour. “In recent years, mindfulness techniques have also emerged as an effective approach to addressing both stress and anxiety.”

Damour also urged psychologists to take an active role in providing counter-messaging to what she called “the happiness industry,” or those wellness companies that are selling the idea that people should feel calm and relaxed most of the time.

“Psychologists are good at taking a more measured approach to thinking about the human experience. We want to support well-being, but don’t set the bar at being happy nearly all of the time. That is a dangerous idea because it is unnecessary and unachievable,” she said. “If you are under the impression that you should always be joyful, your day-to-day experience may ultimately turn out to be pretty miserable.”

“Many different factors contribute to unintentional injuries, so if we are able to stop just one of these risk factors, the injury could be prevented,” said David C. Schwebel, PhD, of the University of Alabama Birmingham, who presented at the meeting. “By using novel behavioral strategies, we can possibly prevent injuries that have previously been seen as unavoidable accidents.”

Injuries were responsible for the deaths of over 11,000 and emergency room visits by more than 6.7 million American children in 2017, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Global Burden of Disease project estimates that more than 2 million children under age 19 worldwide died as a result of injuries in 2017. While these numbers represent all injuries, the presentation focused on only unintentional injuries (i.e., accidents) instead of intentional injuries such as suicide, homicide and abuse.

Schwebel outlined a model that psychologists could use to reduce accidental injuries in children. The model groups risk factors in three categories: environment-based, caregiver-based and child-based factors. Each category contributes in some form to almost every incident, according to Schwebel, and preventing just one risk factor could stop an injury from occurring.

Environment-based factors can include many different aspects of the environment with which children interact. For example, children could choke on toys if they are not designed well or be harmed in a car accident due to an incorrectly installed car seat.

Schwebel described one case where he and his colleagues reduced an environmental risk by comparing the look and shape of bottles containing either juice or torch fuel. Children were shown many bottles, some with torch fuel and others with juice, and were asked if they would drink them or not. Children tended to identify liquids in clear plastic bottles as drinks and those in opaque containers as not drinks. After the findings were published, there were evident changes in the torch fuel industry as fuel began to be sold in dark opaque bottles.

Caregiver-based factors can involve anyone who is supervising a child, including parents, teachers, babysitters or even lifeguards. According to Schwebel, preschool teachers can often be underpaid and fatigued from the intense work of supervising children all day and sometimes use outdoor playground time as a break for themselves, allowing children to run free, even though the majority of injuries at preschools occur on playgrounds.

“To solve this problem, we developed the Stamp in Safety Program where children wear a nametag, and teachers have stamps to reward the children on their nametags for engaging in safe behavior,” he said. “While on the surface this seems to focus on rewarding children for safe behavior, its primary goal is to get teachers engaged and paying attention.”

Child-based factors include motor skills, how children perceive their environment and how they interact with others. These skills vary greatly by age, so different approaches are needed when confronting risks. For example, 7-year-olds struggle more with the cognitive demands of crossing the street than 14-year-olds. Interventions for child-based factors can include reinforcing common parenting practices such as teaching children how to cross the street safely or showing them how to interact with stray dogs.

How the specific situations targeted for interventions are chosen can be a mixed bag, said Schwebel. For example, the idea for a program on drowning prevention came after Schwebel observed lifeguards while his own kids were playing at a pool. Other intervention ideas are drawn from the personal experiences and ideas brought to him by his students, such as the Stamp in Safety program.

And while psychological researchers are essential, this work will require collaboration across a variety of disciplines, said Schwebel. Throughout his research, Schwebel has worked with computer scientists, visual artists, electrical engineers, biostatisticians, physicians, epidemiologists and others.

“Globally, we are amid an unprecedented decrease in health burden from communicable and infectious diseases. As the world develops, health risks change,” said Schwebel. “Psychologists have the expertise, the needed behavioral theory, and the needed methodologies to understand and take steps to prevent the significant health burden of unintentional injuries.”

Nutritional therapy is important to treat the type 2 diabetes optimally, but the recommendations are unclear. According to the Danish Health Authority, up to 85% of newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes are overweight, and they are typically advised to follow a diet focused on weight loss: containing less calories than they burn, low fat content and a high content of carbohydrates with a low ‘glycaemic index’ (which indicates how quickly a food affects blood sugar levels).

Reduced carbohydrate content — increase in protein and fat

A central aspect in the treatment of type 2 diabetes is the patient’s ability to regulate their blood sugar levels, and new research now indicates that a diet with a reduced carbohydrate content and an increased share of protein and fat improves the patient’s ability to regulate his or her blood sugar levels compared with the conventional dietary recommendations. In addition, it reduces liver fat content and also has a beneficial effect on fat metabolism in type 2 diabetics.

“The purpose of our study was to investigate the effects of the diet without ‘interference’ from a weight loss. For that reason, the patients were asked to maintain their weight. Our study confirms the assumption that a diet with a reduced carbohydrate content can improve patients’ ability to regulate their blood sugar levels — without the patients concurrently losing weight,” explains Senior Consultant, DMSc Thure Krarup, MD, from the Department of Endocrinology at Bispebjerg Hospital. He continues: “Our findings are important, because we’ve removed weight loss from the equation. Previous studies have provided contradictory conclusions, and weight loss has complicated interpretations in a number of these studies.”

New dietary recommendations for type 2 diabetics in future

Based on the growing body of evidence, we might rethink the dietary recommendations for patients with type 2 diabetes, stresses Thure Krarup:

“The study shows that by reducing the share of carbohydrates in the diet and increasing the share of protein and fat, you can both treat high blood sugar and reduce liver fat content. Further intensive research is needed in order to optimise our dietary recommendations for patients with type 2 diabetes,” says Thure Krarup, stressing that the findings should be confirmed in large-scale, long-term controlled trials.

Summary: What did the study show?

• A diet with a reduced carbohydrate content, high protein content and moderately increased fat content improves glycaemic control (the ability to regulate blood sugar) by reducing blood sugar after meals and ‘long-term blood sugar’ (measured by ‘HbA1c’, which is a blood test used to measure the average blood sugar level over approximately the past two months).
• A diet with a reduced carbohydrate content, a high protein content and a moderately increased fat content reduces liver fat content.
• A diet with a reduced carbohydrate content may be beneficial to patients with type 2 diabetes — even if it does not lead to weight loss.

About the study

The study forms part of CutDM, which — supported by a grant of DKK 4 million from Arla Food for Health — examines whether a diet with reduced carbohydrate content and increased protein and fat content improves type 2 patients’ blood sugar regulation.

28 patients with type 2 diabetes participated in the study over a total period of 12 weeks. For six weeks, the patients were given a conventional diabetes diet with a high carbohydrate content, and, for the other six weeks, they were given a diet with a reduced carbohydrate content, high protein content and moderately increased fat content. The patients were given the diet types in random order.

Story Source:

Materials provided by Faculty of Science – University of Copenhagen. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

The nation’s air on the whole has become cleaner in the past 70 years, but those benefits are seen primarily in whiter, higher-income areas, said Kerry Ard, an associate professor of environmental sociology at The Ohio State University, who will present her research today (Aug. 10, 2019.)

Ard used a variety of detailed data sources to examine air pollution and the demographics of the people who lived in 1-kilometer-square areas throughout a six-state region from 1995 through 1998. These are the four years after President Bill Clinton’s 1994 executive order that focused attention on the environmental and health effects of federal actions on minority and low-income populations. The act’s goal was “achieving environmental protection for all communities.”

The six-state area analyzed in the Ohio State study, home to many aging and shuttered industrial plants, includes Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin. These states make up the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency region with the highest level of unequal distribution of air toxins between whites and African-Americans.

In the four years included in her analysis, Ard found persistent air pollution hot spots that did not improve.

“We’re seeing that these pollution hot spots are the same, year after year, and every time they are in low-income communities — often communities of color. This has implications for a wide array of health disparities — from preterm births and infant mortality to developmental delays in childhood, to heart and lung disease later in life,” Ard said.

“Our results do not support that there was a perceivable mitigation of this gap after the executive order. In fact, we found that for every 1 percent increase in low-income African Americans living in an area, the odds that an area would become a hot spot grew significantly. This was also true, but to a lesser extent, for increases in low-income white populations.”

Previous research has shown that despite widespread reductions in air pollution, blacks are still experiencing twice the health risk from air pollution than whites.

This isn’t particularly surprising given that many blacks moved north toward industry — and jobs — during the Great Migration of African Americans from southern rural states, Ard said. Though many of the older, more-harmful plants have closed, others remain open and are often grandfathered into older regulatory standards that aren’t as strict as those imposed on newer companies, she said.

Ard said that efforts to control pollution aren’t going far enough to begin to eliminate the air-quality disparities and the health inequities to which they contribute. Ard, who is part of Ohio State’s Institute for Population Research, recently published a textbook chapter focusing on this work.

“We really need to look at older industrial plants and how they are being regulated and how enforcement is happening in these areas,” she said.

Air pollution is known to cause an array of health problems, but even those links aren’t as well-understood as they should be because most efforts focus generically on fine particulate matter or on single toxins, rather than combinations that have the potential to inflict more harm, Ard said. Fine particulate matter refers to small, lightweight particles in the air that easily make their way into the lungs and sometimes the bloodstream and are known to trigger and worsen a host of diseases. But what, specifically, is in that matter is significant, and should be analyzed to steer policies aimed at protecting human health, Ard said.

In addition to tightening up air-quality standards for all polluters — and specifically going after the worst chemicals or combinations of chemicals — policymakers should consider efforts such as replanting trees in blighted areas in an effort to improve air quality, Ard said.

Story Source:

Materials provided by Ohio State University. Original written by Misti Crane. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.