(토요모임) [May, 28, 2016] Saturday meeting topic

[Scarlet]

Howdy ! 

It's me Scarlett !   

This week we have 4 topics. 

◈ Healthcare : What do healthy eating guidelines look like around the world?

◈ Lifestyle : Cambridge University study suggests money really CAN buy you happiness

◈ Work : How to build bridges, not walls, at work

◈ Healthcare : Hayfever drugs 'could reduce brain size and increase risk of dementia and Alzheimer’s', study says

Hope you enjoy the topics. 

With luv 

Scarlett

---

What do healthy eating guidelines look like around the world?

Written by Rosamond Hutt/ Senior Producer, Formative Content

Published Monday 23 May 2016

Three decades of official health advice urging people in England to adopt low-fat, low-cholesterol diets has been “disastrous” for the fight against obesity, according to a new report, which argues that “eating fat does not make you fat”.

The controversial report by the National Obesity Forum (NOF) and the Public Health Collaboration, which calls for a "major overhaul" of the country’s healthy eating guidelines, comes after a different study found there are now more adults in the world classified as obese than underweight.

In their report, the NOF and the Public Health Collaboration claim that England's official dietary advice is fuelling increased consumption of junk food and carbohydrates, and instead recommend a return to “whole foods” such as meat, fish and dairy, and high-fat healthy foods like avocados. The authors also say that saturated fats do not cause heart disease and full fat dairy foods, including milk, yoghurt and cheese, can actually protect the heart.

The above graphic from Public Health England’s Eatwell Guide conveys official recommendations for a balanced diet. So how do other countries advise their citizens to eat?

While many countries’ guidelines suggest a similar balance of food groups to the US Department of Agriculture’s MyPlate, there are plenty of regional differences.

In Saint Kitts and Nevis, guidelines are portrayed by the ‘sugar mill’, a historic emblem for the country. The walls of the ‘sugar mill’ are made up of seven food groups, which, starting at the bottom, are: vegetables and fruits; fats and oils; sugars and sweeteners; food from animals; peas, beans and nuts; starchy foods.

The pyramid format remains a popular way to convey nutritional advice. Nutrition recommendations issued by the Finnish government, as shown in the diagram below, include eating fish twice a week, cutting down on salt, and using a vegetable-based spread on bread.

China uses an interesting variation on the pyramid – with a food pagoda that recommends a diet high in sweet potatoes, legumes and soy beans. Salt and oil, at the top, are to be consumed in small quantities.

Other creative approaches to depicting dietary advice include Germany’s 3D pyramid, Hungary’s house and France’s food stairs, which recommend five portions of fruit and vegetables daily on the fifth step and just one serving of meat, eggs and fish on the bottom stair.

---

<Questions>

Q1. Do you think you are over-weighted? 

Q2. Do you think you have well balanced eating habits? 

Q3. Please tell us foods that you like and dislike. Why do you like or dislike? 

Q4. Do you enjoy “whole foods” such as meat, fish and dairy, and high-fat healthy foods like avocados?

Q5. How do you manage your health condition?

Q6. Do you exercise on a regular basis? How often do you work out? What is your favorite sports? 

Q7. Do you have any healthy eating guidelines in your country? Please explain it to us. 

---

Cambridge University study suggests money really CAN buy you happiness

By Cambridge News  |  Posted: April 08, 2016 / By Adam Care

Along with not growing on trees and the love of it being the root of all evil, it's the one thing we all know to be true about money – it definitely can't buy you happiness.

But now a team of Cambridge scientists are seeking to overturn decades of common wisdom, suggesting (with a few provisions), that maybe, it actually can.

Working in collaboration with a UK-based bank, a team of researchers conducted a study comparing individuals' spending with their personality, which they say shows we can buy our way to contentment – providing we buy the right things.

Bank customers were asked to complete a personality and happiness questionnaire, and to allow their responses to be matched anonymously with their bank transaction data.

This meant the team could compare the personalities of 625 participants with a breakdown of how they spend their money.

The team then matched spending categories on the widely recognised "Big Five" personality traits – openness to experience (artistic versus traditional), conscientiousness (self-controlled vs easygoing), extraversion (outgoing vs reserved), agreeableness (compassionate vs competitive), and neuroticism (prone to stress vs stable).

For example, 'eating out in pubs' was rated as an extroverted and low conscientiousness (impulsive) spending category, whereas 'charities' and 'pets' were rated as agreeable spending categories. 

The researchers then compared the participants' actual purchases to their personalities using this scale, and found people generally spent more money on products that match their personality.

For example, a highly extroverted person spent approximately £52 more each year on 'pub nights' than an introverted person.

Similarly, a highly conscientiousness person spent £124 more annually on 'health and fitness' than a person low in conscientiousness.

Published yesterday, the study was authored by Sandra Matz, a PhD candidate in Cambridge University's Psychology Department, Joe Gladstone, a research associate at the Judge Business School and David Stillwell, a lecturer in big data analytics and quantitative social science.

"Historically, studies had found a weak relationship between money and overall well-being," said Mr Gladstone.

"Our study breaks new ground by mining actual bank transaction data and demonstrating that spending can increase our happiness when it is spent on goods and services that fit our personalities and so meet our psychological needs."

The researchers believe the findings hold widespread implications for internet retailers like Amazon, which use search-based recommendation engines.

Companies can use this information to recommend products and services that don't just increase clicks, but will actually improve the wellbeing of their customers – allowing companies to forge relationships with customers based on what makes them happier.

The researchers also backed up their findings by running a second experiment, where they gave people a voucher to spend in either a bookshop or at a bar.

Extroverts who were forced to spend at a bar were happier than introverts forced to spend at a bar, while introverts forced to spend at a book shop were happier than extroverts forced to spend at a book shop.

They say this follow-up study overcomes the limitations of correlational data, by demonstrating spending money on things that match a person's personality can cause an increase in happiness.

"Our findings suggest that spending money on products that help us express who we are as individuals could turn out to be as important to our well-being as finding the right job, the right neighbourhood or even the right friends and partners," said Ms Matz.

"By developing a more nuanced understanding of the links between spending and happiness, we hope to be able to provide more personalised advice on how to find happiness through the little consumption choices we make every day."

The study was published in the journal Psychological Science.

Read more: http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/New-Cambridge-study-suggest-money-reall-buy/story-29071289-detail/story.html#ixzz49oXhD6Cb 

Follow us: @CambridgeNewsUK on Twitter | cambridgenews on Facebook

---

<Questions>

Q1. Do you think money really CAN buy you happiness?

Q2. How would you define 'Happiness'?

Q3. How do you invest your money? Please share your investment strategies !~ 

Q4. How about your priority in your life? What are the reason for that? 

---

How to build bridges, not walls, at work

Written by Paolo Gallo/ Chief Human Resources Officer, World Economic Forum

Published Wednesday 25 May 2016

Building trust is of absolutely central importance to an organization. It is also a pillar of a person's success at work, regardless of your level, sector or company. I have learned that companies should forgive a lack of results, if only for a certain period of time, but be merciless if someone or something breaks a relationship of trust. Take no prisoners if trust is broken or damaged. 

Trust and confidence are not traits that you have, but traits that are built, maintained, learned, nurtured and protected. This is something that the most inspiring political leaders of recent times have recognised. Vaclav Havel, a poet, philosopher and dissident, spent four years in prison for his beliefs. After his Civic Forum party played a major role in toppling communism in the Velvet Revolution of 1989, he became President of the Czech Republic and told a fractured country that "We must learn to trust each other."

Nelson Mandela spent 26 years of his life in prison in apartheid-era South Africa. When he was inaugurated as President, he invited the same prison guards who had harassed and humiliated him for years as guests of honour. The message was clear: if he could trust them, then everyone could make a similar leap, launching a whole process of reconciliation to rebuild the country. Great leaders unite, they do not divide, and they always start by building trust, not walls. Before you think of strategy or budgets or policies, you need to think of trust.

 A simple exercise to measure trust

"Build bridges, and tear down walls": this is how Pope Francis expressed the same idea, in a religious context. How to put it into practice? Take a pencil and paper, and write the names of 20 or 30 people you work with frequently. Then, with a simple monthly chart, write down how many times you have had positive interactions or meetings, in which you gave something - usually your time, listening and experience - to each of these people. Try to keep the table updated, at it will indicate precisely when you are building bridges of trust, and if you have forgotten someone.

Do the same for people who do not work in your company but who you should keep in touch with. At least two or three times a year, contact them without asking for anything, for example by sending an interesting article that might be useful to them, or a simple invitation for a coffee. If they call you, make yourself available if at all possible. Doors will open, in an almost magical fashion. 

We do not work alone: we always need others, and we must continually demonstrate that we cooperate honestly with colleagues, even those who are not always pleasant to work with. I confess that one of the criteria I use to assess whether my day was positive or not is based on this: have I helped to keep a relationship of trust alive, have I been generous with my time to help others? Have I invested in my trust capital, eroded it, kept it at the same level? At times I believe I failed in building trust, and when this happens a candid conversation helps. 

"Did I add at least one brick to the bridge?"

Let us ask ourselves every day: "Did I put at least one brick into the construction of the bridge?". These bridges are built gradually, but they last forever, and they open up new roads and possibilities. Let us remember that the majority of jobs are given based on the knowledge and confidence that we have built, not on how elegantly we have written our Curriculum Vitae. Our reputation will always precede us: our reputation is the only thing we have.

We have to be cautious of people who are only ever available to take energy from us; the psychologist and author Adam Grant calls them "the takers". I suggest applying the "rule of three": if we had three meetings where we just gave and never received anything, test the person involved with a minor request for input; if they ignore it, reconsider, if possible, your own investment in the relationship. If the person never contacts you, no big deal as you have lost a "taker", if the person does get in touch, it could be the opening of a meaningful conversation.

In their book, The Trusted Advisor, David Maister and Charles Green give a very effective formula for understanding how to create trust. Careful: the sum of credibility, reliability and intimacy (being there when needed) has to be divided by self-orientation (a conflict of interest where your own agenda is at play, undermining what you are offering.) So, when we are building trust, we need to be mindful of real - or even only perceived - conflict of interest.

  

We need to build trust, but also to give it in return, building reciprocal confidence. An extraordinary act of trust is to ask for help: not only to show that we are not infallible, but that we have the courage to be vulnerable. This will help your colleagues feel confident enough to ask for help in return, building a virtuous circle of trust.

The times of pseudo-heroic and usually narcissistic leadership, based on one person knows all the answers, are long gone. Trust, the basis of mutual cooperation, is the only way forward. We should resist the building of walls, whether in Mexico or in our professional lives.

Article source : https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/05/bridges-or-walls?utm_content=bufferb03a4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

---

<Questions>

Q1. Do you trust your boss? What is the reason for your answer? 

Q2. Do you think building trust is important at work? 

Q3. According to an article, great leaders unite, they do not divide. Do you agree with this sentence? 

Q4. Do you have a role model? Why do you respect him/ her? 

---

Hayfever drugs 'could reduce brain size and 

increase risk of dementia and Alzheimer’s', study says

Scientists warn regular use of some common drugs can significantly 

increase the likelihood of brain disorders in older people

Kayleigh Lewis Wednesday 20 April 2016

A group of widely used drugs available over-the-counter and on prescription could be linked to the development of dementia and Alzheimer’s in older adults, a study has found.

Scientists believe they have found a link between the prolonged use of certain drugs – including certain hayfever and incontinence treatments, and some sleeping tablets and anti-depressants – and reduced brain size.  

Drugs known as anticholinergenics, which block the chemical which transfers electrical impulses between nerves, were also found to lower metabolism.

The research, led by a team at the Indiana University School of Medicine, used brain-imaging techniques and cognitive tests to assess the 451 elderly participants, of which 60 were taking at least one medication with an anticholinergenic agent.

Those taking the drug had notably reduced brain volume, and larger ventricles and cavities inside the brain.

In addition to the poorer performance regarding short-term memory, verbal reasoning, planning and problem-solving, the drug users also had lower levels of glucose metabolism in their brain – a biomarker for brain activity which leads to Alzheimer’s.

Dr Shannon Risacher, assistant professor of radiology and imaging sciences at the school and first author of the paper, said: “These findings provide us with a much better understanding of how this class of drugs may act upon the brain in ways that might raise the risk of cognitive impairment and dementia.

“Given all the research evidence, physicians might want to consider alternatives to anticholinergic medications if available when working with their older patients.”

Links have previously been found between the use of the drugs and cognitive impairment and increased dementia risks before, but this study is believed to be the first to look at the underlying biology by measuring brain metabolism and atrophy by using neuroimaging.

“These findings might give us clues to the biological basis for the cognitive problems associated with anticholinergic drugs, but additional studies are needed if we are to truly understand the mechanisms involved,” Dr Risacher said.

The research concluded anticholinergic medicines were “associated with increased brain atrophy and dysfunction and clinical decline” and therefore, “use of [anticholinergic] medication among older adults should likely be discouraged if alternative therapies are available”.

However, Dr James Pickett, Head of Research at Alzheimer’s Society, warned against drastic action, saying: “Concerns over the use of this common class of medicines have been raised before, with some research suggesting a possible link between anticholinergic drugs and an increased risk of dementia. 

“This small study takes a closer look at changes in the structure and activity of the brain. However, the full impact of these drugs remains unclear as the people taking them in this study were more likely to have insomnia, anxiety, or depression, all of which are risk factors for dementia.

“We need to understand more about the possible effects of this type of drug, and we encourage doctors and pharmacists to be aware of this potential link. Anyone concerned about this should speak to their GP before stopping any medications,” he said.

Article source : http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/hayfever-drugs-reduce-brain-size-risk-dementia-alzheimer-s-a6991281.html

---

<Questions>

Q1. When you read title what ideas are coming into your mind? 

Q2. When you come down with any disease, do you go to hospital or do you go to pharmacy? 

Q3. How often do you go to hospital or pharmacy? 

Q4. Do you have any special treatment to increase your brain functioning? 

[빛과 소금]

모임갈 때 위에 있는거 다 읽고 대답 준비해 가서 말하는건가요?

[Scarlet]

전체를 다 읽고 준비해 오시면 좋겠지만 일부관심있는 주제중심으로 읽어보시고 의견준비해보시면 될거 같아요.
어차피 전체자료를 다 토론하지는 못한답니다. 테이블 별로 관심주제를 주로 토론하게됩니다. ㅋㅋㅋ
또 준비하지 못하신게 있으면 다른분들 의견을 듣기만 하셔도 되요.ㅋ