What does running do to your brain?

Neuroscientists have studied treadmill runners, ultramarathon athletes – and a number of lab animals – to investigate the effects of running on grey matter

It may seem obvious – as you push on through a long run, veering wildly between sensations of agony and elation – that running can have a huge effect on your state of mind. It is an intuitive idea that a growing number of neuroscientists have begun to take seriously, and in recent years they have started to show us what actually plays out on the hills and valleys of your grey matter as you run.

Their findings confirm what many runners know from their own experience: we can use running as a tool to improve the way we think and feel. And we are now learning precisely why running can return focus, vanquish stress and improve mood. Plus we know why – if you’re lucky – you might get a brief glimpse of nirvana.

It would be crazy to believe that running is a universal solution to all of our psychological challenges. Indeed, from your brain’s perspective, you may not want to push it too hard. German neuroscientists scanned the brains of some of the competitors before, during, and after the TransEurope Foot Race, in which competitors slog through 3,000 miles, over 64 consecutive days. In the middle of this absurdly extreme ultramarathon, the runners’ grey matter had shrunk in volume by 6%: the ‘normal’ shrinkage associated with old age is just 0.2% each year. Luckily, the story doesn’t end too badly: eight months later the runners’ brains were back to normal.

But if covering immense distances can be counter-productive, it is clear now that more moderate runs can result in very real benefits. First, in a world where smartphones bombard us with stimulation and blur the boundaries between work and life, a clutch of recent studies shows why going for a run can help regain a sense of control.

A 2018 experiment from West Michigan University, for example, showed that running quickly for half an hour improves “cortical flicker frequency” threshold. This is associated with the ability to better process information. Two others, from the Lithuanian Sports University and Nottingham Trent University, showed that interval running improves aspects of “executive function”. This is a suite of mental high-level faculties that include the ability to marshall attention, tune out distractions, switch between tasks and solve problems. Among the young people studied, measurable gains were clear immediately after 10 minutes of interval sprints. They also accumulated after seven weeks of training.

A brain imaging study led by David Raichlen at the University of Arizona ties in neatly with these results. They saw clear differences in brain activity in serious runners, compared to well-matched non-runners. For obvious reasons, you cannot run while you are inside a brain scanner, so the neuroscientists studied the brain at rest. First, they saw increased co-ordinated activity in regions, mainly at the front of the brain, known to be involved in executive functions and working memory. This makes sense. Second, they saw relative damping down of activity in the “default mode network”, a series of linked brain regions that spring into action whenever we are idle or distracted. Your default mode network is the source of your inner monologue, the instigator of mind-wandering and the voice that ruminates on your past. Its effects are not always welcome or helpful, and have been associated with clinical depression.

Raichlen’s was a preliminary study, but if corroborated in the future, it will lend fresh weight to the idea that running can be a form of moving mindfulness meditation. Brain scans show that meditation and running can have a somewhat similar effect on the brain; simultaneously engaging executive functions and turning down the chatter of the default mode network. Again, this seems intuitively right: in the midst of a run, you are likely to be immersed in the present moment, tuned into your bodily state, and conscious of your breath. These are all key aims of mindfulness-based practices. Lacing up your trainers and going for a run could, therefore, be a way to reap some of the psychological benefits of mindfulness. Companies, too, are cottoning on to the therapeutic effects of running: I recently worked with running-shoe company Saucony to create a podcast about the effects of running on the mind.

All of this might start to explain why some people find that running, like mindfulness, can be a useful way to overcome stress and depression. Recent research from the Karolinska Institute in Sweden shows, at a chemical level, how running can defuse at least one important biological stress pathway.

When you are under stress, metabolic processes in your liver convert the amino acid tryptophan into a molecule with the mumble-inducing name of knyurenine. Some of that knyurenine finds its way into your brain, where its accumulation has been strongly associated with stress-induced depression, anxiety disorders and schizophrenia. When you exercise, the levels of an enzyme called kynurenine aminotransferase build up in your muscles. This enzyme breaks down knyurenine into the related molecule kynurenic acid, which, importantly, cannot enter the brain. In this way, exercising your skeletal muscles by running clears from your bloodstream a substance that can cause mental health problems. It is important to note that, for technical and ethical reasons, some of the details of this mechanism have been proven only in laboratory animals.

At first glance, it is not obvious why working your leg muscles should have a direct effect on your mental state. This work provides rare insight into the often-mysterious links between brain and body – and is a powerful reminder that your brain is just another bodily organ. What you choose to do with your body will, inevitably, have psychological consequences.

Running can do more for your mood than smooth out stress. Some lucky souls gloat about their experiences of the “runner’s high”, which, they claim, is a powerful feeling of ecstasy and invincibility. Running has never quite done that for me, but we do now know more about the potent chemical rewards that running triggers in the brain.

he popular idea of the “endorphin rush” was born in the 1980s and 90s, when a series of studies showed that the levels of beta-endorphin increase in your bloodstream during the course of a run. Beta-endorphin targets the same receptors as opiates, and has some similar biological effects. The endorphin rush hypothesis always had a flaw, however, since beta-endorphin does not cross readily the blood-brain barrier. And if it didn’t make it into your brain, how could it give you a high?

In 2008, German neuroscientists put that right. They used functional brain imaging to show that, in trained runners, beta-endorphin levels do indeed spike in the brain after a two-hour run. Increased levels endorphin activity in the brain also correlated with the runners’ self-reported feelings of euphoria.

It is not just home-brew opiates that can dull the pain and raise your spirits while you are on the run. Endocannabinoids are a diverse family of bodily chemicals which, like cannabis, bind the brain’s cannabinoid receptors. The levels of endocannabinoids circulating in the blood rises after 30 minutes of moderately intense treadmill running. Rigorous experiments, conducted on lab mice, show that running-induced endocannabinoids are responsible for reductions in anxiety and perception of pain. It is a good bet that the same mechanism works in our minds. For many of us, running may never deliver a drug-like high. But we now see why a run that feels like murder at the start can leave you feel satisfied and at ease by the home straight.

Some of these studies are preliminary and need fleshing out. And it is definitely the case that your gender, genetic profile, fitness, expectations and many other factors besides will influence the way your brain responds to running. Even so, I read all these neuroscientific studies as good news stories.

While the physical benefits of running and aerobic exercise are well established, we are starting to see why running can have profound benefits for mental health, too. Hopefully, knowing this will redouble your determination to get out there and run more often.

Ben Martynoga, The Guardian, 22/6/2018

Exam review

GROUP HHMIA2 (4.30 - 7.00)

Date: Thursday 21st June
Classroom: A 3
Time: 17.00 - 17.30

GROUP KMIA2 (7.00 - 9.30)

Date: Thursday 21st June
Classroom: A 3
Time: 20.30 - 21.00

Matt Hancock: schools across the UK should ban mobile phones

Should we propose the same for theSpanish schools?

The culture secretary who heads up the digital brief says tech makes parenting harder

The culture secretary has called on more schools to ban mobile phones.

Matt Hancock said he admired those headteachers who did not allow their use during the school day and linked social media use with the problem of bullying among young children.

Hancock told the Guardian last week that he does not allow his children to have their own phones or to use social media, but dismissed the idea of legislating to stop their use in schools.

And, he returned to the subject in an article for Wednesday’s Daily Telegraph, in which he put the onus on headteachers.

He said: “Technology makes being a parent much harder. And schools have a big role too. I enthusiastically support using technology for teaching. But we also need to teach children how to stay safe with technology. Why do young children need phones in schools?

“There are a number of schools across the country that simply don’t allow them. I believe that very young children don’t need to have access to social media. While it is up to individual schools to decide rather than government, I admire headteachers who do not allow mobiles to be used during the school day. I encourage more schools to follow their lead. The evidence is that banning phones in schools works.

“Studies have shown mobile phones can have a real impact on working memory and fluid intelligence, even if the phone is on a table or in a bag.”

Last week, Hancock – whose brief includes digital policy – told the Guardian he believed “parents have a responsibility to ensure that children use technology appropriately. For instance, I allow my children to do their homework online, but I don’t let them on to social media”.

He added: “They don’t have access to the devices. They don’t have phones. Why do they need phones? They’re children, they’re 11.”

Hancock said the government had a responsibility to ensure internet companies “properly police their own terms and conditions”. But he dismissed suggestions the UK government should follow the lead of its French counterpart, which has banned mobile phones on school premises.

In his Telegraph article, Hancock said: “Modern digital technology is a powerful force for good ... But with all of the exciting doors that the internet opens, like any new technology it brings challenges, especially for our children.

“We all recognise children need more protection on the internet. If a child is being bullied during the day and they have access to social media, the bullying doesn’t necessarily stop when they walk out of the school gate. I want bullying to be as unacceptable online as it is in the playground.”

Singles 'more at risk of heart disease than married couples', study finds

What do you think about this?

People who are single, divorced or widowed have a far higher risk of developing cardiovascular disease, a study has found.

Married people are less likely to develop heart disease or have a stroke than those who are single, according to new research.

Drawing on 34 studies across 52 years, involving more than two million people aged between 42 and 77, the research by a group of universities in the UK, US and Australia found that people who were divorced, widowed or had never married had a 42% higher risk of developing cardiovascular disease.

They were also at a 16% higher risk of coronary artery heart disease and a 42% higher risk of dying from it, and 55% more likely to have a stroke.

It is the same bleak outlook for both men and women, with divorce and being widowed both hugely increasing the likelihood of heart disease and strokes.

Lead researcher Chun Wai Wong, of Keele University, said: "Our analysis showed that, compared to married individuals, being unmarried was associated with increased coronary heart disease and both cardiovascular heart disease and stroke mortality in the general population.

"Our findings suggest that marriage has a protective effect on cardiovascular diseases, however, this could be attributed to the additional social and emotional support provided by having a spouse."

Among the possible explanations for the findings are that people who are married have their health problems recognised sooner by virtue of having a partner.

Those who are married are also more likely to have better financial security and friendship networks, experts from the universities suggested.

Supporting Keele in the study were the Universities of Aberdeen, Arizona and Macquarie, as well as University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust and the King Fahd Armed Forces Hospital.

Professor Phyo Kyaw Myint, of Aberdeen, said: "There are several possible mechanisms that may explain why people who are married had reduced risk of heart disease.

"They may adopt balanced diet and lifestyle for example, through encouraging their partner to lose weight, do more physical activities or simply encouragement to go and see a doctor for seemingly minor ailments such as heartburn which can be due to heart disease.

Sky News

Oral exams Tuesday 19th June

Group 4.30 - 7pm:

As there is only 2 people called, both of you have be there at 4.00.

Good luck!

Embrace Mediterranean or Nordic diets to cut disease, WHO says

 Major study suggests Britain could lower its rates of cancer, diabetes and cardiovascular disease by promoting the diets

Britain could lower its rates of cancer, diabetes and cardiovascular disease by embracing Mediterranean- or Nordic-style diets, a major study into the benefits of healthy eating suggests.
A review by the World Health Organization found compelling evidence that both diets reduce the risk of the common diseases, but noted that only 15 out of 53 countries in its European region had measures in place to promote the diets.
The authors of the report compiled evidence on the health impacts of the two diets from academic journals, conference papers and books, then reviewed government and health ministry websites for national policies and guidelines on healthy eating.
Eight countries including Ireland, Spain and Greece promoted the benefits of the Mediterranean-style diet, while seven including Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland recommended people adopt a Nordic-style diet to remain healthy.
“Both of these diets are really good in terms of impact on health. That is not in doubt,” said João Breda from the WHO’s European office for prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases. “We wanted to know whether countries were using them to inform healthy eating policies.”
In England, the government recommends people eat five portions of fruit and vegetables per day on the back of evidence that such a diet can reduce the risk of heart disease and stroke. But ministers have been accused of doing too little to discourage unhealthy eating, despite a rise in childhood obesity rates to 10%.
The traditional Mediterranean diet is rich in fruit, vegetables, nuts, cereals and olive oil, includes a moderate amount of fish and poultry, and has very little dairy, red meat, processed meat and sweets. The Nordic diet is similar, focusing on vegetables, berries, pulses, whole grain cereals and fatty fish such as herring, mackerel and salmon. Instead of olive oil, the Nordic diet favours rapeseed oil.
According to the report, both diets helped to reduce cases of chronic illnesses, such as heart disease, stroke, diabetes and some cancers. Many of the conditions are driven by obesity. According to Cancer Research UK, more than one in 20 cancers are linked to being overweight or obese. The number of adults and older teens with diabetes has doubled in the past 20 years on the back of rising obesity rates, with 3.7 million people aged 17 or older now living with the disease.
“All countries need to do more in terms of promoting good diets, because we have an emergency here,” Breda said. “We are not recommending any particular diet, but when countries think about the improvements they want to make, they might be inspired by these diets. If you adopt them, you save the health system money. There are lots of advantages.”
The Guardian,  Ian Sample Science editor

So proud of him!

Rafael Nadal sheds tear for French Open court he has made his own 

The Spaniard’s 11th Roland Garros title was emotional as the demolition workers prepared to smash up Court Philippe Chatrier but thoughts turned immediately to Wimbledon  

The tears were new but otherwise things were as they always seem to be in Paris. Rafael Nadal duly collected his 11th French Open title here on Sunday with a brutal, brilliant, resilient and ruthless performance, just as he had done 10 times before. But as Nadal’s uncle, Toni Nadal, said shortly afterwards, “this is not normal”.
Less than an hour after the match was completed, demolition workers began to smash up Court Philippe Chatrier, part of the continuing redevelopment that will lead to a roof being in place over the stadium court in two years’ time. This, though, is Nadal’s court, the place he has dominated like no other. His emotions were on show as he shed a few tears when the national anthem of Spain was played in his honour for the 11th time, an obvious sign of what this tournament means to him. Nadal’s 11th title takes his grand slam tally to 17 and even at 32, despite the miles in his legs, who is going to stop him making it 12 in a year’s time?
When he was recovering from injury this year, for the umpteenth time in his career, he was focused on this title and nothing – certainly not Dominic Thiem – was going to stand in his way. Even a cramp in his left hand early in the third set, which required a rub-down of his left forearm, did not stop him as he closed out for victory.
Uncle Toni, no longer his nephew’s coach but back in his customary seat on the end of the players’ box, two seats down from the current coach, Carlos Moya, summed it up perfectly. “When someone wins 11 times here, for me it’s unbelievable,” he told reporters. “To think that Rafael has won 11 times, it’s unbelievable. I think he is really good.”
The understatement was classic Toni but there was nothing understated about Nadal himself. It was his best performance of the fortnight, as Nadal confirmed on court, just when he needed it most.
Right from the start of the tournament the Nadal camp knew Thiem was the biggest danger, having seen at first hand what the Austrian can do when he defeated their man in Madrid last month. Having also beaten him in Rome last year, he is the only man to defeat Nadal on clay in the past two years, and the way he had played on the way to the final threatened to make it a classic match.
That it was not was testimony to Nadal’s level, which never wavered, despite everything Thiem threw at him. Nadal threw himself across the baseline, retrieving everything. When he had the chance, he thumped his forehand with his customary effect, his dazzling footwork still a marvel even as he enters his 33rd year.
The momentary cramp in his left hand gave him a brief scare but he was simply too good, yet again. He is now three grand slam titles short of Roger Federer, the pair having shared the past six slam titles between them. Might he catch him? “I want to think that is possible but I know maybe in a month Federer will win Wimbledon again. I don’t know,” Toni Nadal said.
It is eight years since Nadal last lifted the Wimbledon title and he has not been past the last 16 since he reached the 2011 final. The transition from clay to grass is a tough one for him, the loading required particularly difficult for his chronic knees, which nevertheless have held up amazingly well over the years.
Last year, he looked good only to lose against Gilles Müller of Luxembourg in a five-set match. It is a tough assignment but with the confidence earned here it is possible. “I think so,” Toni Nadal said. “I thought last year he could win. I thought it, because he played really good, but in the end Gilles Müller just played too good.”

Simon Cambers at Roland Garros, The Guardian

Tomorrow is the day of your written exam

If you don't have to seat all the whole exam, you can click here to see at what time you'll begin each part.


Times for the different parts of the written exam


Good luck!! 

'Plastic is not cool' – is fashion finally cleaning up its act?

As World Oceans Day approaches, Lucy Yeomans, Net-a-Porter’s chief executive, is leading the way in tackling fashion’s addiction to the ‘plastic drug’. But there’s a long way to go.

In April, at a Net-a-Porter event where the online retailer’s trends for this autumn were presented, one of the most popular accessories was not a leather handbag by Gucci or a leopard-print, high-vamp shoe, but the black Net-a-Porter.com-branded “keep” cups that the coffee was served in. At least one fashion editor was witnessed shouldering her way over to the bar muttering: “I just need one of those cups!”
Fashion fans are followers and consumers. If something’s in, hip, hot or cool they will want it and they will buy it. And if it’s not, they won’t. So when Lucy Yeomans, editor-in-chief of Net-a-Porter and its glossy publication, Porter magazine, says – as she did over the phone this week – “Plastic is not cool” then plastic should be afraid. Very afraid.
In the lead up to World Oceans Day on Friday, Yeomans will be at the United Nations in New York with Parley for the Ocean, an organisation tackling the global plastic crisis, to discuss how plastic pollution is destroying the environment. The current issue of Porter is dedicated to this cause (while still also dedicated to selling luxury fashion and accessories), done in collaboration with Parley, and guest-edited by its ambassador, the model Anja Rubik.

 Subscriptions issues of the magazine will be delivered this month in paper rather than its usual plastic packaging – and once the company has used up all its remaining stock of the latter, it will move to using paper packaging on a permanent basis. It’s part of a commitment that the company has made to rid itself of unnecessary plastic. Its fashion shoots are now plastic-free zones – no throwaway bottles, coffee cups or cutlery, and so is the office. “I can’t see a single plastic bottle on any desk in here,” says Yeomans.
But it’s going to take more than a plastic bottle ban to counterbalance the part the fashion industry has played in what Erik Solheim, the UN environment chief, writing in The Guardian this week, called a global “plastic calamity”. Each year it extracts more and more raw materials from the earth to make innumerable virgin plastic products – fabrics, zips, buttons, the many components of shoes, trainers and bags – that will end up in landfill or at the bottom of the ocean where they take centuries to decompose. That’s just one aspect of the problem.
“We now know there is a real issue in the the shedding of microfibres during the wash cycle for synthetic fibres,” says Livia Firth, environmental campaigner and founder of the sustainability consultancy Eco-Age. “Many low-cost, fast fashion brands have blended synthetics into billions of products, on the basis of cost. There is a big job to do in re-establishing natural fibres.”
A really big job – particularly given that shiny, plastic-y look – vinyl, PVC and glossed up leather – is a key look for 2018.
Parley’s founder, Cyrill Gutsch, has said that designers and brands need to wean themselves off the “plastic drug”. The organisation advocates a policy of avoid, intercept, redesign: stop using virgin plastic; collect “ocean plastic” accumulated at the bottom of the sea; recycle it into new materials and textiles.
A number of established designers and brands are listening. Stella McCartney, who worked with Parley in 2016 to make ocean plastic trainers for Adidas, now uses recycled polyester and Econyl – a regenerated nylon made from industrial plastic, waste fabric and fishing nets – in certain accessories and outerwear, with a commitment to stop using any virgin nylon by 2020.
Last year, H&M used the equivalent of more than 100m plastic PET bottles in recycled polyester throughout its products. It also launched its first garments made from recycled shoreline waste, a new material named Bionic and collaborated on a project in Indonesia called Bottle2Fashion, which turns recycled plastic waste into polyester.
Marks & Spencer has set itself “a simple goal” of using plastic in its business only where it has “a clear and demonstrable benefit”. Those plastic covers on the 500,000 cashmere jumpers it is selling? They are coming off. This summer it has launched a recycled polyester packaway mac made with 50% recycled polyester, sourced from used plastic bottles. This is part of its sustainability plan, which commits to making at least 25% of clothing and home products from reused or recycled materials by 2025.
But while these are all good moves, in terms of scale they are almost negligible. This year Adidas announced that it had sold 1m pairs of its ocean plastic trainers. Sounds great. Except that the company produced 403m pairs of trainers, according to statista.com, in 2017 alone. Where are those 403m pairs of trainers going to be by 2019? Wardrobes or landfill?
“The challenge for the future is to create a world where brands make a product, consumers use it and then return it to the manufacturer to make another product,” says Giulio Onazzi, CEO and president of Aquafil, a company that transforms plastic ocean and landfill waste into textiles. “For me this is not just about avoiding the use of plastic. There needs to be a fundamental shift in how we approach the design of products. We have to think about the end of life – what happens when the garment is finished with? If it is going to end up in landfill or filling our oceans then we should not be making it.”
Yeomans is happy to play her part in delivering a similar statement. “Aside from the practical issues, the messaging is one of the most important things that we can deliver,” she says. “As members of the fashion industry, I hope that with what we do this week and going forward, we can use our influence to establish that plastic is not fantastic.”

 The Guardian, Kate Finnigan ,Thu 7 Jun 2018