Can chocolate boost memory? Only in insane amounts

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26455-can-chocolate-boost-memory-only-in-insane-amounts.html#.VHsSTckxjc0

 I would like to submit an article called «Can chocolate boost memory? Only in insane amounts». It was written by Aviv Rutkin and published in the newspaper "New Scientist". The author writes that people aged 50 to 69 who drinks enriched with compounds found in cocoa beans for three months and have the performance of on a memory test. A small study suggest that cocoa beans contain flavanols which enhanced memory and greater blood flow to certain areas of the brain. Scott Small, a neurologist at Columbia University in New York City made an experiment which proved miraculous properties of cocoa beans. On average, the high-flavanol group reacted to each shape 630 milliseconds faster than the low-dose group. This is equivalent to the high-dose group performing as though they were three decades younger than the low-dose group.  Author of the article advises not to abuse chocolate and quoted Scott Small "You would have to consume so much chocolate to get it that you would damage your health." In conclusion the Aviv Rutkin raises the problem of searching for interventions to delay the decline in cognition. In the warning she quotes Jessberger "It's naive to think that you take a drug or a compound and there's only one area where something is changing".

In my opinion, people are really always looking for funds to extend their youth. Fact that it can be chocolate is simply amazing. I think many people love chocolate. But unfortunately, the article tells us that in order to get the desired effect is necessary to absorb incredible amounts of cocoa. So even a sweet tooth will not always stick to this "diet". Of course we should not forget that the abuse lead to other problems with health. I can confidently say that I will not try this method. I like to eat chocolate in moderation.

1) Did u ever think about extension of your youth?
2) What are the methods to preserve youth and health do you know? Which of them do you use?

3) Would you like to use this method in the future? Why?/Why not?
(This task was made by Linnikova Ekaterina, i don't know how to change name in google+)

Blood test could pick up risk of cancer five years in advance, say Harvard scientists.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/11256603/Blood-test-could-pick-up-risk-of-cancer-five-years-in-advance-say-Harvard-scientists.html

 The headline of the article is "Blood test could pick up risk of cancer five years in advance, say Harvard scientists." The article is written by Sarah Knapton. It was printedin November 2014.

 The article is written about how a  blood test could determine a person's risk of developing blood cancer. The author start by telling about :  "People who often think about disease in black and white - that there's 'healthy' and there's 'disease' - but in reality most disease develops gradually over months or years.By the time a cancer has become clinically detectable it has accumulated several mutations that have evolved over many years. What we are primarily detecting here is an early, pre-malignant stage in which the cells have acquired just one initiating mutation."

 In conclusion the athor said that:  "Сanser  is the end-stage of the process and the researchers involved emphasised that there is no clinical benefit today for testing for the mutations as there are currently no treatments that can prevent blood cancer."

  I found this article important because nowadays it is an urgent problem. Many people are subjected to this terrible disease (young and old people). Professors and doctors are trying to find a vaccine for the treatment of cancer. While it is imposibly. Of course, people can only hope for a miracle.

We're tackling anti-social behaviour by engaging with young people

http://www.theguardian.com/local-government-network/2013/jul/11/scheme-tackle-anti-social-behaviour

I want to introduce you the article of Tim Bick, which is called "We're tackling anti-social behaviour by engaging with young people". I have found this article on "The Guardian" website. The author tells us about Cambridge special programme for children involved in crime or anti-social behavior. This programme offers different ways to support children if family and school can not solve the problem. This scheme helps children with difficulties to find new interests. There are not only fun activities such as walking, cooking and making music, but they also teach important social skills. It stops young people to get into trouble. It really helps as the number of incidents decreases. In spite of it, there are some councillors, who worry that good children may decide to be bad to participate in this programme. However, this is far from the truth.

I think that it is very useful programme. Nowadays, the level of crime is very high. It is regrettably that the young people from the early years commit the crimes. They do not think about their future. I consider that children's anti-social behaviour has reasons. It can be because of the wrong social surrounding. The young people are under the influence of different people. Most of all, family and school influence on children, because behaviour of close people is an example for them, but sometimes different problems can appear. In such case, this programme can help to solve them. It can keep children from straying onto a bad path. It is very interesting for young people to get new knowledges in different fields, stand on the right path and start a new life.

I would like you to answer the following questions:

1) What do you think about this programme?
2) What can you say about reasons of young people's anti-social behaviour?
3) How would you solve children's crime problem?

Can the 5:2 diet lead to a longer life?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/dietandfitness/11254046/Can-the-52-diet-lead-to-a-longer-life.html

      I want to introduce you the article «Can the 5:2 diet lead to a longer life?» which was published by Tom Chivers. This article I found on the Telegraph website. The author tells us that now health problems most likely to occur because of the abundance of food, rather than from hunger. Today, food is varied and accessible to everyone, many people lead sedentary lifestyles and suffer from problems with obesity. There are lots of diets, they have different specifics, but not all diets are good for our health, and some of them are even dangerous. In particular, this article focuses on diet 5:2, in which people are allowed to eat normally for five days a week, but in the other two days people are severely limited in the consumption of calories. The author, relying on research, believes that the 5: 2 and other diets have a positive effect on our health, as many health problems arise due to obesity, and diet help a person to stay in good physical shape.
   
      I treat with caution to all diet. Many people are on a diet because of their health, and some people exhaust themselves hunger because they are dissatisfied with their figure, this is especially true for girls. They choose for themselves a diet that they like, but I think it's wrong. Everyone is different and I believe that the diet should be adjusted according to the individual characteristics of a person. In my opinion, you can not choose your own diet. If you want to do this, you should consult with a nutritionist who will select for you the proper diet. I agree that we should consume a certain amount of calories per day. If a person do not overeat, he will not have problems with excess weight and his health will be in order. And if a man do not have problems with health, he will live longer.

And now I want to ask you some questions:

Do you think that diet 5: 2 is useful for health?

What is your personal attitude to diet?

Have you ever kept to a diet for health reasons or improving your shape?

Teenagers and tweens watching TV half as much as adults.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/nov/25/teenagers-watch-tv-half-adults-ofcom-report

I would like to present you the article which is called "Teenagers and tweens watching TV half as much as adults". It was published by Mark Sweney on the Guardian website. This article is about the difference in watching television and Websites among the adult population and the young population. It is said that children aged 11 to 15 watch about 1hr and 32min of live TV per day, compared with the average adult's 2hr 58min of viewing. Nowadays only a quarter of 11 to 15-year-olds does not watch any live TV. Adults watch a daily average of  just 5 minutes of online video - a sixth that of children. There was also mentioned about the digital age gap. It is interesting to know that adults prefer to speak on the phone while tweens prefer to use texts, social networking sites, instant messaging and a photo messaging for communication. They are not interested in the speaking. It is a big problem that children are very attached to modern technology and  social networks.

I support the author's point of view. Children spend time, watching TV, browsing websites and communicating in social networks, almost as much as the adults. To my mind, it is a real big problem, because I think tweens more and more become obsessed with watching clips or any TV shows. If to be honest, I am not surprised with the results of reseaching, presented in this article. I sometimes goes online or turn on the TV to look up for any programs or tv shows, because it is very convenience. And many children do it for the same reason. Convenience. But we have to limit the time, spent in social networks or in front of TV screens. It is really necessary for our physical and mental health. Many children and even adults are sure that there is no danger for their lives and their health in watching live or recorded TV programs. But it is their greatest delusion. And no one knows when they will be able to understand it.


And now I would like to hear your point of view on the following questions:

1. What do you think about the results, shown for the comparison in this article? Do they surprise you?
2. How do you feel about social networks and online or recorded TV shows? How much time do you spend watching TV or scanning websites?
3. How do you think children spend so much time on the Internet or in front of a TV screen because it is dependence or their own choice? Why?

Flat, soulless and stupid: why photographs don’t work in art galleries?

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/nov/13/why-photographs-dont-work-in-art-galleries

 The article “Why photographs don't work in art galleries" is presented by Jonathan Jones tells us about why you cannot compare photos and pictures. The point of view of the author is that photography is a miracle of the modern word. Photos look fascinating on the pages of magazines or screen, but it has completely different effect, when a snapshot is framed or backlit and displayed vertically in an exhibition. Why?-asked you. Jonathan Jones has answer. Pictorial art is created with time and great efforts, material complexity, textural depth. It requires talent and craft, imagination and "mindfulness". A really good painting is a rich and vigorous thing. A photograph, however well lit, however cleverly set it up, only has one layer of content. It is all there on the surface. It is absurd to claim this quick fix of light has the same depth, soul, or repays as much looking as a painting by the great artists.

As for me, I can't ,but agree with author.Create paintings by himself, as if you take one out of your brain, costs a lot of efforts and should be evaluated much more expensive. Photo is also the product of human activity. But it,  unlike the creative abilities, availables to everyone. Of course, having a camera you cannot call yourself a professional photographer, but it's an easier way to create an image. In addition, the picture, seems to me, is more alive than pix. They are filled with soul and feelings of the artist; we can feel that it had the author at the time of the writing of this piece of art. One cannot deny that the photograph is also a kind of fine art, but in comparison with the great masters of painting, it is not the first place.

And now I want you to ask a few questions on this topic. 

1.  What is your personal opinion about failure of photos for display at exhibition?
2.     How often do you visit museums, exhibitions and visual gallery? If yes, what kind of impression do you feel at an exhibition of photographs?
3.      Do you consider that many famous works of art are overrated? Why?  Call them.

Don’t tell me how long to look at art

thttp://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2014/nov/20/dont-tell-me-how-long-to-look-at-art

I would like to present you an article "Don't tell me how long to look at art". The item was published on the Guardian website Posted by Jonathan Jones. The author supposes that the biggest problem in contemporary art is that artworks define and dictate the time their audience must give them. Too many videos  are made like future films, they have a beginning, a middle and the end and the clear message that you need to watch the whole thing to understand it. The results are congested exhibitions that clog and ruin the fun of art.

For the author an interesting artwork is casting adrift- when you lose track of where, and when, you are. When you can be cast adrift from time and space. As an example Mike Nelson’s installation The Coral Reef- is a labyrinth of seedy urban corridors and waiting rooms or an installation by Nelson to a painting by Thomas Gainsborough where Instead of rushing to the next deadline or message, you can forget that it is 2014, for a moment, and linger in the other-time, created by art. He loves art, because it imposes no obligations on our time, but offers a chance to escape into its time.

I absolutely agree with the author and support his point of view that this kind of art should be banned from galleries. In my opinion contemporary art shouldn't destroy art’s unique freedom, by dictating time we are to see it for, because everything depends on our engagement. Art's not a film with definite time, it is inherently open and it's up to us how much time to give this work. Defining the time to the audience, exhbitions just ruin and undermine the fun and pleasure we get from art. In a nutshell, really interesting, spectacular and fascinating artworks should't make any assumption on our time, it can give us a chance to forget about reality and find ourselves in its time and space and be there as long as we want. 

What about you? What is your opinion about this question? 

How often do you go to the art galleries? What kind of art do you like? 

Do you like the grotesque in art?