Men need a drink to open up? What a dangerously self-fulfilling belief| Tom Usher

Let’s be honest with each other, lads – and by lads I mean everyone who is reading this article, regardless of gender but still being called a lad by me, because I’m setting up a question in the next sentence that is primarily aimed at a gender often referred to in the UK as “lads”. How many times do you hang out with your mates in a group when you’re not drinking?

Well there’s midweek five-a-side isn’t there, with all the seething heat of competition, thinly veiled ignominy of loss and anywhere between eight and 16 scything, ligament-jarring tackles a game that it brings. Or there’s just hanging out playing PlayStation, with all the seething heat of competition, thinly veiled ignominy of loss and so on and so forth.

But even after, or perhaps during those, there is booze. Booze is what Lynx Africa was to the prepubescent armpits of my past: extremely counterproductive, yet essential and unavoidable. Unless it’s an unusual occasion (unusual because “special” would invariably circle back to drinking), men don’t tend to hang out that much in groups unless there is some kind of alcohol involved. But don’t just take my sweeping generalisation for it, because recent research published in the Behaviour Research and Therapy journal came to the conclusion that there is “greater alcohol reward for male groups” and so ultimately “identifies a mechanism that may support heavy drinking in male drinking contexts”.

According to the review led by the University of Pittsburgh, women can – shockingly – just hang out with each other completely sober. They just get together, maybe talk and not be afraid of silence, maybe even not try to best each other or damage each other’s ankles, just simply hang out. Men, meanwhile, are sat clutching their first pints like torches in a labyrinth, their trembling, sober smiles ready to be shattered by the simplest of social expectations, quivering with fear over the unknown awkwardness that lingers like an icy crevasse at the end of every sentence.

Men are too scared to open up, basically. The traditional gender norms men follow don’t allow for open displays of genuine affection so, according to the study, they fall back on getting pissed because getting pissed can “dis-inhibit and decrease the extent to which behaviours conform to social norms”.

We seem to enjoy hearing about these kinds of studies because ultimately they confirm that the traditional gender norms of society are somehow innate – ignoring the possibility that of course this behaviour could be as a result of these societal expectations, not the origin of them. The norm that men are uncomfortable with public emotion and women aren’t is as old the hills, and studies like this seem to reassure people that things are as simple as they’d hoped.

But, as much as I do enjoy having to hold genuine sentiment under the surface of alcohol until its panicked thrashes have turned into slurred loved-up outbursts, I don’t think it’s the healthiest gender norm to subscribe to. Although women are more likely to suffer from depression than men, men are more than three times as likely to kill themselves, according to recent statistics. The fact is, a lot of this will be down to men’s refusal to talk about how they are really feeling, of repressing their inner monologue until it’s softened enough by alcohol to be let loose, at which point any distress in it will be easily painted over by the pretence that it was just the beer talking.

But more now than ever, people in the public sphere are discussing mental heath issues more openly. This, combined by the work that organisations like Calm are doing, mean it’s becoming less awkward for men to discuss how they feel, of being afraid to open up to their mates on a day-to-day basis. It may not result in men being as effusive as women, but it could be a step in the right direction.

Although it seems harmless and everyday, it surely isn’t the healthiest trait that men need to drink to open up at a time when suicide is the leading cause of death among men aged 20-49 in England and Wales, and when alcoholism itself can so quickly lead to its own downward spiral. It can be easy to fall back on tired gender norms when attempting to explain away such damning statistics, but the more we revert lazily to type, the harder it will be to bring about meaningful change. I guess that’s how long-held yet archaic views get changed, from starting simply and working up.

Men need a drink to open up? What a dangerously self-fulfilling belief| Tom Usher

5-Second Rule – New Study Disproves the Popular Belief

The popular belief of the 5-second rule states that food dropped on the floor for less than five seconds is “safe” to eat, because bacteria needs time to transfer.  However, a recent study, suggests otherwise.

Perhaps you’ve been faced with this decision.  You accidentally drop a morsel of food on the floor.  Rather than picking it up and discarding it, you assume it will be safe to eat if you pick it up quickly — within five seconds.

Recent research recommends the wisest choice is to discard the food.  The ‘5-second rule’ does not save your food from foodborne bacteria.

The 5-Second Rule

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), close to 1 in 6 people in the United States get sick each year due to foodborne illness.  That equates to nearly 48 million people. And about 128,000 people are hospitalized and 3,000 die of foodborne diseases.

Bacterial cross-contamination from surfaces to food can contribute to foodborne disease.  And food that falls on the floor can become contaminated, as well.  Nevertheless, for years, the practice of the ‘5-second rule’ has convinced many people to believe it’s safe to eat food that has fallen on the floor — as long as you pick it up within five seconds.

And previous studies suggest that the 5-second rule is scientific fact — that “bacteria need time to transfer.” However, research on this rule is limited in peer-reviewed journals.

Investigating Process

Researchers led by Prof. Donald Schaffner, of Rutgers University noted they wanted to investigate the practice of the 5-second rule further to determine whether picking up food within five seconds is fast enough.

Prof. Schaffner notes, “We decided to look into this because the [5-second rule] practice is so widespread.  The topic might appear ‘light’ but we wanted our results backed by solid science.”

In their investigation, the team of researchers used varying surfaces and contact times.

The surfaces included, wood, ceramic tile, carpet, and stainless steel. They also used four different types of food: bread and butter, bread, gummy candy, and watermelon.

Additionally, they used four different contact times: less than one second, five seconds, 30 seconds, and 300 seconds.

Bacterial Contamination

The type of bacteria used in this new study is called Enterobacter aerogenes — a “cousin” of Salmonella that naturally occurs in the human digestive system.  The team also used either peptone buffer or tryptic soy broth to grow the bacteria.

Once the bacteria were cultivated, the researchers spread them on the varying surfaces.  Then, they allowed the preparation to dry before dropping the food samples on various surfaces.

The team evaluated transfer sequences for each food, surface, contact time, and bacterial preparation. The researchers experimented with 128 scenarios and eventually completed 2,560 measurements.

Revealing Results

Results showed that watermelon had the most contamination — whereas gummy candy had the least. The researchers also found that moisture affects bacterial transfer from surfaces to food.

Carpet had a lower transfer rate, when compared with stainless steel and tile.  Additionally, the transfer rate from wood was somewhat variable.

Prof. Schaffner briefly explained the transfer of bacteria.

“Bacteria don’t have legs — they move with the moisture.  And the wetter the food, the higher the risk of transfer. Also, longer food contact times usually result in the transfer of more bacteria from each surface to food.”

Conclusion: ‘Bacteria Can Contaminate Instantaneously’

The researchers concluded their study by noting that, although longer contact times result in an increase in bacterial transfer, “other factors including the nature of the food and the surface are of equal or greater importance.”

They also added that their findings disprove the 5-second rule.

“The 5-second rule is a significant oversimplification of what actually happens when bacteria transfer from a surface to a food. Bacteria can contaminate instantaneously.”

For your review, the American Society for Microbiology’s journal, Applied and Environmental Microbiology published this new study titled, “Longer Contact Times Increase Cross-Contamination of Enterobacter aerogenes from Surfaces to Food.”

5-Second Rule – New Study Disproves the Popular Belief

Struggling With Self-Worth? Great Tips for Boosting Your Belief in Yourself

Struggling With Self-Worth? Great Tips for Boosting Your Belief in Yourself