A

    Now women are free to enter any career that attracts them, and working can bring them pride, confidence and independence. Working women make up nearly half of the U.S. workforce, and 51 percent of professional workers, like doctors, lawyers, nurses and accountants, are female. While climbing the career ladder can be rewarding, it often comes with one big disadvantage: weight gain!

    New research published this week in the International Journal of Obesity shows that working women are more likely to be overweight, and the more you work, the more pounds you're likely to pile on. Like many women, I work... a lot! As a self-employed nutrition communications specialist, I sit at my desk, in front of a computer, for hours on end. Sitting alone is one of the worst things you can do for your health, and it's directly linked to being overweight and increased fatness, so the fact that women in the workforce gain weight isn't that surprising. If you work, you have less time to move around. Obesity researchers are revealing many other ways that employment is harmful to your diet and waistline(腰围).

    In the International Journal of Obesity study, some 9,276 Australian women aged 45-50 had their body weight and employment status monitored for two years. Results? Those who worked more than 35 hours were likely to gain weight compared to those who worked fewer hours or were out of the workforce. What's more, the more hours a woman worked in a week, the more weight she gained.

    The authors of the Australian study attribute weight gain among working women to inactivity, lack of time for food preparation, more use of prepared foods, high levels of stress, lack of sleep and consuming more alcohol. I'll also add in travel, meals eaten out and working at night as other factors that I can find to make balancing work with a healthy diet a challenge.

    Technological change is everywhere and affects every aspect of life, mostly for the better. However, social changes brought about by new technology are often mistaken for a change in attitudes.

    An example at hand is the involvement of parents in the lives of their children who are attending college. Surveys (调查) on this topic suggests that parents today continue to be "very" or "somewhat" overly-protective even after their children move into college dormitories. The same surveys also indicate that the rate of parental involvement is greater today than it was a generation ago. This is usually interpreted as a sign that today's parents are trying to manage their children's lives past the point where this behavior is appropriate.

    However, greater parental involvement does not necessarily indicate that parents are failing to let go of their "adult" children.

    In the context (背景) of this discussion, it seems valuable to first find out the cause of change in the case of parents' involvement with their grown children. If parents of earlier generations had wanted to be in touch with their college-age children frequently, would this have been possible? Probably not. On the other hand, does the possibility of frequent communication today mean that the urge to do so wasn't present a generation ago? Many studies show that older parents - today's grandparents - would have called their children more often if the means and cost of doing so had not been a barrier.

    Furthermore, studies show that finances are the most frequent subject of communication between parents and their college children. The fact that college students are financially dependent on their parents is nothing new; nor are requests for more money to be sent from home. This phenomenon is neither good nor bad; it is a fact of college life, today and in the past.

    Thanks to the advanced technology, we live in an age of bettered communication. This has many implications well beyond the role that parents seem to play in the lives of their children who have left for college. But it is useful to bear in mind that all such changes come from the technology and not some imagined desire by parents to keep their children under their wings.

    Fashions have a lot of rules. Most of them, however, are just wrong. But there's one rule that goes beyond tradition and into the field of scientific study of the brain: Black clothes are slimming. It all comes down to how your visual system processes the light. The below holes in each square are the same in size, yet the white hole looks bigger than the black hole.

    In the 1500s, Galileo Galilei noticed that some of the planets looked larger when viewed with the naked eye than they did when viewed through a telescope, making the white light of Venus appear eight to ten times larger than Jupiter in the night sky. He knew something strange must be going on with his vision to cause this illusion, but he wasn't sure what it was. Luckily, scientists never stopped wondering, and in 2014, they figured it out.

    Our visual system operates via two main channels: "on" neurons (神经元) that are sensitive to light things and "off" neurons that are sensitive to dark things. When it came to the dark "off" neurons, the researchers found that they responded predictably to dark shapes on a light background the greater the contrast between the two, the more active these neurons were. But the light on" neurons behaved unpredictably. Even with the same amount of contrast, light objects on a dark background caused a greater response in these neurons.

    This phenomenon makes some sense, evolutionarily speaking. In the dark of night, you'd want to be able to take in every bit of light you can get, so a visual system that enlarges light objects on a dark background could be very useful. However, it's not that hard to see dark objects in the light of day. It has some effects in the colors of your clothes and in the appearance of the planets—the brighter appearance of Venus in the night sky makes it look bigger than the darker Jupiter.

    Procter & Gamble (P&G), one of the world's biggest marketers, has announced a change in the way it buys advertising on Facebook. It has started cutting its spend on highly targeted ads and increasing its spend on ads that address much larger numbers of the potential audiences for its brands, which include Tide, Pampers and Gillette. Explaining this change of emphasis, P&G's global brand building officer, Marc Pritchard, said, "We targeted too much, and went too narrow."

    Facebook's astonishing income growth comes, in part, from its ability to deliver micro-targeted audiences (推送精准目标受众) to advertisers, and P&G in fact admits that it has wasted millions of dollars in the misguided pursuit of effectiveness.

    Facebook used to be irresistible to advertisers. It presents advertisers this question: Instead of sending your message to millions in a television ad, why not use data to reach only those you need to reach? But as many people may have noticed, making perfectly targeted ads appears to be much harder than it sounds. Most digital ads are easily ignored. Information about consumers is not the same as insight into human beings.

    The more fundamental problem with micro-targeting is that for big brands, advertising has never really been about messages—even brand owners have never quite realized it. It is about the creation of shared memories, triggered at the point of purchase. Think about some of the great brands: Nike, Apple, and yes, Pampers. If you buy them, it is because you know millions of others do, and because they seem to stand for something that, far from being unique to you, is common to all of us: achievement, creativity, and nurturing. The broader these brands go, the better they do.

    When a consumer reaches for something on the shelf, they usually reach for the familiar. To achieve that status, a brand needs to have done something that lots of people regularly see, notice and enjoy. What seemed to be the wastefulness of TV was in fact its secret sauce. By reaching large numbers of people at the same time, TV ads had the power to turn brands into cultural icons, which took up consumers' minds.

    In its conversations with advertisers, Facebook now talks less about targeting, preferring to emphasize the large number of consumers that it can help brands to reach. It is investing in video functions and is encouraging its clients to make short films. After years of telling clients TV is wasteful, it is now doing a good job of imitating it.

    In the classic marriage vow (誓约), couples promise to stay together in sickness and in health. But a new study finds that the risk of divorce among older couples rises when the wife－not the husband－becomes seriously ill.

    "Married women diagnosed with a serious health condition may find themselves struggling with the impact of their disease while also experiencing the stress of divorce." said researched Amelia Karraker.

    Karraker and co-author Kenzie Latham analyzed 20 years of data on 2,717 marriages from a study conducted by Indiana University since 1992. At the time of the first interview, at least one of the partners was over the age of 50.

    The researchers examined how the onset (发生) of four serious physical illnesses affected marriages. They found that, overall, 31% of marriages ended in divorce over the period studied. The incidence of new chronic (慢性的) illness onset increased over time as well, with more husbands than wives developing serious health problems.

    "We found that women are doubly weak when their marriage breaks up in the face of illness," Karraker said. "They're more likely to be widowed, and if they're the ones who become ill, they're more likely to get divorced."

    While the study didn't assess why divorce is more likely when wives but not husbands become seriously ill, Karraker offers a few possible reasons. "Gender roles and social expectations about caregiving may make it more difficult for men to provide care to sick spouses." Karraker said. "And because of the imbalance in marriage markets, especially in older ages, divorced men have more choices among potential partners than divorced women."

    Given the increasing concern about health care costs for the aging population, Karraker believes policymakers should be aware of the relationship between disease and risk of divorce.

    "Offering support services to spouses caring for their other halves may reduce martial stress and prevent divorce at older ages." she said. "But it's also important to recognize that the pressure to divorce may be health-related and that sick ex-wives may need additional care and services to prevent worsening health and increased health costs."