What message is social media sending you?
When Marshall McLuhan, the 1960s guru of communication, declared, “The medium is the message,” he was talking about radio, TV, LP records, tape players and film. He probably never imagined Snapchat, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Tumblr, the internet and digital everything — cameras, video, podcasts, TED talks, viral GIFS, etc.
But he remains exactly right about one thing: Whatever the message, the platform upon which it is delivered shapes the meaning and impact of the message it contains.
Imagine for a minute, folks who could communicate only via telegraph understood the meaning of the words put through in dots and dashes differently from someone hearing the same words spoken over a great distance via a newly invented telephone.
Now, fast-forward to today. In lieu of full sentences, we get abbreviated texts, full of “LOL” and emojis. (Backward evolution?) Once again, communication is altered by the way messages are being formed.
You with us? All this is an intro to a question: Do social media’s enormous benefits and pleasures compensate for — or pale in comparison to — the harm it does to individuals and relationships?
The benefits of social media are well-studied and real. They range from encouraging artistic expression among folks who might not have thought to give it a try, to the instant fact-checking of politicians and encouragement of democracy (the Arab Spring). In addition, social media allows easy access to the world’s best authorities on everything from medicine to rock climbing, the opportunity for friends and families to stay in touch more easily, for older folks or those who are more socially isolated to reconnect with friends or join support groups, and for people from around the globe to feel part of a community in which similarities are more important than differences.
And those are just some of the wonders of the digital age that are being enjoyed by around 3 billion folks worldwide — about 40 percent of the total population.
But research keeps pointing out how harmful getting immersed in social media can become. The American Academy of Pediatrics warns parents to be aware of the potential damage social media can do to their child’s mental health because of cyberbullying and what they call “Facebook depression.”
Additional research shows that 10-year-old girls who are active on social media are far more unhappy when they are adolescents than those who were not on social media at so early an age. While yet another study found that 11- to 17-yearolds find the pressure to be online 24/7 destroys their sleep and can cause anxiety and depression. There’s even research published in JAMA that indicates that for people who have no symptoms of ADHD, heavy use of social media may trigger the condition!
When you ask teens about the impact of social media on their lives, 24 percent say it’s mostly negative, 45 percent say it makes no difference, while only 31 percent say it’s positive. And mature adults don’t escape potential harm — especially if they’re already having mental health issues, are worried about their work or social status or become addicted to building networks.
The solution? Stay connected, but not obsessed. One study found that complete screen abstinence did not correlate with happiness either. The teens who were the happiest reported using digital devices a bit under an hour a day. So …
• Limit your (or your child’s) time with social media (not including email) to 30-60 minutes daily.
• Delete any site or app on which you experience bullying, criticisms or other negative interactions.
• Make your account private so that you limit who can post comments and who you consider a friend. Stick with those folks who are, in fact, friends or members of a community of likeminded participants (PatientsLikeMe.com, for example).
• No digital devices in the bedroom.
Social media is a tool, like a hammer that can build a beautifully crafted cabinet or a flimsy piece of junk. How it turns out is in your hands. Click wisely.
Q: I read that the weed killer glyphosate — the one found responsible for causing cancer in that groundskeeper in California — is showing up in breakfast cereals. How do I keep this out of my house? Anthony B., Brownsville
A: First of all, Anthony, don’t panic just because glyphosate is a controversial subject. Many organizations, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institutes of Health, and of course the manufacturer Monsanto, believe glyphosate and its branded weedkiller Roundup are safe. In 2001, the Agricultural Health Study found “no statistically significant associations with glyphosate use and cancer.” Currently, the Food and Drug Administration allows a “fair amount” of glyphosate in several processed foods because they don’t think it’s harmful.
However, there’s that verdict in the $289 million lawsuit leveled against Monsanto and, according to the New York Times, more than 5,200 additional suits are in the pipeline. They’re telling a different story, one echoed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (part of the World Health Organization), which classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
Recently the Environmental Working Group found elevated levels of glyphosate in 31 of 45 test samples of conventionally grown oats in granola, oat breakfast cereals and snack bars. Even if levels in one sampled product are not necessarily going to cause you harm, the EWG warns that repeated exposure to glyphosate starting in childhood and lasting for decades could be harmful.
Roundup is the most-used herbicide in the U.S. It’s on neighborhood lawns and genetically modified crops that have been made “Roundup-ready” to resist glyphosate. Everything it’s sprayed on, such as weeds, that haven’t been genetically altered dies. Glyphosate is also sprayed on non-GMO crops so they die, dry out and get harvested sooner.
To read the EWG’s report — and see what foods tested positive and negative for glyphosate — go to EWG.org and search for glyphosate. Then you can see what products you might want to avoid. But remember, a lot more research needs to be done.
Q: My sister just finished a month of a very low-carb diet and lost about 15 pounds. She looks great, but says she is pretty worn out. There’s nothing wrong with a diet like that, is there? Betty L., Ronkonkoma, New York
A: Well, not knowing more about your sister’s health, we can’t really say how it affected her for good or bad. What we can tell you is that recently a large, long-term study done by researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston looked at the dietary carbohydrate intake of 15,428 adults between 45 and 64 years old. The participants self-reported their carb intakes between 1987 and 1989. Researchers then followed up 25 years later.
The study found that people whose carbohydrate intakes made up less than 40 percent of their diets and those whose diets were 70 percent or more carbohydrate-based were at the greatest risk of dying over that time period. A total of 6,283 of the 15,428 participants had died after 25 years, so the researchers had quite a group to analyze. The least risk of dying was among those folks whose diets were made up of 50 to 55 percent carbohydrates.
Still, the real story for longevity may be about where the carbs come from and what people eat in place of carbs when they restrict their intake. The researchers found that mortality risks increased when dietary carbs were replaced with (and increased intake of ) animal fats and proteins. On the other hand, mortality rates decreased when the carbs were plant-based instead of from processed foods like white breads, pastas, snacks and sweets.
So whether you are trying to lose weight or stay healthy, stick with seven to nine servings of fresh fruits and vegetables daily; eat 100 percent whole grains, nuts (walnuts and almonds) and legumes. You’ll get the right amount of fiber and other carbohydrates, and protein, too.