Saudi Arabia’s plan to become the crown prince of gaming

Lewis Gordon | the Verge | Dec 1, 2023, 8:00 AM PST

With avowed ‘massive gamer’ Mohammed bin Salman at the helm, the kingdom’s insatiable appetite and bottomless riches are already remaking the global video game industry.

You could call it the summer that Saudi Arabia swallowed sports. On June 6th, news broke that Saudi-backed LIV Golf was merging with the Professional Golfers’ Association, funded to the tune of over a billion dollars by the Saudi Public Investment Fund (PIF). In soccer, the world’s most popular and lucrative sport, the kingdom has brought global superstars such as Karim Benzema, Neymar, and Jordan Henderson to the desert to play their trade, laboring not only under the region’s sweltering heat but virulent criticisms of sportswashing. For established institutions, it was a summer of humbling disruption in which they had perhaps quietly sensed, for they would never admit it, the dawning of a new world order.

The spending spree isn’t limited to sports. In recent years, Saudi Arabia has invested in movies, establishing the Red Sea International Film Festival. The country hosts — in what feels like the final boss of late-stage capitalism — pay-per-view WWE events. Then there are video games, a global industry worth $187 billion that the kingdom is intent on muscling its way into, but with perhaps not quite the equivalent, naked levels of aggression that it has shown toward sports.

The minority investments are stacking up now: Nintendo, Take-Two, EA, Activision Blizzard. These are significant pieces of some of the industry’s most profitable pies. Through the PIF-funded Savvy Games Group (which declined to be interviewed for the piece), the kingdom has acquired mobile developer Scopely for $4.9 billion and esports organizations ESL and Faceit for $1.5 billion. A further $13 billion has been earmarked “for the acquisition and development of a leading game publisher” with many more billions reserved for further minority investments. Oil money, then, is coursing through the video game industry almost as quickly as Saudi Arabia can pump it from the ground.

Where is it all leading? According to Savvy CEO Brian Ward, a former executive at EA and Activision, the country aims to become a gaming “powerhouse,” transforming the kingdom into a hub of development and esports and, in the process, perhaps making Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman the most powerful, avowed “gamer” in the entire world. Ward has said this investment is part of the Saudi plan for “economic diversification and social transformation,” a gargantuan effort to maintain the kingdom’s economic relevance in a world rapidly transitioning away from fossil fuels while strengthening its political position at home through the oldest play in the book: bread and circuses.

Above all, Mohammed bin Salman seems intent on putting his nation’s bottomless, oil-gained riches to persuasive use — and the plan appears to be working.

In this era of mergers and acquisitions, such gigantic investment is hardly remarkable, but “the appetite with which Savvy and PIF has sucked their teeth into this is unprecedented,” says Joost van Dreunen, a New York University professor who wrote a book about the business of video games. For most of video games’ history, he says, it was ignored by the wider business world — that is, until the digital distribution blew access to games wide open. This has led to the current bizarre moment: a nation state with an appalling human rights record, and which hands out the death sentence to those who tweet critically of it, forcing its way into what continues to be an often nerdish, escapist pursuit. The dissonance is such that van Dreunen says it reminds him of “real estate companies in China that all of a sudden got all these film ambitions.”

The rate of investment might be unprecedented, but the actual plan is not: neither the aim to transform the kingdom into a video game hub nor to acquire a leading publisher. van Dreunen points to the way South Korea invested heavily in internet infrastructure in the late 1990s which, in turn, led to it becoming a new focal point for video games in Asia and the home for many esports stars, “like the Alps for the Tour de France,” he says. China, meanwhile, has emerged as a fulcrum of external development, particularly the production of detailed 3D assets for blockbuster titles like Horizon Zero Dawn. “The ability to plug into the global economy, which required some investment from the government and some momentum from the market, has led to the emergence of these new hubs that didn’t previously exist,” van Dreunen says.

If the acquisition of major soccer clubs by petro-states is any indicator, then Saudi Arabia should have no problem picking up a major publisher. Esports is, if not a more complicated question, then a riskier bet — an industry that Wired recently described as “facing an economic downturn and a dampening of hype,” particularly in the US. Covid-19 shut down live, in-person events, viewing figures are declining, and the lofty expectations set by individuals like Steve Bornstein, former CEO of the NFL Network before he became Blizzard’s esports chair, have not been met. According to Mikhail Klimentov, a Washington Post foreign desk editor (and former editor at the paper’s Launcher gaming vertical) who also runs the esports newsletter ReaderGrev, “the bigger problem is that a lot of esports leagues and teams are not monetizable in a particularly robust way … once you start building a bigger infrastructure, once you start hiring people, you lose money really quickly.”

For this reason — the sense that the esports bubble is bursting — Klimentov describes Saudi Arabia’s move into the arena as one of “impeccable timing.” “I think Saudi Arabia views esports, to a certain extent, as a distressed asset,” he continues. “A lot of these organizations, infrastructure companies, tournament organizers, and publishers are in no position to turn down really big sums of money. If the option is between not existing and taking money from a Saudi-backed company that has a ‘nice, western face’ in terms of Brian Ward, I think they will comfortably take the money and accept that things have changed [in Saudi Arabia]. They’ll accept those assurances.”

Saudi Arabia is indeed changing, but not in a straightforwardly more liberal direction. For every social reform, there is a crackdown on dissent, and some argue social changes are limited to major cities such as the capital Riyadh. The country is in flux, which is why Simon Chadwick, professor of sport and geopolitical economy at Skema Business School in Paris, argues that investment in video games and other industries is fundamentally a matter of “security.”

According to Chadwick, there are two major aspects to this security. The first is economic: Saudi Arabia is hugely dependent on oil and gas, which he says makes up “40 to 50 percent of Saudi Arabia’s GDP per annum.” As it stands, the kingdom is “incredibly exposed” and so needs to “undertake a period of industrial diversification.” The second element is political. There are worries that the kingdom’s big youth population — 70 percent of Saudis are under 35 — is susceptible to both religious radicalism and political radicalism. “Essentially, Mohammed bin Salman is negotiating a new social contract within Saudi Arabia,” says Chadwick. “That social contract is: ‘We will cater for whatever demands that you have.’”

Video games also present an opportunity to maintain and broker power internationally through what Chadwick calls “network strategy.” In December 2022, China’s President Xi Jinping visited the Persian Gulf, calling in at Riyadh in Saudi Arabia rather than Qatar where the World Cup was currently being played. A few weeks later, the kingdom purchased a $265 million stake in Chinese esports company VSPO, its first foray into the country’s games market and an example, says Chadwick, of “esports as a form of diplomacy.”

What sports (in particular soccer) share with video games, beyond this competitive crossover in the form of esports, are committed, tribal fandoms. In an essay for RealLife, writer and author Vicky Osterweil describes such video game fans as “goon squads” who she says “act as volunteer Pinkertons and scabs.” Something similar could be said of soccer. In the aftermath of Newcastle United’s takeover by Saudi Arabia, fans were seen pictured wearing tea towels on their head, not as a provocation or protest at their club’s new owners but as a sign of affection: they had become torchbearers for the Saudi regime.

Whether targeting industries with highly mobilized, vocal fandoms is an intentional strategy or not, these kinds of zealous actions will likely be music to the ears of the kingdom that wishes to burnish its global reputation. Like the sportswashing that’s occurring through soccer and golf, the same can be said of video games — call it gameswashing.

“It’s never just a pure business investment.”

“Anywhere that Saudi Arabia is spending any amount of money lately, there are always strings attached. It’s never just a pure business investment,” says Ben Freeman, director of the Democratizing Foreign Policy program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. “It’s hard for me to imagine that gaming is any different … At the very least, they’re buying silence.” Freeman points to the non-disparagement clause central to the LIV Golf deal as well as the self-censorship that invariably happens at companies owned by such powers. “If you’re a mid-level manager, or a programmer, you’re probably going to self-censor because you want to avoid an awkward conversation with your boss,” he says.

Regardless of censorship, self or otherwise, the effects of Saudi Arabia’s financial clout, or at least the promise of it, are already being felt, not least by developers formerly employed by the video game conglomerate Embracer. In May, Embracer CEO Lars Wingefors announced — in highly stressful fashion — that a gigantic deal with an unnamed partner worth some $2 billion had fallen through. As a result, Embracer implemented a “comprehensive restructuring program” which would include the “closing of studios and termination of projects.” Subsequent reporting carried out by Axios Gaming suggests it was Savvy Gaming Group that pulled out of the deal, despite, according to Wingefors, a “really strong commitment” having been made. Because of this gap in funding — money it appears Embracer had already been spending — hundreds of developers (and counting) lost their jobs, including those at the highly regarded, long-running studio Volition, maker of the Saints Row and Red Faction franchises.

Saudi money, then, is already changing video games just as it is changing global sports and culture. As Klimentov puts it, the “aim is to make themselves inextractable from a lot of industries.” Mohammed bin Salman, famously a fan of the army-building strategy game Age of Empires, is likely more personally invested in this venture than others. But it is borne from the same cold-hearted rationale that saw his kingdom murder Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, and cause mass starvation and death in Yemen through its military blockade. It is about power primarily — the preservation of it at home, expansion of it abroad, and the further enrichment of a dynasty whose wealth already knows no bounds.

https://www.theverge.com/2023/12/1/23948992/saudi-arabia-gaming-investment

How extreme car dependency is driving Americans to unhappiness

Oliver Milman in New York | the Guardian | Sun 29 Dec 2024 06.00 EST

A car is often essential in the US but while owning a vehicle is better than not for life satisfaction, a study has found, having to drive too much sends happiness plummeting

The United States, with its enormous highways, sprawling suburbs and neglected public transport systems, is one of the most car-dependent countries in the world. But this arrangement of obligatory driving is making many Americans actively unhappy, new research has found.

The car is firmly entrenched as the default, and often only, mode of transport for the vast majority of Americans, with more than nine in 10 households having at least one vehicle and 87% of people using their cars daily. Last year, a record 290m vehicles were operated on US streets and highways.

However, this extreme car dependence is affecting Americans’ quality of life, with a new study finding there is a tipping point at which more driving leads to deeper unhappiness. It found that while having a car is better than not for overall life satisfaction, having to drive for more than 50% of the time for out-of-home activities is linked to a decrease in life satisfaction.

“Car dependency has a threshold effect – using a car just sometimes increases life satisfaction but if you have to drive much more than this people start reporting lower levels of happiness,” said Rababe Saadaoui, an urban planning expert at Arizona State University and lead author of the study. “Extreme car dependence comes at a cost, to the point that the downsides outweigh the benefits.”

The new research, conducted via a survey of a representative group of people across the US, analyzed people’s responses to questions about driving habits and life satisfaction and sought to find the link between the two via a statistical model that factored in other variables of general contentment, such as income, family situation, race and disability.

The results were “surprising”, Saadaoui said, and could be the result of a number of negative impacts of driving, such as the stress of continually navigating roads and traffic, the loss of physical activity from not walking anywhere, a reduced engagement with other people and the growing financial burden of owning and maintaining a vehicle.

“Some people drive a lot and feel fine with it but others feel a real burden,” she said. “The study doesn’t call for people to completely stop using cars but the solution could be in finding a balance. For many people driving isn’t a choice, so diversifying choices is important.”

Decades of national and state interventions have provided the US with an extensive system of highways, many of which cut deep into the heart of its cities, fracturing communities and bringing congestion and air pollution to nearby residents, particularly those of color.

Planning policies and mandatory car parking construction have encouraged suburban sprawl, strip malls with more space for cars than people and the erosion of shared “third places” where Americans can congregate. As a result, even very short journeys outside the house require a car, with half of all car trips being under three miles.

Most of the decisions driving this are made at a state level, although Joe Biden’s administration vowed to help rebuild public transit networks beleaguered by the Covid pandemic and to tear down certain divisive highways. However, the federal government has continued pouring far more money into building and expanding roads than in any alternatives to driving. Next year, more than $60bn in federal funding is planned for roads and bridges.

A small sliver of the American public actively chooses to live without a car because they are able to live in the few remaining walkable communities in the US, but for most of those without a car it is a forced deprivation due to poverty or disability.

Being without a car can itself be expensive and isolating, according to Anna Zivarts, who was born with a neurological condition that prevents her from driving. Zivarts, based in Seattle, is the author of the book When Driving Is Not an Option and advocates on behalf of those unable to drive.

“Seattle has a solid bus system but everyone who can afford a car has a car. I’m often the only parent going to any sort of event without a car. Everything is built around cars,” she said.

“We are just locked into a system of driving that is meant to be more enjoyable but isn’t. I walk five minutes with my kid to the school bus stop and yet other parents make that journey to the stop by car. Is this really how you want to spend your life?”

A long-term effort is required to make communities more walkable and bolster public transport and biking options, Zivarts said, but an immediate step would be simply to consider the existence of people without cars.

“We need to get the voices of those who can’t drive – disabled people, seniors, immigrants, poor folks – into the room because the people making decisions drive everywhere,” she said. “They don’t know what it’s like to have to spend two hours riding the bus.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/29/extreme-car-dependency-unhappiness-americans

Exhaustion at work can lead to difficulty controlling emotions, scientists say

Working long hours can lead to people having issues moderating behaviour due to ‘ego depletion’, research shows

Nicola Davis, Science Correspondent | the Guardian | Mon 11 Nov 2024 15.00 EST

If a hard day in the office leaves you crabby and uncooperative, you may have an excuse: scientists say exercising self-restraint can exhaust parts of the brain related to decision-making and impulse control, leaving you less able to manage your behaviour towards others.

The researchers say their results tie into the theory of “ego depletion” – a controversial idea in psychology that willpower is a limited resource that gets used up by effort.

The results, they add, suggest it might be best to take a break after a day of mental exertion before engaging in other tasks.

“If you want to have a discussion with your partner and feel that you are mentally exhausted, don’t,” said Erica Ordali, first author of the study from the IMT School for Advanced Studies Lucca, in Italy. “Take your time. Do it in another day.”

While the idea of ego depletion has been around for decades, it has garnered criticism, with some studies failing to replicate results. Ordali, however, noted an important factor may be that the tasks used in these studies to sap self-control often only last 10 minutes.

Writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Ordali and her colleagues reported how they explored the impact of a longer duration, by asking 44 participants to undertake various computer-based activities for 45 minutes, including watching emotive video clips.

While half the participants were asked to use self-control during the activities, for example not showing their emotions in response to the videos, the other group did not have to exert self-control.

Each participant was also fitted with an electroencephalogram (EEG) headset, allowing the researchers to measure their brain activity.

Among other results, the team found participants in the self-control group showed increases in delta brain wave activity in the areas of the prefrontal cortex related to decision-making and impulse control, compared with their brain activity at the start of the activities. No such change was seen for the other group.

Crucially, said Ordali, delta waves are typically seen during sleep rather than wake – suggesting parts of the brain had “dozed off” in participants who had exerted self-control.

The team then asked both groups to take part in a variety of games, including one known as “hawks and doves”, where individuals had to decide whether to cooperate to share resources, or behave in a hostile manner to secure them.

The results reveal 86% of participants who were not asked to exert self-control at the start of the study behaved like doves, engaging in peaceful cooperation. In contrast, the figure was just 41% among participants initially given self-control tasks, suggesting they tended to behave like hawks.

The team found no differences when it came to games that examined participants’ general social preferences, such as how altruistic they were.

The team then split another 403 participants into two groups and repeated the study, but without recording participants’ brain activity. Again, participants who were asked to show self-control subsequently behaved more aggressively.

Michael Inzlicht, a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto who was not involved in the study, urged caution noting most of the behavioural results did not show significant effects, while the connection between brain and behaviour was not strong.

“These are interesting results and are consistent with a commonsense view of fatigue,” he said. “But given all the past controversy and the weakness of this data, I would want to see if they were replicated independently before calling the press about it.”

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/nov/11/exhaustion-work-difficulty-controlling-emotions-scientists

Leonard Riggio, who forged a bookselling empire at Barnes & Noble, dead at 83

HILLEL ITALIE, The Associated Press | The Seattle Times | Aug. 27, 2024 at 10:06 am

NEW YORK (AP) — Leonard Riggio, a brash, self-styled underdog who transformed the publishing industry by building Barnes & Noble into the country’s most powerful bookseller before his company was overtaken by the rise of Amazon.com, has died at age 83.

Riggio died Tuesday “following a valiant battle with Alzheimer’s disease,” according to a statement issued by his family. He had stepped down as chairman in 2019 after the chain was sold to the hedge fund Elliott Advisors.

“His leadership spanned decades, during which he not only grew the company but also nurtured a culture of innovation and a love for reading,” reads a statement from Barnes & Noble.

Riggio’s near-half-century reign began in 1971 when he used a $1.2 million loan to purchase Barnes & Noble’s name and the flagship store on lower Fifth Avenue in Manhattan. He acquired hundreds of new stores over the next 20 years and, in the 1990s, launched what became a nationwide empire of “superstores” that combined a chain’s discount prices and massive capacity with the cozy appeal of couches, reading chairs and cafes.

“Our bookstores were designed to be welcoming as opposed to intimidating,” Riggio told The New York Times in 2016. “These weren’t elitist places. You could go in, get a cup of coffee, sit down and read a book for as long as you like, use the restroom. These were innovations that we had that no one thought was possible.”

He grew up working class in New York City, liked to say he preferred socializing with childhood pals over fellow business leaders and was informal enough among associates to be known as “Lenny.” But in his time no one in the book world was more feared. With the power to make any given book a bestseller, or a flop, to alter the market on an idle whim, Riggio could terrify publishers simply by suggesting prices were too high or that he might sign up such top sellers as Stephen King and John Grisham and publish them himself. He even tried to buy the country’s biggest book wholesaler, Ingram, in 1999, but backed off after facing government resistance.

By the end of the 1990s, an estimated one of every eight books sold in the U.S. were purchased through the chain, where front table displays were so valuable that publishers paid thousands of dollars to have their books included. Thousands of independent sellers went out of business even as Riggio insisted that he was expanding the market by opening up in neighborhoods without an existing store. Instead, independent owners spoke of being overwhelmed by competition from both Barnes & Noble and Borders Book Group, the rival chains sometimes setting up stores in close proximity to each other and to the locally owned business.

Barnes & Noble became so identified as an overdog that one of the 1990s’ most popular romantic comedies, “You’ve Got Mail,” starred Tom Hanks as an executive for the “Fox Books” chain and Meg Ryan as the owner of an endangered independent store in Manhattan.

“We are going to seduce them with our square footage, and our discounts, and our deep arm chairs, and our cappuccino,” Hanks’ character confidently declares. “They’re going to hate us at the beginning, but we’ll get ’em in the end.”

Acrimony from independent booksellers
For a time, it seemed industry conversation was an ongoing response to Barnes & Noble. Publishers were known to change the cover or title of a book simply because a Barnes & Noble official had objected. “Angela’s Ashes” author Frank McCourt found himself condemned by the American Booksellers Association, the trade organization for independents, after agreeing to appear in a Barnes & Noble commercial. On the floor of the industry’s annual national trade show, long hosted by the ABA, independent store employees would hiss at attendees wearing Barnes & Noble badges.

When novelist Russell Banks, addressing Barnes & Noble’s annual shareholder meeting in 1995, declared that he was both a stock holder and a happy B&N customer, some independent sellers stopped offering his books.

“You must know that I’ll never read, buy or sell another word you write,” Richard Howorth, owner of Square Books in Oxford, Mississippi, wrote to him. “These are the kindest things I can think of to say to you.”

Tensions led to legal action when the ABA — on the eve of the 1994 convention — announced it was suing Barnes & Noble and five leading publishers for unfair trade practices. Some of the publishers were so angered they boycotted the gathering the following year and only returned after the ABA sold the show to Reed Exhibitions. In 1998, the ABA sued Barnes & Noble and Borders for unfair business practices (both cases were settled out of court).

The internet shifts bookselling
Riggio began the 2000s at the height of power, with more than 700 superstores and hundreds of others outlets. But internet commerce was growing quickly and Barnes & Noble, with its roots in physical retail, lacked the imagination and flexibility of the startup from Seattle that called itself “Earth’s Biggest Bookstore,” Amazon.com. The online giant launched in 1995 by Jeff Bezos gained business throughout the 2000s and by the early 2010s had displaced Barnes & Noble through such innovations as the Kindle e-book reader and the Amazon Prime subscription service.

Bezos would liken himself to David taking down Goliath, although the contrast between the leaders also had the feel of an Aesop’s fable: The muscular, mustachioed Riggio, a boxer’s son, upended by the quick and clever Bezos.

“We’re great booksellers; we know how to do that,’’ Riggio acknowledged to the Times in 2016. “We weren’t constituted to be a technology company.”

Barnes & Noble started its own online site in the late 1990s, but such initiatives as the Nook e-book reader and a self-publishing platform failed to stop Amazon. Not even the collapse of Borders after the 2008-2009 economic crisis mattered for Barnes & Noble, which after decades of expansion closed more than 100 stores between 2009 and 2019.

An unlikely ally of independent booksellers
By the time of Riggio’s retirement, independent sellers regarded the chain not as a threat, but as an ally in the fight against Amazon to keep physical stores alive. At the 2018 booksellers convention, Riggio and ABA CEO Oren Teicher, once enemies in business and in court, praised each other during a joint appearance.

“My standing here, doing what I’m about to do (introduce Riggio) would have been impossible to imagine several years ago,” Teicher said at the time. “The simple fact is that our business is stronger and American readers benefit when there is a vibrant and healthy network of brick-and-mortar bookshops all across the country.”

During the 2010s, Barnes & Noble seemed unleadable and unwanted. The board announced in 2010 that the company was for sale, but no one offered to buy it. Four CEOs left in five years and Barnes & Noble’s stock dropped 60% between 2015 and 2018. New rumors of a sale lasted for months before Elliott Advisors, which had previously purchased the British chain Waterstones, bought Barnes & Noble for $638 million and hired Waterstones chief executive James Daunt to lead B&N.

“I don’t miss being a business person, I had enough of that. But I do miss the bookselling part, helping to find books to recommend to customers,” Riggio told Publishers Weekly in 2021.

Riggio’s roots and early bookselling ventures
Bookselling and family often overlapped for Riggio. His brother Steve Riggio served for years as vice chairman of Barnes & Noble and another brother, Vincent “Jimi” Riggio, helped run a trucking company that shipped the store’s books. After being interviewed in 1974 by the trade publication College Store Executive, Leonard Riggio met for coffee with the editor, Louise Gebbia, who seven years later became his second wife (Riggio had three children, two with his first wife, one with his second).

Leonard S. Riggio was the eldest son of a prize fighter (who twice defeated Rocky Graziano) turned cab driver and a dress maker. Even in childhood, he advanced quickly, skipping two grades and attending one of the city’s top high schools, Brooklyn Tech. He studied metallurgical engineering at New York University’s night school before focusing on commerce, and by day absorbed the bookselling world and the rising cultural rebellion of the 1960s.

Working as a floor manager at the campus book store, he learned enough to drop out of school and start a rival shop in 1965 — SBX (Student Book Exchange), where he allowed student activists to use the copying machine to print copies of anti-war leaflets. SBX was so successful he bought several other campus stores and was in position by 1971 to buy Barnes & Noble and its single Manhattan store. A few years later, he became the rare bookseller to run television commercials, with the catchphrase “Barnes & Noble! Of Course! Of Course!”

Riggio and the independent community may have seemed to hold opposing values, but they shared a love of reading and the arts and a liberal political outlook. He was a generous philanthropist and a prominent supporter of Democratic politicians. He was even friendly with the consumer activist and presidential candidate Ralph Nader, who featured Riggio, Ted Turner and Yoko Ono among others in his 2009 novel “Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us!”, in which Nader imagines a progressive revolution from above.

“Ever since he was a boy from Brooklyn, he’d had a visceral reaction to the way workings stiffs and the poor were treated on a day-to-day basis,” Nader wrote of Riggio, who did at times stand apart from his management peers. When some 200 business leaders were questioned by Fortune magazine in the 1990s about their political ideas, only Riggio supported the raising of worker pay.

“Money can become a burden, like something you carry on your shoulders,” he told New York magazine in 1999. “My nature is to be a ball-buster, but my role is to help people.”


This story has been updated to correct the names of Riggio’s second wife and one of his brothers. They are Louise Gebbia, not Louise Altavilla, and Vincent “Jimi,” not Thomas.\

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/leonard-riggio-who-forged-a-bookselling-empire-at-barnes-noble-dead-at-83

Exercising for 30 minutes improves memory, study suggests

Research shows walk or cycle improves cognitive performance for day ahead – and day after

Nicola Davis, Science correspondent | the Guardian | Mon 9 Dec 2024 19.01 EST
Share

For cycle-to-work commuers and those who start the day with a brisk walk, the benefits of banking some early exercise is well understood.

Now scientists believe activity is not just a good idea for improving the day ahead – physical activity could be associated with small increase in memory scores the next, too.

A study from University College London has shown that 30 minutes of moderate to vigorous activity and sleeping for at least six hours at night, could contribute to improved cognitive performance the following day.

“The takeaway is just [that] physical activity is good for your brain and good sleep helps that,” said Dr Mikaela Bloomberg, first author of the study.

The researchers noted physical activity had previously been associated with both short-term improvements in cognitive function and a reduced risk of dementia.

However, Bloomberg noted many studies looking at short-term impacts had been laboratory based, and primarily tracked responses on a timescale of minutes to hours. These studies suggested benefits could be down to an increased blood flow to the brain and stimulation of chemicals known as neurotransmitters.

Now researchers say they have looked at the short-term impact of physical activity carried out in real life, not only finding benefits to the brain but revealing these appear to last longer than expected.

Writing in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, Bloomberg and colleagues report how 76 adults aged 50-83 years old, and who did not have cognitive impairment or dementia, were asked to wear an accelerometer for eight days to track their sleep and physical activity as they carried out their normal life.

Each day, participants were also given simple online cognitive tests to probe their attention, memory and processing speed, among other faculties.

The team said their results reveal that each 30-minute increase in moderate to vigorous physical activity on the previous day corresponded to a 2-5% increase in episodic and working memory scores the next, although only the latter remained once participants’ sleep data was considered.

While Bloomberg noted it is difficult to say whether this corresponds to a tangible – clinical – difference for participants, she said the next step is to carry out similar work in people with cognitive impairments.

“The idea is for people who have mild cognitive impairment, a very minor boost in cognitive performance on a day-to-day basis can make a huge difference,” she said.

The team also found each 30-minute increase in sedentary behaviour was associated with a small drop in working memory scores the next day – although Bloomberg said exactly how sedentary time is spent could be important – while those who slept at least six hours a night had higher scores for episodic memory, attention and physical response speed the next day, after taking into account levels of physical activity, than those who had less sleep.

However, the study has limitations, including that the participants had high levels of education, excellent health and high levels of everyday physical activity.

Bloomberg added it is not clear exactly what is driving the impact of exercise on memory the following day, with benefits from neurotransmitters only thought to last for a few hours. She also noted different mechanisms may be behind long-term benefits of exercise to the brain.

The study ties into a focus on protecting our brains as we age. “We all experience cognitive decline as we get older, it’s a normal part of ageing,” Bloomberg said. “So that’s the age group where we start to think: what are these little things we can do on a day-to-day basis to improve our cognitive function and our independence and social participation?”

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/dec/10/exercise-improves-memory-walk-cycle

Four minutes of daily exertion can halve heart attack risk in women, finds study

Andrew Gregory, Health editor | the Guardian | Tue 3 Dec 2024 18.30 EST

Bursts of intense movement such as climbing stairs can make big difference to health, finds UK Biobank research

Women who add four minutes a day of high-intensity routine activities such as climbing the stairs instead of taking a lift could halve their risk of heart attacks, a study suggests.

Less than five minutes of brief bouts of exertion in everyday life could have a significant effect on heart health, reducing the risk of serious cardiovascular events, researchers found. The results were published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

Experts not involved with the study said the findings were clear evidence that getting your body moving and raising your heart rate even just for a few minutes daily can really make a difference to having a healthy heart.

Longer bouts of high-intensity physical activity are well-known to be associated with significantly lower risks of cardiovascular disease.

But until now it was unclear if much shorter bursts of this type of activity, which are often part of a daily routine, may also be effective at boosting heart health, and if so, what the minimum threshold for measurable effects might be.

The researchers said this was particularly important for women who don’t or can’t exercise regularly, for whatever reason, because women tended to have a lower level of cardiorespiratory fitness than men at any given age.

In the study, researchers examined the effect of “vigorous intermittent lifestyle physical activity” on heart health in women and men.

The benefits of these bursts of effort, which could include walking quickly for the bus, for example, were pronounced in women – with 1.5 to four minutes a day leading to “substantially lower risks” of heart problems.

Researchers suggested they could act as “a promising physical activity target”, particularly for women who are unable or unwilling to exercise.

The study used data from 81,052 middle-aged people taking part in the UK Biobank study, who wore an activity tracker for seven days between 2013 and 2015. Among them, 22,368 people reported doing no regular exercise or if they did only went for a walk once a week.

Their heart health was tracked until the end of November 2022.

Women who recorded a daily average of 3.4 minutes of intense activity, but reported no formal exercise, were 45% less likely to have a heart attack, stroke or heart failure compared with women who did not manage any activity.

Specifically, the risk of a heart attack was 51% lower, and the risk of developing heart failure was 67% lower.

The associations were less clear and less significant in men. Men who managed 5.6 minutes of these activity bursts a day, but no formal exercise, cut their risk of heart attacks, strokes and heart failure by 16%.

Regina Giblin, a senior cardiac nurse at the British Heart Foundation, who was not involved with the study, said: “We know already that any amount of exercise is beneficial when trying to lower your risk of heart attacks and strokes. This large study is evidence that getting your body moving and raising your heart rate even just for a few minutes daily can really make a difference to having a healthy heart.

“The study showed even just a few minutes of vigorous activity per day can significantly lower the risk of overall cardiovascular events for middle aged women, who do not do regular exercise.”

However, for people able to exercise, the recommendation remained that you should aim for at least 150 minutes of moderate intensity exercise a week, Giblin said.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/dec/03/women-high-intensity-routine-four-minutes-daily-halve-heart-attack-risk-uk-biobank-study

Middle Siblings

Middle children are more cooperative than their siblings, study suggests

Ian Sample | Science editor | Guardian | Mon 23 Dec 2024 15.00 EST

After decades of debate, one of the largest ever studies on birth order suggests it does actually make a difference



The debate has raged for more than a century: does birth order help to shape personality, or are conscientious firstborns and creative youngest children flawed stereotypes based on flimsy evidence?

After decades of contested claims, a handful of recent studies found there was little evidence for meaningful differences. But in a study published on Monday, psychologists have pushed back and claim there is an effect after all.

In one of the largest studies ever conducted on birth order, family size and personality, Canadian researchers gathered data from more than 700,000 volunteers and found that on average, middle children scored higher than their siblings on traits seen as important for cooperation.

Scores for the same traits were also higher in families with more children, suggesting that people may be more likely to develop a cooperative personality when they are raised as part of a bigger group.

The effects are not large, but Michael Ashton and Kibeom Lee, psychology professors at Brock University in Ontario and the University of Calgary in Alberta respectively, believe they challenge the idea that birth order and the number of children raised together have no meaningful impact on personality.

“The weight of that evidence now indicates that personality trait levels do differ as a function of birth order and sibship size,” they write in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Researchers have speculated on the impact of birth order for more than a century. In 1874, the polymath Francis Galton, the youngest of nine siblings, gathered histories on a group of English scientists and found a large proportion were firstborns. He suspected the eldest received more attention from their parents, propelling them to greater intellectual heights.

Decades later, the Austrian psychologist Alfred Adler claimed firstborns were often conscientious and responsible, while the youngest might become independent and creative as they looked for ways to stand out. Middle children he saw as peacemakers, though others regarded them as “forgotten children”: the Lisa Simpsons who are often overlooked.

Ashton and Lee analysed personality traits reported by more than 700,000 English speakers who also gave details on whether they were a firstborn sibling, a middle child, the youngest or an only child. A separate group of 75,000 volunteers completed the same questions, along with the number of children they were raised with.

Previous studies have found evidence for firstborns being slightly smarter than late-born children, and the Canadian study saw this, too. But the researchers spotted other differences. People with more siblings tended to score higher on two traits linked to cooperation, namely agreeableness and what the scientists call honesty-humility, or the tendency to be fair and genuine with others. Middle children seemed to receive a further boost, scoring a little higher than the firstborns and youngest siblings.

The findings suggest that if an only child and a person from a family of six were chosen at random, there is a 60% chance that the more agreeable would be from the family of six. “You can’t tell much about the personality of a given individual from their birth order or family size, even though there are clear differences when averaging across many people,” Lee said.

While the number of siblings was the main factor shaping the personality traits, birth order mattered, too. “These differences were largely accounted for by sibship size effects,” Ashton said. “However, the birth order differences could not be entirely explained by sibship size, which indicates that there is also a small birth order effect on cooperative personality traits, with middles and youngests averaging slightly higher than oldests.”

If the effects are real, some drivers could be intuitive, the authors write: that having more siblings fosters a more cooperative personality, while being a middle child calls for good bonds with younger and older siblings.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/dec/23/middle-children-are-more-cooperative-than-their-siblings-study-suggests