BY THE OPTIMIST DAILY EDITORIAL TEAM Most people assume music makes workouts feel better because it’s distracting or energizing. Both are true. But a new study found something more specific: music doesn’t raise your physical ceiling. It just delays when your brain calls it. The study: same effort, two conditions Twenty-nine recreationally active adults did two high-intensity cycling sessions in the lab. Each ran at around 80 percent of peak power output, firmly in the uncomfortable zone. The goal wasn’t distance or time. It was to keep going until they stopped. In one session, each person listened to music they’d chosen themselves from within a set tempo range. In the other, silence. Everything else was identical. Researchers tracked how long each person lasted, along with heart rate, oxygen consumption, and blood lactate, a marker of metabolic strain. They also measured perceived exertion: how hard the effort felt in the moment. Because each participant did both conditions, the comparison wasn’t between different fitness levels. Same person, same effort, different environment. What changed, and what didn’t People with music lasted nearly 20 percent longer. The more telling part: when they finally stopped, their heart rate, oxygen levels, lactate, and perceived exertion were almost identical across both conditions. They hadn’t reached a higher physical ceiling. They’d just been less willing to stop before getting there. Music didn’t change how hard the body was working per minute. It didn’t make anyone fitter mid-ride. What it extended was how long people stayed in the effort, and the total work done as a result. The limiting factor, in both conditions, was the brain’s readiness to quit. Music pushed that moment back. Why music shifts the decision The researchers frame it as a perception problem. Fatigue isn’t purely physical. It’s an ongoing calculation: is this still worth it? Music nudges that. Having something to track other than the discomfort helps. When attention is partly on a melody, a lyric, or the anticipation of a chorus you know is coming, the physical sensations are still there. They’re just not the only thing you’re aware of. Music also gives the effort shape. A fixed workload with a soundtrack can feel like it has movement and structure. Without one, it’s just open-ended. The personal element matters too. This study didn’t use generic playlists. People chose their own music. Songs with personal history, through familiarity, memory, or consistent association with feeling good, carry a charge that makes it easier to keep going when things get hard. What to do with this The finding isn’t that any playlist will do. The results held because people were listening to music they’d chosen and actually cared about. Personal connection mattered more than optimizing tempo. No need to engineer the perfect playlist. Participants just picked music they liked within a general range, and that was enough to extend their effort by nearly a fifth. If you notice yourself cutting intervals short or backing off the moment things get uncomfortable, it’s worth paying attention to what the effort actually feels like. Sometimes it isn’t fitness that’s the limiting factor, but rather being in the challenging part. A playlist you love can genuinely move that threshold. Source study: Psychology of Sport and Exercise— Feel the beat, not the burn: Effects of self-selected music in time-to-exhaustion cycling   Did this solution stand out? Share it with a friend or support our mission by becoming an Emissary.The post The research behind why your favorite songs make you push your workout harder first appeared on The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News.

BY THE OPTIMIST DAILY EDITORIAL TEAM New babies go through eight to ten diapers a day, and diapers run about $100 a month. For families already stretched, that bill arrives before they’ve slept. Some parents leave diapers on too long or reuse disposables, which leads to rashes and infections. This particular problem often starts the day they leave the hospital or even earlier. Luckily, California is trying to get ahead of it before they leave the hospital. 400 diapers, no paperwork required Under a new program from Governor Gavin Newsom, every family delivering at a participating hospital goes home with 400 diapers in newborn and infant sizes, covering babies up to 14 pounds (6 kilograms). About five weeks’ worth. No income check or enrollment form needed. The program, Golden State Start, runs through a partnership with the non-profit Baby2Baby, which built its own manufacturing line to produce diapers at 80 percent below retail. “California is once again setting the standard of what it means to show up for mothers and babies,” said co-CEO Norah Weinstein. Starting where the need is greatest In year one, Golden State Start will run at 65 to 75 hospitals covering about a quarter of California births, with priority given to facilities that largely serve low-income patients. It will expand from there, though the state hasn’t set a specific timeline. The state put $7.4 million toward it in last year’s budget. This year’s proposal adds $12.5 million to carry it through June 2027. The first of its kind at discharge Two other states have moved on diapers, but differently. Tennessee lets Medicaid-enrolled families pick up 100 diapers a month at pharmacies for children under two. Delaware has a pilot providing up to 80 diapers and one pack of wipes per week in the first twelve weeks, extended in 2024. Neither delivers at discharge to all families regardless of income. California Medicaid covers diapers only for enrollees aged five and older with a documented medical need. Golden State Start is outside that system entirely. “The first days at home with a newborn should be focused on the love, connection, and joy of an expanded family, not stress about affording diapers,” said state health secretary Kim Johnson. “This program helps ensure families can begin that journey with greater stability and peace of mind.” Newsom put it alongside earlier moves: free school meals, universal preschool. “Every baby born in California deserves a healthy start in life,” he said, “and that means making sure parents have the basics they need from day one.”     Did this solution stand out? Share it with a friend or support our mission by becoming an Emissary.The post California sends newborns home with a month of free diapers first appeared on The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News.

Patriotism can feel like a loaded term sometimes, as the meaning can range in people’s minds from a basic love of country to a fierce loyalty one is willing to die for. What constitutes “country” can also impact how we perceive of patriotism, as there’s a difference between the land, the people, the ideals, and the current government. And then there’s nationalism, which may sound like the same thing but isn’t. So what’s the difference? Episcopal priest Joseph Yoo shared his thoughts on what separates patriotism from nationalism, and people are appreciating having the key differences laid out so clearly. @joseph.yoo Nationalism vs. Patriotism #yourEpiscoPal #YourKoreanFather #nationalism #patriotism #LanguageLearning ♬ original sound – Joseph Yoo “Patriotism is love,” Yoo begins. “It’s gratitude. It’s saying, ‘I care about my country enough to tell the truth about it, to celebrate what’s good and work to fix what’s broken.” “Nationalism, that’s idolatry,” he continues. “It says my nation is the nation above critique, above others, God’s favorite. And once you slap God’s seal of approval on your own flag, congratulations, you’ve just made your country a ‘golden calf.’“ He explained that patriotism results in activism like that of John Lewis crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge to demand that the country live up to its professed ideals. Nationalism results in tragedies like the January 6th invasion of the Capitol, where Confederate flags and crosses were seen in the same mob. Something I think about a lot: during the civil war, the confederate flag never got inside the Capitol. On January 6th, it did. pic.twitter.com/dEqurIqmAD— Keith Edwards (@keithedwards) January 5, 2024 “Patriotism says, ‘I love my family enough to admit when we’ve messed up, and I will help us grow,” Yoo says. “Nationalism says, ‘My family is perfect, everyone else is trash, and if you disagree you are out.'” “One is honest love. The other is toxic possession,” he says. “One builds. One bullies.” Yoo concluded with a biblical point: “Jesus never called us to worship a flag, only to love our neighbor.” Why the distinction actually matters It’s important to differentiate between patriotism and nationalism because the latter has become a bit of a lightning rod in the political discourse. Some use it as a pejorative term, while others have embraced it as something totally acceptable or even positive. When the definitions are muddied, it causes confusion. Of course, Yoo is not the sole authority on what these words mean, but his thoughts are aligned with what the neutral arbiters of definitions say they mean. Here is what the dictionaries actually say Dictionary.com has an entire page discussing the terms, defining patriotism as “devoted love, support, and defense of one’s country; national loyalty,” and nationalism as “the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one’s own nation viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations,” ultimately leading to how the two words are used: Patriotism generally has a positive connotation. It’s used for various positive sentiments, attitudes, and actions involving loving one’s country and serving the great good of all its people. Nationalism generally has a negative connotation. It’s used for political ideologies and movements that involve a more extreme and exclusionary love of one’s country, at the expense of foreigners, immigrants, and even people in a country who aren’t believed to belong in some way, often racial and religious grounds. Love of one’s country is nice. But there’s a difference between patriotism and nationalism. Photo credit: Canva Britannica also has a whole page about the two words, with this basic synopsis of the differences: “Patriotism is a feeling of attachment and commitment to a country, nation, or political community, and its conception has roots tracing back to Greek and Roman antiquity. It is associated with the love of law and common liberty, the search for the common good, and the duty to behave justly toward one’s country. Nationalism, on the other hand, is a more modern ideology that emerged in the 18th century, focusing on the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state, often surpassing other individual or group interests.” What some famous voices have said about it And then there are some famous takes on patriotism: “I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.”– James Baldwin “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it.”– Mark Twain “Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.”– Theodore Roosevelt “The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude creates a feeling of responsibility, but the second a feeling of blind arrogance that leads to war.” – Sydney J. Harris There’s nothing wrong with loving your country, but anything taken to excess and exclusion isn’t healthy. Nationalism is excessive and exclusive in its very nature, and while patriotism can be weaponized, when kept in check it’s what keeps people striving to make their homelands the best that they can be for everyone who lives there. This article originally appeared last year. It has been updated. The post Episcopal priest beautifully explains patriotism vs. nationalism and what sets them apart appeared first on Upworthy.

Gen Zers joke that their parents were born in the 1900s as a way to teasingly make it seem like their parents are much older than they actually are. But the kids coming up behind them are either really good at sarcasm or they actually believe the 80s were more like the 1780s. A 7th grade teacher asked her class full of Gen Alphas what they thought the worst part of the 80s was, and no one was prepared for their answers. When most people think about the 80s, they think of big hair teased and sprayed to the gods. Bright colors, roller skates, and people walking around with giant boomboxes on their shoulders (as if everyone wanted to hear their music choices) are also at the top of the list for things that represent the 80s. But when thinking of the worst part of that decade, the lack of things like GPS, cell phones, and search engines would probably be at the top of that list. Retro vibes with bold colors and music! #80sFashion Photo credit: Canva Their answers were not what anyone expected Gen Alpha has other ideas about the worst part of the 80s. If you lived through that decade, you may want to remove your hat so you can scratch your head. The teacher who goes by Meliciousmo on social media uploaded the prompt and her students’ answers on TikTok, giving viewers a chuckle. One kid answers the prompt with, “No electricity. No good food.” It’s starting out pretty questionably, but let’s give him the benefit of the doubt by assuming his family watches a lot of Little House on the Prairie and his centuries are mixed up. The next kid’s response will probably nail it. Well, maybe not. Through a few spelling errors, the response explains that the worst part about the 80s is that they didn’t have cars. Yes, this sweet summer child surmised that life was tough because cars didn’t exist, so walking everywhere or riding a horse and buggy was imperative. Obviously, this is false, because there were cars in the 80s. They had seatbelts in them for decoration, and kids would slide across the backseat when their dad turned a corner too fast as their mom reflexively extended a stiff arm to stop them from flying out of the car. @meliciousmo Every Friday I ask my students a fun question. This was today’s with some of their responses. #teachersoftiktok #funnyanswers #genx #middleschool ♬ Don’t Stop Believin’ (2024 Remaster) – Journey A few kids actually nailed it Clearly, some of the students were exposed to either 80s movies or TV shows because a couple of answers were spot on. One student wrote that running out of hairspray was the worst thing about the 80s, while another said, “People listening to other people’s phone calls.” Yikes. They’re right. There were no cell phones, so there were no Bluetooth devices, so everyone was privy to your private conversation. Another child said nothing was bad about the 80s because “they had cool clothes, music, people, and hair.” Those are big facts, kid. But other suggestions included having to walk through rivers because of the lack of buses. (And for what it’s worth, “the Cold War” is actually a pretty accurate answer.) The viewers had thoughts about this too One person writes, “There’s[sic] like 3 kids who know the 1980s are not the same as the 1780s. LOL.” Another laughs, “Gosh I’m still tired from walking through all the rivers to school.” Someone else thinks the generational gap between parents has something to do with it, “Some of these are spot on…some think we’re over 100 years old! You can tell who has Gen X parents and who has Millennial parents!” Book It pizza party anyone? (Or was that the 90s?) Either way, someone is proposing that iconic classic, writing, “Ok so some good ones, shoulder pads, people listening in to phone calls and hair spary[sic] are all legit. Give those kids a classic 80s pizza paety[sic]!! As for WW2, no tv, cars, and the great depression. Well those kids need a new history book lol.” Another person adds a pressure that only those who were adults in the 80s could appreciate, saying, “I didn’t even grow up in the 80s and I KNOW it was writing a check at the grocery store with four people behind you and the person behind you had a full belt. The pressure must have been CRIPPLING.” This article originally appeared last year. It has been updated. The post A teacher asked 7th graders the worst part of the 80s, and their answers have us howling appeared first on Upworthy.

Mozart was known for his musical talent at a young age, playing the harpsichord at age four and writing original compositions at age five. So perhaps it’s fitting that a video of five-year-old piano prodigy Alberto Cartuccia Cingolani playing Mozart has gone viral as people marvel at his musical abilities. Alberto’s legs couldn’t even reach the pedals, but that didn’t stop his little hands from flying expertly over the keys as incredible music pours out of the piano at the 10th International Musical Competition “Città di Penne” in Italy in 2022. Even if you’ve seen young musicians play impressively, it’s hard not to have your jaw drop. Sometimes a kid comes along who just clearly has a gift. Of course, that gift has been helped along by two professional musician parents, but no amount of teaching can create an ability like this. How this all got started during lockdown Alberto first started playing in 2020 in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Italy was one of the first countries to experience a serious lockdown, and Alberto’s mother used the opportunity to start teaching her son to play piano. Alessia Cingolani and her husband Simone Cartuccia are both music conservatory graduates, and mom Alessia told Italian entertainment website Contra-taque that she and her husband recognized Alberto’s talent immediately. She said that although Alberto spends a lot of time at the piano, he also has plenty of time for school and play and television, like a normal kid. There’s genuinely nothing “normal” about this kid’s piano playing, though. Watch him playing a piece by Edvard Grieg in front of a crowd in Italy at age five: Wow, right? There are countless adults who took years of piano lessons and never got to that level of playing. According to Corriere Adriatico, by the time he was four and a half years old, Alberto had participated in seven competitions and won first place in all of them. He has since gone on to collect more than 70 first prizes in national and international competitions. His mother told the outlet that he started out practicing for about 10 minutes a day and gradually increased to three hours. “He has a remarkable flair for the piano,” she said. Um, yeah. Clearly. Some commenters expressed some concern for the boy based on his seriousness and what looks like dark circles under his eyes in the competition video, but if you check out other videos of Alberto playing at home, he is more relaxed. In interviews, his mother has made it clear that they prioritize normal childhood activities. Now watch him at age eight with an orchestra Alberto also plays with other musicians. Watch him playing Haydn along with a small orchestra at age eight in 2025: Where musical ability comes from continues to be somewhat of a mystery, and experts frequently debate how much is due to nature and how much is due to nurture. Some argue that anyone can develop musical skills with enough practice and a supportive environment, but sometimes a kid clearly displays an innate musical sensibility that defies explanation. Some children are just genuine prodigies, and Alberto certainly seems to fit that bill. Can’t wait to see what kind of musical future awaits him. This article originally appeared four years ago and has been updated. The post Watch a 5-yr-old Italian piano prodigy blow away the crowd with his extraordinary ability appeared first on Upworthy.