Friday, April 14, 2023

Is college stressing you out? It could be the way your courses are designed

Nearly 7 in 10 undergrad respondents had thought about taking a break due to stress, according to a new study. skynesher via Getty Images
Nichole Barta, Gonzaga University

Stress is stopping students from enrolling in and staying in college.

According to a recent survey of over 12,000 adults in the U.S., 63% of those 18 to 24 who had never attended college said emotional stress is one of the biggest reasons why they are not currently enrolled.

And among those who do enroll, 41% thought about withdrawing for at least one term, the survey found, and more than half of the time, emotional stress was the main reason. The figure was even higher – 69% – among those pursuing a bachelor’s degree.

While there may be some aspects of college that are inherently stressful, there are also steps that college instructors can take to make the experience less stressful than it would otherwise be. I know this because as director of the Center for Teaching & Advising at Gonzaga University, I teach faculty how to design their courses in ways that use practical, evidence-based strategies to reduce student stress. I believe these strategies have broad application for colleges and universities in general. Here are four practices that I often recommend:

1. Design a friendly syllabus

The language used in a course syllabus affects how approachable and supportive students perceive their instructor to be. By offering outside help and using a friendly tone in syllabuses, faculty can positively influence students’ decisions to seek assistance.

Conversely, using punitive language, such as threatening penalties for not completing certain tasks, may create an impression that an instructor is unapproachable. This could in turn discourage students from seeking help when needed.

I encourage instructors to review their syllabuses and modify the tone to be as friendly and supportive as possible.

2. Assign realistic workloads

An overwhelming workload is a significant cause of stress, as students may feel unable to effectively manage the demands of their coursework. To prevent overwhelming students, instructors could assign a workload aligned with the course credit hours. One rule of thumb is to only assign two hours of homework for every hour of class. While this guideline is flexible, instructors could consider the potential burden on students if they exceed it. If every instructor assigns more homework than the guideline recommends, it could become a significant challenge for students to keep up with their coursework.

Rice University offers a workload calculator that faculty can use to estimate the workload in their courses based on the different kinds of work they assign. I recommend that instructors use this resource to evaluate the time their readings and assignments take. If the quantity or complexity of assignments becomes too much for students, instructors can make adjustments to ensure a more manageable load.

3. Communicate clear expectations for how work will be graded

Student anxiety increases when it is unclear how they will be assessed.

A rubric is a scoring tool that spells out criteria and levels of performance for an assignment. Its purpose is to make clear how student work will be judged. Students have reported that rubrics help them identify key aspects of an assignment. This in turn reduces uncertainty about what qualifies as quality work. Rubrics also allow students to monitor their progress and make changes before they turn in an assignment. Additionally, rubrics are perceived as a way to make grades more transparent and fair.

Rubrics should be provided well ahead of the assessment deadline so that students can use them to judge their own work. This allows students to ask for clarification about the criteria. Rubrics also provide a way for instructors to efficiently provide feedback. I recommend that instructors require students to use rubrics as part of an assignment to reflect on their understanding of the expectations.

4. Teach effective study skills for tests

Test anxiety is a common stress response for college students. Around 40% of students report experiencing some degree of test anxiety, with 15% indicating levels that are debilitating during assessments. Research has revealed that test anxiety may stem from students’ realization that they haven’t learned the course material, rather than their ability to recall information during exams.

A distressed-looking male college student sits at a desk in a blur of other students.
Test anxiety can worsen as time goes on. Chris Ryan via Getty Images

I recommend instructors integrate effective study skills into their courses and provide guidance to help students apply these methods. Strategies that have been shown to improve academic performance and reduce anxiety include:

  • Pre-lecture quizzes: online quizzes taken before a lecture to help students identify concepts they don’t understand. Instructors can also detect patterns in misunderstandings.

  • How-to-learn assignments: assignments that teach students effective study strategies.

  • Frequent in-class quizzes with real-time feedback: in-class quizzes that are not graded, taken multiple times throughout a course, and provide students with immediate feedback on how well they understand the material. This strategy can help students identify any misconceptions and correct them quickly.

The stress of college may never be eliminated, but it can be alleviated. It just requires a modest amount of effort to design courses in evidence-based ways that make the experience of going to college less stressful than it would otherwise be.

Nichole Barta, Associate Professor of Kinesiology & Sport Management, Gonzaga University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Small wonders: The antibodies from camels and sharks that could change medicine


A handful of animals make a pared-down version of these pathogen-fighting proteins of our immune system. Scientists hope to harness them as treatments for ills from cancer to Covid, for tracking cells in the body, and more.

Every four months, pathologist Aaron LeBeau scoops into a net one of the five nurse sharks he keeps in his University of Wisconsin lab. Then he carefully administers a shot to the animal, much like a pediatrician giving a kid a vaccine. The shot will immunize the shark against a human cancer, perhaps, or an infectious disease, such as Covid-19. A couple of weeks later, after the animal’s immune system has had time to react, LeBeau collects a small vial of shark blood.

Halfway across the country, immunologist Hidde Ploegh goes through the same steps, but with alpacas that live on a farm in western Massachusetts. The scientists are after the same thing: tiny antibodies, made only by certain animals, that may have big implications for human health.

Most antibodies — those molecules that course through our blood and tissues patrolling for pathogens — are fairly hefty as proteins go. But the antibodies made by camels and sharks and their close relatives are simpler and smaller. Since their discovery in the late 1980s, researchers have learned that these antibodies pack a big punch: They can latch onto hidden parts of molecules and can penetrate tissues more deeply, enhancing their potential as therapies. 

“They can get into little nooks and crannies of different proteins that human antibodies cannot access,” LeBeau says.

In the last decades, investigations of these diminutive antibodies have surged. Not only can they sneak into small places, they are also easy to work with — sturdier than their ordinary counterparts — and relatively cheap to make in large quantities. All these features make the antibodies promising treatments for a host of diseases, whether clotting disorders or Covid-19. Researchers are also exploring their use for diagnosing conditions such as cancer, and they’re becoming a key tool in other kinds of research, like mapping cells’ insides.

The full promise of these antibodies may still take years to realize, but researchers are very excited about their possibilities. “I think they have potential to save the world,” LeBeau says.

Luck of the blood draw

A group of biology students were the first to discover these unusual antibodies — quite by chance — back in 1989. The students of Free University in Brussels needed some blood for an exam in which they were tasked with separating an antibody into its two main parts: two heavy protein chains, which form a Y shape, and two light protein chains, which flank the prongs at the top of the Y.

Human blood seemed too risky to work with, given concerns at the time about potential HIV exposure, and the students didn’t want to kill a mouse. But the students’ professor, the late Raymond Hamers, happened to be studying sleeping sickness in large animals. He gave the students some blood from a camel, says immunologist Serge Muyldermans, who was then a post-doctoral researcher at the university.

Strangely, the students found only heavy chain proteins in the blood even though antibodies were supposed to also have light chains. As Muyldermans tells it, everyone thought that the camel antibodies had degraded — or that the students had done something wrong — so Hamers went to the Antwerp Zoo to collect fresh camel blood. But the students had not screwed up: Camels make antibodies with only heavy protein chains.

The potential applications of camelids’ small antibodies dawned on Hamers during those early years, says Muyldermans, who details their myriad uses in the 2021  Annual Review of Animal Biosciences. Like antibodies from people or mice, the camelid antibodies could be further pared down into even smaller, yet still effective, fragments — just the tips of the Y. These fragments, called variable domains, are the business end of any antibody — they act as the antibody’s “sensor” and can stick to parts of pathogens or toxins, whatever substance is recognized as foreign and a possible threat.

In standard antibodies (which camels also make), the variable domains come in pairs, one from the heavy chain and one from the light chain. But the variable domains of the camelid’s heavy-chain-only antibodies are singletons. The researchers realized these solitary fragments might be able to grab onto parts of foreign molecules that conventional antibodies were too bulky to reach.

In 1993, the team published the discovery in Nature. The next year, Hamers  patented the production of these camelid antibody fragments (they are also known as VHH antibodies or “nanobodies,” a trademarked term). A few years later, a different group of researchers reported that  sharks also make antibodies with only heavy chains and these have an even smaller tip (these shark end fragments are called variable new antigen receptors, or VNARs).

When the primary patent expired in 2013, research investigating the antibodies really surged, says Ploegh, an immunologist at Boston Children’s Hospital. “That’s sort of when the dam broke and a lot of folks got in on the game.”

Scientists have since learned a lot about the advantages of these mini antibodies. Some is practical: Unlike full-size antibodies, the fragments are stable at room temperature so there’s no need to keep them in a freezer or ship them cold. The mini antibodies of sharks can even be boiled with no effect on their function, LeBeau says. And while full-size antibodies require mammalian cells to be grown in a flask, which can be complicated and expensive to maintain, the fragments can be manufactured in large quantities using bacteria, saving time and money.

These mini antibodies also tend to self-assemble properly, keeping their correct shapes, making them a promising alternative to full-size antibodies, which have more pieces and thus can misfold. Such misfolding may expose parts that are more likely to be recognized by the immune system as foreign molecules, which can provoke a negative immune response in the body, with potentially serious consequences for patient health.

But the standout trait of the mini antibodies is their versatility. All antibodies, whether from human or shark, have variable domains at their tips, but those of sharks and camels have unique traits. They have an especially long, slender finger called a CDR3 loop that can poke into places that human antibodies can’t access. They appear to easily adopt different shapes — LeBeau describes that feature as “molecular yoga.” This means mini antibodies can get into tight spots, whether into tissues of the body or on minuscule parts of individual molecules.

Anti-cancer antibodies

Research into these unusual mini antibodies is now starting to bear fruit. In 2019, the first mini antibody medical treatment to be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, called Cablivi, came on the market. It treats a rare blood disorder that leads to clots in small blood vessels. The treatment uses nanobodies to bind to a protein in platelets, which stops them from sticking together.

Mini antibodies could become a valuable tool for cancer treatment. Full-size antibodies are already used in immunotherapies to treat certain cancers; in some cases, the antibody tags cancer cells so that the body’s own immune system cells can then recognize and kill the rogue cells; in others, it might bring immune cells closer to the cancer cells so the body can better fight the cancer. The mini antibodies can do the same tasks, but can also be used in other ways, such as targeting proteins to reduce tumor growth or blocking blood vessels from feeding a tumor. And the smaller antibodies also may be less likely to trigger a negative immune response than full-size immunotherapy antibodies, which may lead to dramatic treatment improvements, Ploegh says.

LeBeau, for his part, is focused on developing mini antibodies targeted for prostate and lung cancer. The sharks in his lab, each named for James Bond bad guys — Goldfinger, Hugo Drax, Mr. Stamper, Oddjob and Nick Nack — keep him supplied with antibodies that he uses in lab experiments. His lab recently identified a shark antibody fragment that is specific for a highly aggressive, and currently untreatable, form of lung cancer. He’s hopeful that this new mini antibody could help combat the cancer, and has studies in progress to test it.

The mini antibodies are also helping physicians detect cancers more readily, pinpointing diseased cells with more precision. By attaching radioactive tracer molecules to specific antibodies that seek out cancer cells, physicians can locate cancerous cells on a PET scan, potentially with greater resolution than with standard antibodies because they can penetrate deeper into tissues. One such nanobody-based tracer detected several tumors in mice with  higher specificity than conventional imaging, a team reported in  PNAS in 2019.

Vanquishing viruses

Scientists are also harnessing mini antibodies to fight infectious diseases, including Covid-19. Wai-Hong Tham, an infectious disease researcher at the University of Melbourne and the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, has been working to generate nanobodies that grab onto part of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, to prevent the virus from entering cells in the body.

In a preliminary study, published in PNAS in 2021, Tham and her colleagues identified several nanobodies from alpacas that interfered with the spike proteins’ ability to latch onto the molecular doorknob it uses to get into cells; cocktails of the nanobodies also reduced the amount of virus in experiments with mice. Ideally, Tham says, they could find a nanobody that universally blocks Covid-19 regardless of the coronavirus variant. Other nanobody cocktails also appear promising: Four nanobodies, mixed and matched in various combinations, disabled the spike protein in experiments in cells, a separate team reported in 2021 in  Science.

Mini antibodies might be delivered via mRNA technology so the antibodies assemble inside people’s cells, Tham says. Vaccine-like injections might work against other  infectious diseases, counter toxins such as  botulism, or even deliver therapeutics for cancer or other conditions.

And with a simple pill, mini antibodies could be delivered directly to the gut, which could help to block a number of pathogens, for example rotavirus, that enter the body through the digestive tract. Small microbes — such as yeast, bacteria and algae — can’t efficiently make full-size antibodies because these are too complex. However, researchers have proposed genetically engineering  spirulina (a blue-green alga that’s often sold as a nutritional supplement) or harmless bacteria called  Lactobacilli  or  Lactococcus that could deliver therapeutic nanobodies via a pill, which would be much more cost effective than producing a drug, Tham says.

Sleuthing cell mysteries

The diminutive antibodies are also a boon for scientists who study proteins and investigate interactions between molecules. The size and long finger of these antibodies can help solve protein structures, map proteins  inside cells and show how molecules within cells  interact with each other.

Researchers recently solved the structure of a human protein called ASIC1a, for example — it forms a type of channel that lets sodium into nerve cells and plays an important role in pain perception and several neurodegenerative diseases. Stabilizing the protein with a nanobody allowed the researchers to determine its structure with greater resolution, the team reported in 2021 in  eLife.

Single-domain antibodies “have the potential of mapping interactions that would be very difficult to study otherwise,” says Ploegh, coauthor of an overview of their traits in the 2018  Annual Review of Immunology. Scientists are even investigating their potential use in the brain — a tricky task because the blood-brain barrier likes to keep foreign molecules out. An international team recently reported using nanobodies as  sensors to study whether or not a protein in a mouse brain was activated, and where it was located.

Ploegh says that mini antibodies are exceptionally useful and have significant advantages over full-size antibodies, but they remain somewhat niche because of limited access to the animals that make them — not every researcher has nearby camels, llamas or, in LeBeau’s case, sharks. (“Probably very few people are crazy enough to actually build a shark tank and work with sharks. But we are,” LeBeau says.)

But this is starting to change as interest ramps up. Researchers are also developing new approaches, such as creating synthetic nanobodies and developing mice with “camelized” immune systems for research.

Scientists still don’t know why camelids and cartilaginous fishes, like sharks, are the only animals known to make heavy chain antibodies. Sharks are the most ancient living organisms to rely on antibodies as part of their immune systems, and their antibodies are more stable than those of camelids. Scientists speculate that sharks rely on these antibodies because of the high concentrations of urea in their blood, which would degrade the antibodies of most mammals.

Sharks evolved some 350 million years before camels, yet camelid heavy chain antibodies are also relatively ancient: They are found in both Old World camelids, like camels, and New World camelids, like llamas and alpacas, suggesting that the antibodies may have developed early in the lineage’s evolution. Perhaps “there are certain pathogens that are unique to the camelids that are best fought with these heavy chain antibodies,” Ploegh says.

The heavy chain antibodies of sharks might well be the most ancient immune molecules still in existence — but LeBeau is exuberant about what they could accomplish in the future. “Whenever you work with them, you see something new every day. And that’s really exciting,” he says.

And as for his two-foot-long sharks, when they outgrow their tank, they’ll retire to the local aquarium.

This article originally appeared in Knowable Magazine, an independent journalistic endeavor from Annual Reviews.

Americans spend more time and money filing their taxes than residents of other countries — but there are some benefits to a complex tax code

The average U.S. taxpayer spends 13 hours filing their return. Mehmed Zelkovic/Moment Collection/Getty Images
Bridget Stomberg, Indiana University and Lisa De Simone, The University of Texas at Austin

Tax Day falls on April 18 in 2023. But if you’re one of the 20%-25% of Americans who wait until the last minute to file, don’t panic – you still have time.

The IRS estimates that the average taxpayer spends 13 hours to complete their return. If you own a business, the estimate increases to 25 hours. That said, filing can be tricky.

As accounting professors and hosts of the podcast “Taxes for the Masses,” we know the U.S. tax system is more complex than many other countries. That complexity, however, has benefits as well as drawbacks.

Simpler tax systems abroad

Although the U.S. income tax system asks individuals to devote their time to complete a tax return each year – or pay someone to do it for you – dozens of countries have found another way.

Some nations, such as the U.K., offer return-free systems where taxpayers have the exact correct amount of income tax withheld from their earnings during the year.

Other countries, such as Denmark and Spain, offer tax reconciliation systems whereby the tax authority fills out the return for the taxpayer using information from third parties, such as employers and banks, with knowledge of your financial goings-on. All the taxpayer must do is review the form and submit any corrections. These systems shift the costs of determining one’s tax bill – currently estimated to be over US$11 billion a year in the U.S. – from taxpayers to the government.

The goal of return-free and tax reconciliation systems is to withhold the exact right amount of tax during the year so there’s no need to true up these amounts to the actual tax liability. So why can’t the U.S. do something similar? Well, exact withholding is easiest to do when the tax code is simple. And the U.S. tax code is not simple.

In fact, when the Treasury Department reported to Congress in 2003 on the feasibility of a return-free system in the U.S., the report was titled Tax Simplification is a Prerequisite.

What makes the US system so complex?

A simpler system taxes each individual separately. The U.S., however, taxes single individuals and married couples differently. This approach makes it difficult to withhold the right amount of tax because the applicable tax rate depends on more than just your income. It includes, for example, that of your spouse, which your bank or employer may not know.

A simpler system would also have flat or fewer tax rates. Instead, the U.S. has numerous tax brackets, with the goal of ensuring that higher earners pay higher rates of income tax. Although progressive rate structures like this are aimed at fairness, in that those who can afford to pay more do pay more, this type of tax system adds complexity.

Other countries retain progressive systems with fewer tax brackets. For example, the U.K. currently has four tax brackets, compared with seven in the U.S.

The U.S. also has different rates for ordinary income such as wages versus income such as dividends and capital gains, which are typically taxed at lower rates – in part to spur investment and also because investment income has arguably already been taxed. But the U.S. system adds complexity because capital gains on investments held for less than a year and some dividends are not taxed at preferential rates. These different rates – from different levels and types of income – reduce the chances of getting withholding right.

The U.S. system also adds complexity with the sheer number of deductions and credits available to taxpayers. Deductions reduce the amount of taxable income you have, thereby reducing your tax liability. Say a single individual has $80,000 of wage income and $15,000 of deductions. Their taxable income is $65,000. At 2022 rates, their tax liability is $9,617. Those $15,000 of deductions saved them $3,300 in taxes.

Fortunately, there are a lot deductions. Unfortunately, taxpayers often have to jump through hoops to qualify. You can deduct gambling losses but only if you have gambling winnings, state income taxes but only up to $10,000 each year, and student loan interest but only if you make less than $85,000 or $175,000, depending on your marital status.

Further, these deductions come in different flavors: “above-the-line” deductions and “below-the-line” deductions, which themselves come in two flavors – itemized and standard. Taxpayers itemize deductions only if those amounts exceed the standard deduction. That means you might spend several hours tallying receipts for itemized charitable donations only to find you can’t deduct any of them because the total is less than your standard deduction.

Credits are another valuable element of the tax system because they reduce your tax liability dollar for dollar. Let’s go back to our single taxpayer with $65,000 in taxable income and a $9,617 tax liability before credits. A $1,000 credit – say for higher education or renewable energy – reduces their tax liability to $8,617. But credits also add complexity because they can be reduced as your income increases, and they can have extensive eligibility requirements.

Benefits of a complex system

One benefit of all this complexity is that it gives the tax system flexibility to provide economic stimulus and other responses to current events, like a global pandemic. For example, Congress allowed taxpayers to receive guaranteed tax benefits for some charitable contributions made during the pandemic as above-the-line deductions, instead of the usual requirement that taxpayers first determine whether they could itemize the charitable contribution as a below-the-line deduction.

Even if the U.S. could drastically simplify its tax system, a return-free or tax reconciliation system comes with its own problems. Transitioning would require a significant investment in IRS resources, and although in 2022 Congress passed an $80 billion boost to IRS funding over the next 10 years, much of this amount is needed to shore up the current system.

And estimates suggest that, at best, a return-free or tax reconciliation system in the U.S. would work for only 62 million taxpayers, meaning the majority of U.S. taxpayers would still have to complete a tax return because the withholding or pre-populated return wouldn’t be right.

Meanwhile, a simpler tax system potentially makes it more difficult for Congress to use tax policy to stimulate the economy or encourage certain desirable behaviors, such as investing in renewable energy.

Finally, exact withholding, when it works correctly, takes away the sizable refunds some Americans enjoy.

In the end, no tax system is perfect. The U.S. must decide whether the complexity of its tax system is worth the time and the average $250 cost taxpayers spend on filing their own returns instead of spending that on more pleasant activities.

Bridget Stomberg, Associate Professor of Accounting, Indiana University and Lisa De Simone, Associate Professor of Accounting, The University of Texas at Austin

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

What is ‘algospeak’? Inside the newest version of linguistic subterfuge

Social media algorithms are programmed to swoop in and flag certain words. Dmitry Kovalchuk/iStock via Getty Images
Roger J. Kreuz, University of Memphis

A linguistic arms race is raging online – and it isn’t clear who’s winning.

On one side are social networks like Facebook, Instagram and TikTok. These sites have become better and better at identifying and removing language and content that violates their community standards.

Social media users are on the other side, and they’ve come up with coded terminology designed to evade algorithmic detection. These expressions are collectively referred to as “algospeak.”

New terms like these are just the latest development in the history of linguistic concealment. Typically, such codes have been employed by small groups. Given the reach of social media, however, algospeak has the potential to more broadly influence everyday language.

An online standoff

Due to the sheer volume of posted content, social media platforms use algorithms to automatically flag and remove problematic material. The goal is to reduce the spread of misinformation as well as to block content considered offensive or inappropriate.

Yet many people have legitimate reasons for wanting to discuss sensitive topics online.

Victims of sexual assault, for example, may find it therapeutic to discuss their experiences with others. And those who struggle with thoughts of self-harm or suicide can benefit from online communities that provide support. But algorithms may identify and remove such content as a violation of a site’s terms of service.

But those who repeatedly run afoul of a site’s policies may find that their posts have been downranked or made less visible – a process called shadow banning. And repeated violations can lead to a temporary or permanent suspension.

To get past content filters, social media users are making use of coded language instead of the banned terms.

References to sex, for example, might be replaced by an innocuous word like “mascara.” “Unalive” has become an agreed-upon way to refer to death or suicide. “Accountant” takes the place of sex worker. “Corn” stands in for porn. “Leg booty” is LGBTQ.

A history of hidden language

Although circumventing content filters is a relatively new phenomenon, the use of coded terms to conceal one’s meaning is not.

For example, the 19th-century Russian satirist Mikhail Saltykov-Shchedrin made use of “Aesopian,” or allegorical, language. He and others used it to circumvent censorship in Tsarist Russia. For example, the forbidden term “revolution” would be replaced with a phrase like “the big job.”

Many subcultures have developed their own private codes that are only really understood by in-group members. These are referred to by a variety of names, such as argot, cant or slang.

Polari was a private language used by gay men in early 20th-century Britain, at a time when public sentiment against homosexuality was running high. “Rough trade,” for example, referred to a working-class sex partner.

Rhyming slang has also been employed to obfuscate one’s meaning to outsiders. A term like telephone, for example, can be replaced by a rhyming equivalent, such as “dog and bone,” and then shortened to “dog.” In this way, a member of a gang could publicly request that another member call them, and do so even in the presence of the police.

Cockney rhyming slang, which emerged in 19th-century London, is perhaps the best-known example, although there are several others.

Leetspeak evolved in the 1980s, as intrepid internet pioneers ventured online to use bulletin board systems. Some of the workarounds they created to evade moderation are still being used today on sites like TikTok.

This form of linguistic subterfuge typically involves using numbers and symbols as stand-ins for letters. “3” resembles a backwards capital E, “1” looks like a lowercase l, “$” can take the place of the letter s, and so on. The term “leet” itself is often written as “1337.”

Although it’s most commonly used when writing about sex, algospeak has also proven useful in other contexts. For example, it was employed last year in Iran by those protesting the government’s crackdown on dissent. Creative misspellings like “Ir@n” were pressed into service to evade censorship.

Concealment breeds miscommunication

About a decade ago, when emoji became a popular way of augmenting text messages, a new means of circumventing content moderation was born.

As I describe in my recently published book on miscommunication, fruits and vegetables that vaguely resemble parts of the human anatomy were employed to get around policies prohibiting sexual content.

As a result, the humble eggplant and peach emoji took on distinctly new meanings in the online world. And in 2019, both Facebook and Instagram took steps to block their use as sexual stand-ins.

The various social media platforms seem to be caught up in an escalating feud with their users. The sites may block certain terms, but this leads to new algospeak equivalents springing up to take their place.

Different sites have different rules that ban different terms, and what is considered acceptable and what is not is constantly changing.

Keeping up can be a challenge.

In January, the actress Julia Fox made a seemingly insensitive observation regarding a post mentioning “mascara” on TikTok.

Fox was apparently unaware that the term was being used as a stand-in for sexual assault. Fox was called out for her seemingly boorish remark, and a backlash compelled her to issue an apology.

As this linguistic tug of war continues, such misunderstandings seem likely to become more common. And at least some algospeak terms will inevitably spill over into vocabulary used offline.

After all, coded language survives because it is useful. Such terms can, for example, function as dog whistles to taunt one’s political opponents.

Let’s Go Brandon, anyone?

Roger J. Kreuz, Associate Dean and Professor of Psychology, University of Memphis

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Thursday, April 13, 2023

What are passkeys? A cybersecurity researcher explains how you can use your phone to make passwords a thing of the past

Your phone could soon replace your passwords. Xavier Lorenzo/Moment via Getty Images
Sayonnha Mandal, University of Nebraska Omaha

Passwords could soon become passé.

Effective passwords are cumbersome, all the more so when reinforced by two-factor authentication. But the need for authentication and secure access to websites is as great as ever. Enter passkeys.

Passkeys are digital credentials stored on your phone or computer. They are analogous to physical keys. You access your passkey by signing in to your device using a personal identification number (PIN), swipe pattern or biometrics like fingerprint or face recognition. You set your online accounts to trust your phone or computer. To break into your accounts, a hacker would need to physically possess your device and have the means to sign in to it.

As a cybersecurity researcher, I believe that passkeys not only provide faster, easier and more secure sign-ins, they minimize human error in password security and authorization steps. You don’t need to remember passwords for every account and don’t need to use two-factor authentication.

How passkeys work

Passkeys are generated via public-key cryptography. They use a public-private key pair to ensure a mathematically protected private relationship between users’ devices and the online accounts being accessed. It would be nearly impossible for a hacker to guess the passkey – hence the need to physically possess the device the passkey is accessed from.

Passkeys consist of a long private key – a long string of encrypted characters – created for a specific device. Websites cannot access the value of the passkey. Rather, the passkey verifies that a website possesses the corresponding public key. You can use the passkey from one device to access a website using another device. For example, you can use your laptop to access a website using the passkey on your phone by authorizing the login from your phone. And if you lose your phone, the passkey can be stored securely in the cloud with the phone’s other data, which can be restored to a new phone.

Passkeys explained in 76 seconds.

Why passkeys matter

Passwords can be guessed, phished or otherwise stolen. Security experts advise users to make their passwords longer with more characters, mixing alphanumeric and special symbols. A good password should not be in the dictionary or in phrases, have no consecutive letters or numbers, but be memorable. Users should not share them with anyone. Last but not least, users should change passwords every six months at minimum for all devices and accounts. Using a password manager to remember and update strong passwords helps but can still be a nuisance.

Even if you follow all of the best practices to keep your passwords safe, there is no guarantee of airtight security. Hackers are continuously developing and using software exploits, hardware tools and ever-advancing algorithms to break these defenses. Cybersecurity experts and malicious hackers are locked in an arms race.

Passkeys remove the onus from the user to create, remember and guard all their passwords. Apple, Google and Microsoft are supporting passkeys and encourage users to use them instead of passwords. As a result, passkeys are likely to soon overtake passwords and password managers in the cybersecurity battlefield.

However, it will take time for websites to add support for passkeys, so passwords aren’t going to go extinct overnight. IT managers still recommend that people use a password manager like 1Password or Bitwarden. And even Apple, which is encouraging the adoption of passkeys, has its own password manager.

Sayonnha Mandal, Lecturer in Interdisciplinary Informatics, University of Nebraska Omaha

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Is the US in a space race against China?

Both the U.S. and China have plans to establish bases on the Moon in the near future. Caspar Benson/fStop via Getty Images
Svetla Ben-Itzhak, Air University

Headlines proclaiming the rise of a new “space race” between the U.S. and China have become common in news coverage following many of the exciting launches in recent years. Experts have pointed to China’s rapid advancements in space as evidence of an emerging landscape where China is directly competing with the U.S. for supremacy.

This idea of a space race between China and the U.S. sounds convincing given the broader narrative of China’s rise, but how accurate is it? As a professor who studies space and international relations, my research aims to quantify the power and capabilities of different nations in space. When I look at various capacities, the data paints a much more complex picture than a tight space race between the U.S. and China. At least for now, the reality looks more like what I call a complex hegemony – one state, the U.S., is still dominating in key space capabilities, and this lead is further amplified by a strong network of partners.

A rocket taking off.
SpaceX rockets carry hundreds of private satellites into orbit each year from the seven active U.S. spaceports. SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

A clear leader makes for a boring race

Calling the current situation a race implies that the U.S. and China have roughly equal capabilities in space. But in several key areas, the U.S. is far ahead not only of China, but of all other spacefaring nations combined.

Starting with spending: In 2021, the U.S. space budget was roughly US$59.8 billion. China has been investing heavily in space and rocket technology over the last decade and has doubled its spending in the last five years. But with an estimated budget of $16.18 billion in 2021, it is still spending less than a third of the U.S. budget.

The U.S. also leads significantly in the number of active satellites. Currently, there are 5,465 total operational satellites in orbit around Earth. The U.S. operates 3,433, or 63% of those. In contrast, China has 541.

Similarly, the U.S. has more active spaceports than China. With seven operational launch sites at home and abroad and at least 13 additional spaceports in development, the U.S. has more options to launch payloads into various orbits. In contrast, China has only four operational spaceports with two more planned, all located within its own territory.

Parity with nuance

While the U.S. may have a clear advantage over China in many areas of space, in some measures, the differences between the two countries are more nuanced.

In 2021, for instance, China attempted 55 orbital launches, four more than the U.S.‘s 51. The total numbers may be similar, but the rockets carried very different payloads to orbit. The vast majority – 84% – of Chinese launches had government or military payloads intended mostly for electronic intelligence and optical imaging. Meanwhile, in the U.S., 61% of launches were for nonmilitary, academic or commercial use, predominantly for Earth observation or telecommunications.

Space stations are another area where there are important differences hiding beneath the surface. Since the 1990s, the U.S. has worked with 14 other nations, including Russia, to operate the International Space Station. The ISS is quite large, with 16 modules, and has driven technological and scientific breakthroughs. But the ISS is now 24 years old, and participating nations are planning to retire it in 2030.

A diagram of the Tiangong space station.
Construction of China’s Tiangong space station began in 2021, and the small, three-module station opened for research in December 2022. Shujianyang/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

The Chinese Tiangong space station is the new kid on the block. Construction was only completed in late 2022, and it is much smaller – with only three modules. China has built and launched all of the different parts and remains the sole operator of the station, despite having invited others to join.

China is undoubtedly expanding its space capabilities, and in a report published in August 2022, the Pentagon predicted that China would surpass U.S. capabilities in space as early as 2045. However, it is unlikely that the U.S. will remain stagnant, as it continues to increase funding for space.

Allies as force multipliers

A major point of difference between the U.S. and China is the nature and number of international collaborations.

For decades, NASA has been fruitfully cultivating international and commercial partnerships in everything from developing specific space technologies to flying humans into space. The U.S. government has also signed 169 space data sharing agreements with 33 states and intergovernmental organizations, 129 with commercial partners and seven with academic institutions.

China also has allies that help with space – most notably Russia and members of the Asia-Pacific Space Cooperation Organization, including Iran, Pakistan, Thailand and Turkey. China’s collaborators are, however, fewer in number and have far less developed space capabilities.

A man signing a document with a Brazilian and American flag on the desk.
In just two years, 24 nations, including Brazil, have joined the U.S.-led Artemis Accords. This international agreement outlines the goals of space exploration in the near future. Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovações/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

Efforts to return to the surface of the Moon excellently highlight this difference in ally support and synergy. Both the U.S. and China have plans to send people to the surface of the Moon and to establish lunar bases in the near future. These competing lunar aims are often cited as evidence of the space race, but they are very different in terms of partnerships and scope.

In 2019, Russia and China agreed to jointly go to the Moon by 2028. Russia is contributing its Luna landers and Oryol crewed orbiters, while China is improving its Chang’e robotic spacecraft. Their future International Lunar Research Station is “open to all interested parties and international partners,” but, to date, no additional countries have committed to the Chinese and Russian effort.

In contrast, since 2020, 24 nations have joined the U.S.-led Artemis Accords. This international agreement outlines shared principles of cooperation for future space activity and, through the Artemis Program, specifically aims to return people to the Moon by 2025 and establish a Moon base and lunar space station soon after.

In addition to the broad international participation, the Artemis Program has contracted with a staggering number of private companies to develop a range of technologies, from lunar landers to lunar construction methods and more.

China is not the only game in town

While China may seem like the main competitor of the U.S. in space, other countries have space capabilities and aspirations that rival those of China.

India spends billions on space and plans to return to the Moon, possibly with Japan, in the near future. South Korea, Israel, Japan, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, Germany and the European Union are also planning independent lunar missions. Japan has developed impressive technological space capabilities, including rendezvous proximity technology to send a spacecraft to an asteroid and bring samples back to Earth, that rival and even surpass those of China.

In the past, the space race was about who could reach the stars first and return home. Today, the goal has shifted to surviving and even thriving in the harsh environment of space. I believe it is not surprising that, despite its decisive lead, the U.S. has partnered with others to go to the Moon and beyond. China is doing the same, but on a smaller scale. The picture that emerges is not of a “race” but of complex system with the U.S. as a leader working closely with extensive networks of partners.

Svetla Ben-Itzhak, Assistant Professor of Space and International Relations, Air University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Don’t let climate change take all the blame

OPINION: The climate crisis is a massive problem, but when politicians fault it entirely for every disaster, attention is deflected from local measures that might build resiliency. That needs to change.

More than a million people were left starving in southern Madagascar last year after failed rains left the land barren and crops nonexistent. The United Nations said the country was on the brink of the “world’s first climate change famine.” But that’s just wrong.

Of course, it is a good thing to raise awareness about the perils of climate change, and to hammer home to people how our warming world can spur droughts and cause food supply lines to fail. Climate change does make floods, droughts, hurricanes and wildfires worse in many ways, and humanity needs to be doing everything in our power to rapidly lower our greenhouse gas emissions to net zero.

But climate change isn’t responsible for everything, nor are international efforts to curb climate change the  only important way to mitigate disasters. It helps no one if we simplify the climate story so much that it becomes false.

I should know, as one of the cofounders of World Weather Attribution (WWA), an international collaboration of scientists dedicated to identifying the underlying causes of weather-related disasters. For the lack of rain in southern Madagascar, specifically, there is  no causal link to human-caused climate change. Likewise, for the tropical cyclones that struck Madagascar and killed people in Mozambique this spring as buildings collapsed, climate change  played a limited role in the subsequent disaster.

It can be appealing for politicians to blame climate change alone for domestic disasters. It deflects responsibility away from individual nations, and onto the multinational corporations and international efforts that must lower the planet’s emissions. But there is also local responsibility, everywhere, for good governance, functioning infrastructure and warning systems. Climate-related disasters are deeply affected by local policies, like those that govern how agriculture is practiced, or whether natural landscapes are protected. Long-standing problems in social services, education and governance cannot be swept aside or ignored.

WWA was founded in 2014, in large part to help raise the flag about the perils of climate change. We wanted to be able to scientifically point fingers — real, evidence-based fingers — at the roots of disaster and show how climate change plays a role.

Attribution studies have been vitally important to public understanding. WWA has worked hard to do rapid assessments of disasters, sometimes showing within days or weeks whether and how much climate change fed into an event. We have so far analyzed 5 cold snaps, 7 droughts, 12 bouts of extreme rainfall, 13 heat waves and 5 storms around the world. For most, we found that climate change played a significant role in making the event more likely or more severe. For two of them, climate change was the  main driver: the heat domes over  western North America last summer and in  Siberia in 2020, both of which were essentially impossible without climate change. When politicians can point to science like this and call climate change a killer, it surely  helps them to push through policies to limit emissions.

But for all disasters, there are a great many more factors at play than climate change alone.

In southern Madagascar, for example, two years of poor rain led to a dramatic drought and crop failure in 2021. But the science assessed in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report shows that droughts in that part of the world have not gotten worse — nor are they expected to, so long as global temperature increases stay below 2°C. Our  WWA analysis came to the same conclusion. We found that similar consecutive failures of rainy seasons have happened here before, and there’s no evidence that this has become more common due to climate change.

Global emissions reductions will not change the risk of drought-related disasters in Madagascar. Reducing local vulnerability will. The population is too reliant on rain-fed agriculture, and deforestation has made that vulnerability worse. Instead of just responding to each individual disaster with food aid, NGOs should more consistently work with local decision-makers to make their agriculture and other systems more resilient. The global North clearly has a responsibility here too: Some of the things that make Madagascar vulnerable are a result of colonialism.

Take another example. The devastating flooding in Germany last year was indeed spurred by heavy rains made about 10 percent more intense by climate change. But bigger factors were at play. The natural landscape in that part of Germany has been paved over by sprawling urban development, leaving very little land to soak up rainfall. There were flood warnings, but they didn’t reach the people — there was no formal system through radio, TV or apps to reach locals in the area. And once the floods came, there was little information about what to do or which roads were safe.

Rich nations have pledged to spend a hundred billion dollars helping poorer nations adapt to climate change. But I fear that this money will be spent largely on the wrong things. Development banks tend to fund large infrastructure projects like dams, rather than longer-term programs that improve governance, reduce poverty, fight corruption and improve education. When most people think about adaptation, they think about technology. Yet research shows that a key factor determining a society’s resilience in the face of disaster is good governance. Better infrastructure is often needed, but it won’t work to its full capacity in a society with poor regulations or education.

Climate change is the greatest issue facing our times, and it is vital that humanity works together to tackle it. But we cannot — must not — allow politicians to blame climate change alone for all disasters and all their impacts, nor shirk their other responsibilities. A just world, where the impacts of disasters are not borne disproportionately by the poor, demands no less.

This article originally appeared in Knowable Magazine, an independent journalistic endeavor from Annual Reviews.

Human metapneumovirus, or HMPV, is filling ICUs this spring – a pediatric infectious disease specialist explains this little-known virus

Human metapneumovirus, or HMPV, peaks in North America from February to May, just on the heels of flu season. martin-dm/E+ via Getty Images
John V. Williams, University of Pittsburgh

In the year 2000, Dutch scientists went on a mission of exploration – not to discover lands or riches, but to identify unknown causes of acute respiratory infections.

These illnesses, from the common cold to pneumonia, have been a plague on mankind throughout history. Most are caused by viruses, so if you’ve ever been told “you probably have a virus” by a clinician, they were likely correct. However, respiratory illnesses can be much more severe than simple colds.

Respiratory infections are the leading cause of death in children under 5 globally and a major reason for hospitalization of children in developed countries. They are also a major cause of disease and death among people at high risk for severe disease, such as premature infants, older adults and those with underlying conditions.

However, meticulous research studies by many groups over decades had failed to identify a virus or bacteria in every person with an acute respiratory illness. Did this failure to detect a microbe result from tests that weren’t good enough, or viruses that doctors and scientists didn’t know about? The answer was partly the first; modern molecular tests are much better, so doctors find more known viruses.

But the Dutch group discovered a new virus, human metapneumovirus, abbreviated HMPV or MPV, which turns out to be a leading cause of respiratory infections. HMPV often presents like other common respiratory viruses, with congestion, cough and fever.

As a pediatric infectious disease specialist and virologist, I have led my team in HMPV research for over 20 years, and I’ve personally cared for many children with this infection. I’ve received emails from colleagues, clinicians and parents all over the country and the world with questions about severe and tragically fatal cases.

The U.S. saw a spike in HMPV detections during the first few months of 2023. This trend is similar to the higher-than-normal case rates of respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV, and influenza in the fall of 2022 and winter of 2023, likely related to decreased population immunity after two years of wearing face masks and social distancing.

Still, I find that many people even in health care are unfamiliar with this virus.

Origins of human metapneumovirus

The human metapneumovirus was isolated from people with acute respiratory infection and sequenced in 2001 using a combination of specialized culture and molecular techniques.

It is related to RSV, which is the leading cause of serious respiratory infection in children and a major problem in adults. Both viruses are in the same large group with measles, mumps and parainfluenza viruses, all of which are leading causes of childhood disease.

However, abundant data shows that HMPV is distinct from its cousin RSV in many ways. First, the order of genes in its genome is quite different. In addition, HMPV is missing two genes that RSV uses to overcome the immune response that would normally target it; yet HMPV has its own ways to block immunity.

Third, genetic analysis by several different groups shows that the closest recent ancestor of HMPV is a bird virus, avian metapneumovirus. This is an agricultural pathogen of chickens and turkeys. Evolutionary and genetic analysis suggests that the human virus diverged from the bird virus several hundred years ago. This is an example of a zoonosis: an animal virus that jumps to humans. In this case, HMPV became established as a permanent pathogen of humans.

Understanding how HMPV successfully made the leap might help predict which other animal viruses could be capable of transforming into primary human pathogens. The recent H5N1 bird flu outbreak – which has been transmitted to humans only to a limited extent – illustrates this risk.

HMPV is a common respiratory illness during the spring months that can cause a narrowing of the airways, a barking cough and other nasty symptoms, particularly in children and older adults.

HMPV in children

Despite its being recognized only two decades ago, many studies have confirmed that HMPV is a major cause of respiratory infection in humans. Initial research groups focused on children and quickly discovered that HMPV caused respiratory infections in children worldwide, including Canada, Australia, Japan, Hong Kong, South Africa and Argentina.

Indeed, HMPV is a common cause of acute respiratory disease in children in every country examined, and most children get the infection for the first time by age 5. One study using samples collected over 25 years in the U.S. found that HMPV was the second most common cause of lung infection in children after RSV. Other studies of multiple children’s hospitals in U.S. cities found that HMPV was the second most common cause of respiratory infections, leading to hospitalization and pneumonia.

Children with underlying risk factors, such as those born prematurely and those with conditions like asthma, or those who have compromised immune systems, such as organ transplant recipients or children being treated for cancer, are at higher risk for severe HMPV. Most children who become hospitalized with HMPV are otherwise healthy before they acquire it, yet many require intensive care from the illness.

Not just for kids

HMPV is also a common cause of serious lung infections among adults. This is especially true in adults over 65 years old, or those with underlying conditions. A New York study over four winters found that HMPV was as common in hospitalized older adults as RSV or influenza, with similar rates of ICU care and death.

Studies over three winters in Nashville of adults over age 50 detected rates of HMPV hospitalization and emergency department visits that were similar to RSV and influenza. HMPV and RSV were more common than the flu in people 65 and older, presumably because many were vaccinated against the flu.

Another national study of adults hospitalized for pneumonia showed that HMPV was as common as RSV, and nearly as common as influenza. As in children, HMPV is a particular problem for adults with chronic conditions such as asthma, cancer or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, also called COPD.

Similar to the dire effects of flu and COVID-19 in nursing homes, HMPV has also caused numerous outbreaks among vulnerable older adults in long-term care facilities.

Why HMPV is still so underrecognized

Despite being a common cause of serious respiratory disease, HMPV remains underdiagnosed by clinicians and little recognized by the general population. Most people with an acute respiratory illness don’t get any testing, and if they do, only complex molecular testing can detect HMPV. But this testing is usually done only for hospitalized patients under select circumstances.

People tend to believe what they see, and therefore even health care professionals are most aware of diseases they test for frequently. But HMPV circulates predictably every year, and in North America the peak is typically February through May. So if you’ve had a cold recently this winter or spring, HMPV was a likely culprit. Children’s hospitals around the country are seeing an increased number of cases, including many in the ICU. Based on past research, this is almost certainly happening in adults too – it’s just that usually only those patients with severe illness are tested for HMPV.

A dearth of treatments

Right now, there are no specific antiviral drugs to treat HMPV as there are for flu and COVID-19. As with the many other respiratory viruses that cause colds, most infected people will do just fine with rest and fluids.

But some may develop trouble breathing and need to seek medical attention. Children or adults with serious underlying conditions should be especially careful, and just as with COVID-19, using hand sanitizer and washing hands can reduce transmission.

Preventive vaccines and antibodies for HMPV are in development but are still a way off. So, for the moment, wear a mask if you’re sick and avoid others who are sick. You may dodge a repeat engagement with this virus that you’ve had but hadn’t heard of.

John V. Williams, Professor of Pediatrics, Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, University of Pittsburgh

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Dishing Out the Facts on Good Fats

For those seeking to be more health-conscious, the idea of eating nutritiously seems simple. However, understanding what’s truly “good for you” can sometimes be confusing.

In honor of National Nutrition Month and Healthy Fats Day, Avocados From Mexico is sharing how avocados – a delicious food and source of good fats and several vitamins – make everything better. Avocados From Mexico conducted a survey and found that while 76% of respondents believe fat is an essential component of a healthy diet, less than one-third are confident they know why it’s important to have “good fats” in their diets.

For starters, according to the survey, nearly half of Americans didn’t realize foods with good fats, like avocados, can help with weight management. However, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats found in avocados can lower the risk of becoming overweight, according to research published in “Nutrients.”

“Most people are aware of the Mediterranean Diet, but nearly half (40%) of survey respondents didn’t realize that this eating pattern does not limit fat coming from plantsources like avocados,” said nutrition expert and registered dietitianBarbara Ruhs. “These types of unsaturated good fats are also recommended by the American Heart Association for heart health. Eating avocados in place of foods containing saturated fat is an easy and delicious way to approach healthy eating.”

Virtually the only fresh fruit with good fats, avocados can help people meet both good fat and fruit and vegetable recommendations in the same bite with approximately 6 grams of good fats per serving (one-third of a medium avocado). They are nutrient-dense, making avocados a delicious food with super benefits. Avocados are also free of cholesterol and sodium and have nearly 20 vitamins and minerals.

Another finding from the survey is that while people believe fat is essential to a healthy diet, one-third of survey respondents believe saturated and trans fats are associated with health benefits, indicating confusion about the various types of fats. Many Americans need to balance their overall fat intake by reducing “bad” or saturated fat intake and increasing “good” or unsaturated (monounsaturated and polyunsaturated) fat intake. Replacing saturated fats with unsaturated fats can help reduce LDL, or bad cholesterol levels.

Dietary fat helps the body absorb vitamins A, D, E, and K. These vitamins are fat soluble, which means they can only be absorbed by the body with the help of fats. Per one-third of a medium avocado (50 grams), avocados contribute 6 grams of unsaturated fats, which are known to be essential for normal growth and development of the central nervous system and brain.

Make good fats a part of your next trip to the grocery store with this avocado-inspired Harvest Bowl Salad with Balsamic Vinaigrette certified by the American Heart Association’s Heart-Check Food Certification Program.

To find more nutritional facts and figures, along with recipes, visit AvocadosFromMexico.com.

Harvest Bowl Salad with Balsamic Vinaigrette

Servings: 8

Balsamic Vinaigrette:

  • 1/2 Avocado From Mexico, diced
  • 1 tablespoon avocado oil
  • 2 tablespoons shallots, minced
  • 1 tablespoon Dijon mustard
  • 3 tablespoons white balsamic vinegar
  • 1 tablespoon honey
  • 3 tablespoons water

Salad:

  • 2 Avocados From Mexico, diced
  • 2 sweet potatoes, roasted and diced
  • 2 cups quinoa, cooked
  • 2 cups arugula
  • 2 cups kale
  • 1 cup Brussels sprouts petals, roasted
  • 2 Honeycrisp apples, diced
  • 2 tablespoons roasted pecans, unsalted
  • 2 tablespoons roasted pepitas, unsalted
  • 2 tablespoons dried cranberries
  1. To make balsamic vinaigrette: In food processor, process avocado, avocado oil, shallots, Dijon mustard, balsamic vinegar, honey and water to smooth consistency. Set aside.
  2. To make salad: In large bowl, combine avocados, sweet potatoes, quinoa, arugula, kale, Brussels sprouts petals, apples, pecans, pepitas and dried cranberries. Pour balsamic vinaigrette over salad mixture.
  3. Toss salad to coat. Keep refrigerated until ready to serve.

Nutritional information per serving: 390 calories; 16 g total fat; 0 g saturated fat; 0 g cholesterol; 370 mg sodium; 55 g total carbohydrates; 11 g dietary fiber; 12 g sugar; 15 g protein.

SOURCE:
Avocados From Mexico