The short answer is maybe. It’s a generally accepted principle that watching excessive amounts of television is an unhealthy way to live and probably indicative of other underlying lifestyle issues.
The longer answer involves the comparison between active and passive television-watching. Passive watching requires little attention on the viewer’s part. It would possibly involve sitting on a sofa for hours on end, probably eating (and increasing the weight-category risk factor), with the TV content centered around fictional/humourous storylines that are probably neither educational nor practical to real life. Active watching, on the other hand, would be an exercise in focused attention, with programmes such as documentaries or video-recorded lectures. In the passive scenario, the brain isn’t exerting much effort to comprehend or apply the information that is simply there. In the active scenario, the brain must exert at least some effort to confirm any old information, and often as a prerequisite to acquire the new information. It wouldn’t be so different from reading a book, or a similar exercise in cognition.
nother scenario is to use the TV-watching time as a motivator for physical exercise. Almost everyone will agree, even long-distance runners, that simply plodding away on a treadmill can be a mind-numbing activity. It wouldn’t be so different from passive TV-watching. But for someone who will be watching a programme anyway, especially if it’s a weekly series (and not so brain-engaging), scheduling that time to also be on some fitness machine would be like killing two birds with one stone. The goal in the exercise wouldn’t be to reach a certain distance or lose a certain number of calories – it would simply be to continue moving for the duration of the TV show. After a month (which is really only four times, if on a weekly basis), the exercise part will be easier and there will be less dependence on what’s onscreen.
What Is the Difference Between Music Therapy and Therapeutic Music?
There is great talk lately on the value of music therapy in treating dementia. But there is a bit of confusion as to what music therapy is exactly. The problem is that music in and of itself is quite a large subject, and of course it’s often the non-musicians who have termed anything involving music or musical instruments as “music therapy”.
The simplest distinction is that music therapy requires the active participation of the patient and is therefore usually most effective in rehabilitative forms of treatment. There is a physical goal for the patient to achieve, whether it is to regain motor skills or the ability to speak properly after a stroke. This usually involves the use of musical instruments or skills, such as teaching the patient to hold a flute and move particular fingers at a time or to sing and re-train the brain to distinguish sounds.
Therapeutic music, on the other hand, requires very little or no participation from the patient. There is no prescriptive element to the patient’s recovery. Certainly the intent is to provide comfort and a sense of enjoyment for the patient, and consequently the patient may request pieces of music to listen to – but the point is that the music is for the patient to listen. There are added benefits (such as the patient being able to breathe in a more relaxed manner and/or to sleep better), but there really shouldn’t be a rehabilitative goal to be pursued.
There is no “better or worse” course of action, rather what would be appropriate to the patient’s recovery. Certainly for someone who has suffered a mild stroke, music therapy and its rehabilitative aspects would be very helpful. For someone who has advanced Parkinson’s disease, it may be unreasonable to ask the individual to hold any musical instrument and far more suitable to follow up on instrumental music or song request.