Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Sunday July 23 2017, @04:26PM   Printer-friendly
from the don't-stop-learning dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

One in three cases of dementia could be prevented if more people looked after their brain health throughout life, according to an international study in the Lancet.

It lists nine key risk factors including lack of education, hearing loss, smoking and physical inactivity.

The study is being presented at the Alzheimer's Association International Conference in London.

By 2050, 131 million people could be living with dementia globally.

There are estimated to be 47 million people with the condition at the moment.

[...] These risk factors - which are described as potentially modifiable - add up to 35%. The other 65% of dementia risk is thought to be potentially non-modifiable.

Source: Lancet Commission on dementia prevention, intervention and care

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @04:44PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @04:44PM (#543391)

    Wow! Every box on the checklist!

            Mid-life hearing loss - don't listen to hip hop music
            Failing to complete secondary education - stay in school
            Smoking - don't do drugs
            Failing to seek early treatment for depression - don't be a loser
            Physical inactivity - get a job
            Social isolation - don't be a loner
            High blood pressure - obey doctors orders
            Obesity - don't drink soda
            Type 2 diabetes - don't eat candy

    • (Score: 2) by ledow on Sunday July 23 2017, @05:15PM (4 children)

      by ledow (5567) on Sunday July 23 2017, @05:15PM (#543400) Homepage

      Better - and more accurately - summed up as: Everything in moderation.

      As soon as you're eating/drinking/smoking something every day, or even every other day, chances are that you've got into a habit of doing so rather than are actually enjoying each instance.

      Soda doesn't kill people. Drinking TONS of soda kills you. Don't drink tons, it's fine. Same for candy. Same - and I'm an absolute non-smoker - for smoking. Once you're into one EVERY day, it's going to start killing you.

      Similarly, loud music is fine, just not all the time every day. A day in bed is fine, just not every day. A day on your own is fine, just not every day. A "down" day is fine. But when it's every day seek help.

      The only one that doesn't conform is education but even that only refers to secondary, not anything higher. (And, gosh, who'd have thunk that being at least averagely-educated was good for you in the long-run?).

      • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday July 23 2017, @05:42PM (2 children)

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 23 2017, @05:42PM (#543412) Journal

        Sorry, but even *one* event with really loud music has been shown to provoke measurable hearing loss. Not a huge loss, but a measurable loss. OTOH, I don't believe they did a follow-up study a couple of months later. They did, however, claim that hair cell loss in the inner ear was an irrecoverable injury. Perhaps they're wrong, but I wouldn't want to bet with my ears.

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
        • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @06:10PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @06:10PM (#543419)

          Even one puff of a joint will trigger a psychotic episode and cause you to rape your sister. Weed is the gateway drug to incest.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @09:32PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @09:32PM (#543485)

          It depends, it's somewhat more complicated than that. My Dad was around a ton of explosions when he was in Vietnam and after he came home he was around constant banging and whirring from power tools and his hearing is surprisingly still great.

          Obviously, that's not a good way of treating your ears if you want to hear well into old age, but some people do manage just fine for reasons that aren't really understood.

          As a general rule, you want to keep the sudden loud noises to a minimum and keep the ambient noises to a reasonable level as well because both can cause hearing damage. The extreme loud sounds people realize is damaging their hearing, but the loud, but not as loud noises over a prolonged period of time are less obvious to cause damage.

          Worst case scenario, you've avoided some loud noises that you might have been able to handle. Best case scenario, you avoid hearing damage. Personally, I wear ear protection whenever I'm on my motorcycle, even at lower speeds. That way, I'm likely to always be able to hear well.

      • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday July 23 2017, @10:25PM

        by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Sunday July 23 2017, @10:25PM (#543505) Homepage

        The key risk factor here, moreso than the others, is not getting off of one's ass and getting some goddamn exercise.

        And why would anybody want to do that, when they could watch Anime and internet porn all day? The problem will likely get worse when VR-and-USB-Fleshlight porn takes off.

        When I was growing up candy and McDonald's wasn't a problem because we had plenty of physical activity -- playing dangerous ball games during recess at school, riding bikes, staging WWF wrestling in our front yards (we had a big strong guy who made a pretty good Andre the Giant, and he would often agree to let us go 2 or 3-on-1 against him even though he still ended up winning).

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by kaszz on Sunday July 23 2017, @05:34PM (17 children)

    by kaszz (4211) on Sunday July 23 2017, @05:34PM (#543407) Journal

    Key word to find the article: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31363-6
    Evilvier offers it for "free" but there are other sites that does that for real somewhere in Ruskia.

    Page 5, Prevalence:
      * Less education (none or primary school only before 18 years old): 40%
      * Hearing loss: 32%
      * Smoking: 27%
      * Physical inactivity: 18%
      * Depression: 13%
      * Social isolation: 11%
      * Hypertension: 9%
      * Diabetes: 6%
      * Obesity: 3%

    It seems there a common theme here. Mental stimulation and good cardiovascular health.

    Terms poorly explained..
      * Relative risk for dementia (95% CI)
      * Communality
      * PAF
      * Weighted PAF

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @05:39PM (7 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @05:39PM (#543410)

      How much would I bet this paper suffers from omitted variable bias (their statistical model is not actually including all influences) so those numbers are meaningless?

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by kaszz on Sunday July 23 2017, @05:41PM (1 child)

        by kaszz (4211) on Sunday July 23 2017, @05:41PM (#543411) Journal

        They include the most important factors, no?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @05:47PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @05:47PM (#543415)

          The coefficient estimates are meaningless unless the model is correctly specified (it isn't and nobody believes that to be true either).

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @05:44PM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @05:44PM (#543414)

        Yep, just took a look. All they do is include 9 factors that some government listed in their model. It is just more innumerate clueless junk from medical researchers.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @06:28PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @06:28PM (#543423)

          just more innumerate clueless junk

          "innumeracy" is not a work. It is a parallel construction from "literacy", but fails to account for the fact that "innumerate" is just another way of saying "innumerable", or uncountable. So let us not have any more illiterate critiques from STEM majors, m'kay?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @06:42PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @06:42PM (#543426)

            You are correct that "it is not a work". However, it is a word: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numeracy [wikipedia.org]

          • (Score: 2) by number11 on Sunday July 23 2017, @06:50PM (1 child)

            by number11 (1170) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 23 2017, @06:50PM (#543427)

            "innumeracy" is not a work. It is a parallel construction from "literacy", but fails to account for the fact that "innumerate" is just another way of saying "innumerable", or uncountable.

            No, it's a word. Google gives 125K hits searching on it. It is indeed a parallel construction from "literacy" dating from 1959, but in fact means "unable to understand and do basic mathematics", not "innumerable". What a dilemma, who am I to trust, an AC who may not be entirely illiterate or https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innumerate [merriam-webster.com]?

            • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @06:56PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @06:56PM (#543430)

              See, this is how it begins: frist you forget how to spell. Then you start accepting neologisms from 1959. What's next? Malapropisms from the '60's? Pleonasms from the Reagone error? Why are there suddenly to many Fine Articles on dementia here on SoylentNews? They are almost innumerate.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday July 23 2017, @06:09PM (8 children)

      by frojack (1554) on Sunday July 23 2017, @06:09PM (#543418) Journal

      Does the hearing loss mean total hearing loss, leading to isolation?

      Because otherwise it doesn't make much sense, and the percentage seems rather high, and it might be simply a subset of the social isolation group. Add those two groups together and your leading causal factor just made a huge change.
      Hmmm, nobody wants to talk to someone who has just about no education either. Seeing a pattern here.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 2) by number11 on Sunday July 23 2017, @06:52PM (1 child)

        by number11 (1170) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 23 2017, @06:52PM (#543428)

        Does the hearing loss mean total hearing loss, leading to isolation?

        I think it must mean total hearing loss, because I have partial hearing loss and my mind is...

        what were we talking about?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @06:48AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @06:48AM (#543592)

          This. If the hearing test is, raise your hand when you hear the beep. And you forget to raise your hand, or what a beep is, or what your hand is. You fail the "hearing test".

      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday July 23 2017, @07:16PM (5 children)

        by kaszz (4211) on Sunday July 23 2017, @07:16PM (#543432) Journal

        Hearing loss is likely to mean impaired hearing as the statistical mean. And isolation is something else, likely low on meaningful social interaction. They can coincide but that is not implied.

        • (Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday July 23 2017, @09:00PM (4 children)

          by frojack (1554) on Sunday July 23 2017, @09:00PM (#543474) Journal

          I think total loss is what they are talking about, and the quote from the First link suggests as much:

          Another major risk factor is hearing loss in middle age - the researchers say this can deny people a cognitively rich environment and lead to social isolation and depression, which are among other potentially modifiable risk factors for dementia.

          So simply being slightly hard of hearing in certain frequencies, as is typical of loud music or heavy machinery noise may not impair social interaction all that much. Total loss on the other hand is sort of a big deal. Simple deviation from the mean would not amount to the high level of risk posted above.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 2) by number11 on Sunday July 23 2017, @09:48PM (3 children)

            by number11 (1170) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 23 2017, @09:48PM (#543491)

            So simply being slightly hard of hearing in certain frequencies, as is typical of loud music or heavy machinery noise may not impair social interaction all that much. Total loss on the other hand is sort of a big deal.

            Seriously, I'm pushing into the age of hearing loss and dementia myself. I know and socialize with a lot of people in their 70s and 80s. Partial hearing loss is common. (I can understand you better with one ear than the other, which leads to the amusing situation where if we are standing outdoors talking, I'll rotate a bit to point my good ear at you, and you'll orbit a little to get back in front of my face, simulating the earth-moon system. I experimented and managed to get one complete revolution without the naive subject noticing. My own situation is lifelong, but age is making it worse.) But I don't know anybody with total loss. It could be selection bias (they don't come out of their apartment) but I think it is actually pretty rare. If so, it's not a particularly useful risk indicator. And the people I've known who did exhibit dementia didn't seem unusually hard of hearing.

            But partial loss does make it more difficult to communicate, especially in a noisy (e.g. lunchroom) environment. Unfortunately, most insurance (and medicare) doesn't cover hearing aids, which are priced at astronomical levels. Several thousand dollars for what should be $50 worth of electronics that could be programmed using a smartphone app.

            • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday July 23 2017, @11:15PM

              by kaszz (4211) on Sunday July 23 2017, @11:15PM (#543516) Journal

              Build a hearing aid yourself? should not a hard these days except for regulations..

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @06:53AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @06:53AM (#543594)

              $50 of electronics?

              Even the cheapest cell phone on the market contains all the components need to build a hearing aid. And it can literally be built with vacuum tube technology.

              It is only the cartel-isation of the medical devices, and more generally medical profession that keeps prices high.

              Someone should to a kickstarter.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @07:31PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @07:31PM (#543855)

                To get nice boost/cutoff frequencies, you'll want a bunch of gain (numerous operational amplifiers).

                Heh. You're taking me back to the 1970s and a plug-in for Tektronix tube-based oscilloscopes. [google.com]
                (The gear was more than a decade old then.)

                It was loaded up with vacuum tubes (peanut tubes) and was about the size of a 24oz loaf of bread, the short fat type. [google.com]

                Your notion would be pretty bulky--even using the tiniest tubes available. [google.com]

                -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @10:31AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @10:31AM (#543628)
    Change your lifestyle and diet so you are more likely to die before you get dementia or cancer.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @11:14AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @11:14AM (#543632)

    https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/08/this-is-your-brain-on-fish/ [theatlantic.com]

    More scientific evidence against veganism...

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @07:44PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 24 2017, @07:44PM (#543858)

      No, it's not.

      The only thing available in animal-based food that isn't available in plant-based food is Vitamin B12.
      That has been available in pill form for over half a century.

      The other good stuff in fish is available from e.g. nuts.
      Eat a varied plant-based diet and take a B12 pill and you'll get all the nutrients you need.

      -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 25 2017, @11:26AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 25 2017, @11:26AM (#544123)

      Hmm not sure why the link broke. Should be: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/08/this-is-your-brain-on-fish/375638/ [theatlantic.com]

(1)