Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Find 70-Year-Olds Are Getting Smarter
Pickens writes "AlphaGalileo reports that researchers from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden have found in a forty-year study of 2,000 seniors that today's 70-year-olds do far better in intelligence tests than their predecessors, making it more difficult to detect dementia in its early stages. 'Using the test results, we've tried to identify people who are at risk of developing dementia,' says Dr. Simona Sacuiu. 'While this worked well for the group of 70-year-olds born in 1901-02, the same tests didn't offer any clues about who will develop dementia in the later generation of 70-year-olds born in 1930.' The 70-year-olds born in 1930 and examined in 2000 performed better in the intelligence tests than their predecessors born in 1901-02 and examined in 1971. 'The improvement can partly be explained by better pre- and neonatal care, better nutrition, higher quality of education, better treatment of high blood pressure and other vascular diseases, and not least the higher intellectual requirements of today's society, where access to advanced technology, television and the Internet has become part of everyday life,' says Sacuiu."
it's well documented that staying active in the workforce is good for the brain, at least when compared to the sedentary tv-filled days of most retirees.
todays 70-year-olds are smarter.... because most of them can't afford to retire.
THL phish sticks
Well they must be getting smarter, they surely can't possibly get any dumber. Being against a public option yet if you try to take away their medicare there'll be hell to pay. I wonder how it is that the stupid seem to often outlive the intelligent.
Stress is a killer, dealing with all the stupid people weakens the smart people and they die sooner. Stupid people are happier and have less stress as they off load it to those smarter than them thus living longer (those that don't win Darwin awards early on). Stupidity has advantages, it is why it will always be with us.
Not to be rude, but at some level there's a limit to what can be funded. Perhaps more could be funded in total and there should be more dementia research funding over cancer research funding. But, I was always under the impression that cancer research got more attention because people were more concerned about children, teens, young adults, middle-aged adults, and pre-seniors all not dying of cancer than someone who has lived a full life having a few years--sadly, mind you--with a much reduced quality of life--a factor that's nearly guaranteed once you're old enough. Beyond that, cancer is a host of related problems which seems much more curable.
I'd attribute that to vanity, honestly, (as mastectomy is a very effective cure) but it could simply be that breast cancer is one of the most easily and early diagnosable cancers. Almost everything else requires an MRI or symptoms to even begin to suspect something is wrong.
At least for brain cancer, I'd imagine it's because a lot of brain cancers are inoperable (in large part because they're so late detected and hence most of the damage is already done), but I agree lung cancer (IIRC, a good 20%+ are non-smoking related) should probably receive more focus/funding. Having said that, since cancer seems to be a serious of very similar ailments, a cure or treatment in one area could quite possible translate very strongly in almost all other areas, so any cancer research should do.
Old age suffers need far more support (costing far more time and money to aid) than almost any other group (babies and toddlers require more) generally, so I don't think treating dementia matters greatly in that regard. As for prostate cancer, odds are good you'll suffer that anyways; it's just likely won't kill you. Truthfully, I imagine dementia research has suffered the same problem as brain cancer research: it's hard to diagnosis early and treatment seems near impossible. In fact, one major thing of recent history is that we can now diagnosis pre-alzheimers with a brain scan, which helps greatly in obtain more certain baselines (people might pass or fail the IQ tests given for other reasons and to pass implies you're already a sufferer) and in even thinking about making a treatment (since the best success rates happen most often pre-symptoms).
In short, I think a major reason for the lopsided funded has precisely to do with those factors that look to produce the best results: longer quality of life in more early and easily treatable diseases (worst case, you can remove a breast, but it's harder to remove most of a lung or a large section of brain and expect good results; and symptomatic dementia patients are unlikely to recover). Thankfully, new research with early detection and drug treatments in dementia may help, but we're simply so early in the field that it's only now I'd expect to see a surge in funding.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Not to mention the fact that you can survive and recover from prostate cancer. My great grandmother had at least 3 strokes before she died. For a while(until she was just too much to handle for them) she lived with my grandparents. They actually had to install a door in the hallway that they could lock, so that at night she could get to a bathroom but couldn't go around the house or, worse, get out of the house. She didn't know people in pictures, she could barely walk, or hardly communicate(I know some of that is different than dementia, but from a cognitive capacity standpoint, they're the same thing). I saw what it did to her and to my grandmother. My great-uncle was also diagnosed with prostate cancer. His went away, but he was recently diagnosed with something that is a precursor of leukemia and is undergoing chemo again. Like you say, I would much rather go through what he's going through than what she did, because while both had the support of our family, he can actually recognize that they're there and that he has a support base.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
My masters adviser was a guy named John Fenn. He's now 93 and still quite active in academia today.
When he was about 70 Yale University tried to forcibly retire the guy. The laugh about this is that about this time he started a course of research into characterization of protein molecules that led to a Nobel Prize, awarded in 2002. Because of the retirement flap he left Yale and is now at Virginia Commonwealth.
So was he smart at age 70? Duh.