Hacker News Reader

Comment by sturmen | Hacker News Reader

Note: this was a relatively small sample (40 total, split in half for placebo/not), who were elderly people who already have "mild" memory problems, and given a concentrated turmeric derivative rather than just sprinkling it over food.

In summary: very cool, and I'd offer these curcumin supplements to anyone 50+ but sprinkling turmeric on your breakfast cereal ain't going to do much for high schoolers.

View on HN

Actually the age range was 51-84, so middle plus old age, not all "elderly". Normal people flourish and are in their prime around 50.

Volunteers had "objective cognitive performance scores and clinical histories consistent with normal aging or MCI (i.e., mild neurocognitive disorder) and inconsistent with dementia (i.e., major neurocognitive disorder)." [emphasis added]

"Normal people flourish and are in their prime around 50."

This is false. The only advantage people in their fifties have is experience. Your body is past its peak physically and mentally. People flourishing in their fifties are by and large reaping the benefits of things done in their younger decades, not because they are peaking.

I'm not saying that someone that is 50 years old is decrepit, but ask nearly any academic and they'll tell you they were better when they were younger. Ask nearly any athlete (ultramarathoners being an exception) and they'll tell you they were better when they were younger.

So you say you don't call people who are 50 "decrepit" -- but do you call people in their middle age or in their 50s "elderly"?

I didn't make that comment. However, I would say that people in their fifties have started to experience age-related decline in numerous areas (memory included). Showing a memory improvement in people 50-80 should be more accurately described as "restoring" their memory rather than "boosting" it, which implies that they now have supranormal memory.

Am in my late 50s, can confirm. Memory, concentration, attention, and a bunch of other faculties, both mental and physical, are trending disgustingly downward.

I know there are things I could do to fight it, but motivation is another one of those things going down. f--- it, f--- everything.

Pushing 46, can confirm. Literally just got that thing that screams "maybe you need bifocals not contacts" where nothing close quite comes into focus... basic response is "fuck it, fuck everything" like you say.

>but ask nearly any academic and they'll tell you they were better when they were younger.

I don't think that's true at all outside of Mathematics.

>Ask nearly any athlete (ultramarathoners being an exception) and they'll tell you they were better when they were younger.

That's obvious.

>I don't think that's true at all outside of Mathematics.

Quite a few great math papers are written by people over 40, despite the flashy age restriction on the Fields Medal.

> Normal people flourish and are in their prime around 50

How do you mean? I don't think most people in their 50s would describe themselves as being "in their prime".

For example, ELO ratings of Chess players tend to decline in their 30s[1]. For NBA players, their "prime" is typically the late 20s, with performance declining in their 30s.

1. https://www.chess.com/blog/LionChessLtd/age-vs-elo---your-ba...

> I don't think most people in their 50s would describe themselves as being "in their prime".

I are not going to be part of a professional sports franchise. But at my age (59) I know more than I ever did, and I have no serious physical problems.

"no serious physical problems" is far from "in your prime"... and you might know more things, but your ability to learn has significantly declined. That's just the nature of aging.

The measure of flourishing is not how fast one can dig holes, nor is it how quickly one can study new APIs.

Knowing useful and effective ways to act, and acting accordingly; understanding and undertaking long-term, purposeful courses of action; and fully integrating new knowledge with vast, existing knowledge -- are key to flourishing. This doesn't end at or decline with the start of middle age.

Being in your prime refers to mental and physical fitness, not happiness. It's easily measured by digging holes or studying books.

The context of this thread is fitness - 50 year olds are definitely less fit than their younger selves. It's part of the human condition.

If you think humans flourish only in terms of physical prowess or memory retrieval, you have very poor standards. To call someone who is middle-aged "elderly" does fit with your criteria, and with reports of ageism in tech companies.

I hope you're not involved in any way in hiring decisions, or in other activities that involve evaluating people's abilities, performance, achievements, or potential.

> If you think humans flourish only in terms of physical prowess or memory retrieval, you have very poor standards.

Nope, I just think you have poor reading comprehension - you are replying to a comment that said exactly the same thing. Flourishing (vibrant, active, enjoying life) != being in one's prime (peak performance).

Nothing wrong with that. My parents are 60+ and flourishing past their prime - their decades of experience are invaluable.

"your ability to learn has significantly declined"

no, it hasn't.

Note that I wrote around 50, not after 50. Middle age is usually defined as the 40 to 60 range (or more recently held to be slightly later, 45-65). That is the period when people flourish. That is certainly not when people are "elderly." Interestingly the Ancient Greeks used to report the time when one flourished rather than their date of birth.

Neither extreme athletic performance nor ELO rating are measures of normal flourishing (I'm surprised one would bring up such abnormal elements; the lives of NBA players and elite chess players deviate very far from that of a normal human). I wonder how the kind of argument you offer, and that of the sibling "olympus" comment, feeds into reported ageism in SV and related tech companies.

Are you equating "flourishing" with "being in your prime"? Because I don't consider those to be the same.

Being in your prime is about peak potential. And sure, the age at which you have peak potential varies by activity. My early 20s is when I have the _opportunity_ to be the best sprinter I'll ever be. That's my prime. But say I first take up sprinting in my late 30s, and put in my best sprint time at the age of 40. I might be "flourishing" at that point, but in no way does it mean I'm in my prime at age 40. The 20 year old version of myself, with the similar conditions and preparation, is simply physically capable of sprinting faster.

Certainly, there are activities where your peak potential is greatest in middle age. I'm not disputing that (however, I'm highly skeptical that memory and physical ability are in their prime past age 40).

> I'm surprised one would bring up such abnormal elements; the lives of NBA players and elite chess players deviate very far from that of a normal human

I mean, where can I get performance statistics for "normal people"? If we're talking about maximizing potential, why not look at the ones putting in the most effort toward that goal?

Also, the linked ELO ratings were for 179,221 "registered FIDE players". They weren't just the top-100 or even top-1000 players. Yes, this is biased toward people who play chess - but where else can you get the data?

I'm curious what you think a "normal human" is? Do you think any of those 179,221 chess players are "abnormal"?

To be in one's prime means to be productive, rational, social, and in good health. Not past one's prime, not "elderly" -- which is the particular term I was responding to.

I don't understand your (and others') focus on peak extreme-athletic performance, or peak chess-playing ranking. Why is it problematic to assert that people in their middle age are normally healthy, fully functional, flourishing human beings?

I wonder about the ELO thing how much is age and how much is priorities changing (kids, families, the realisation that outside the top15 there isn't much of a living in playing vs teaching/writing which takes you away from teaching etc).

Anand just won the rapid chess world championship at 48, Korchnoi was top-100 into his 70's.

Not saying there isn't some decline just that it may not be as pronounced as the raw ELO figures would indicate.

40? so nothing relevant? :(

You realize that statistics is capable of using very small sample sizes right?

And you do realize that 40 is just a tremendious small sample size in comparison to a complex system like a human beeing?

I mean yeah you need one dog who speaks but apparently, when you read other comments, there are enough papers saying the opposite to this one.

Number of samples depends on the effect size. e.g. You only need n=1 to claim a dog can talk.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com