Scientists may have found mechanism behind cognitive decline in aging
news.cuanschutz.edu
news.cuanschutz.edu
This should be the title of the article. Honestly these supposedly dissemination articles do not offer much more than reading the abstract or skimming a bit through the article itself.
A title is not "the most informative and complete sentence summarizing the article", it also has the goal to stimulate curiosity. I understand that we don't want misleading titles but this obsession on titles is not very helpful. I am participating in this useless conversation but I couldn't help myself. Now every single HN post has a comment on how the title is wrong..
Are you advocating clickbait?
It shouldn't have to do the latter. That's clickbait. People are either organically curious about what actually happened or they are not. If they are not, they shouldn't be "stimulated" with BS. That "media/advetising" attitude is the cause behind many issues with science in society today.
It’s not about clickbaiting. The whole reason the research is getting funded in the first place is to try to find the link.
Tieing grants to mass media popularity of research papers is an even bigger problem.
I don't even know what can be done here. Take money out of acedemia? Maybe in a post scarcity world.
It's not perfect, sometimes the generated title is still totally clickbait and I've seen a couple instances of it being completely wrong or hallucinating a detail. But generally it's pretty neat.
The app also uses the same tech to summarize articles into a few bullets which I don't use as often but is also neat.
clickbait generally has an implication of incorrectly representing the content. romanticized titles aren't always clickbait, and I wouldn't say this is exactly a sensationalist tite like how others may say "We're on the first road to curing Alzheimer's disease".
>People are either organically curious about what actually happened or they are not.
it's a prisoner's dilemma. It's not necessarily zero sum, but attention is somewhat finite. And for some sites, the result isn't a more comfy high quality community. It just dies out, and that benefits no one.
> Researchers found aging-like cognitive effects in mice by altering the CaMKII brain protein
Only 3 more words than the original, but contains quite a bit more information about what exactly the claim is while still having a strong "hook".
The dissemination article was chosen for submission because it was the one from the source University. (There are more around.)
Further from using clear, synthetic expressions, it contains more information than just the (available abstract of the) research article - it is where an author of the latter states that next steps are pharmacological and involving humans.
>Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.
You're complaining that the title of TFA is not what you expect. This is certainly a tangential annoyance, and certainly not an interesting comment on the article. If you don't like the submission just flag it and move on. Do better.
Just because some people have conditions that prevent them from exercising it doesn't mean it isn't the healthy choice overall.
And a cursory look at the literature for PEM[1] will show you that the recommended path to recovery isn’t “avoid physical exertion at all costs”, but to do what you’re capable of and slowly ramp up the intensity, in which case small amounts of exercise could play a vital role.
[1] http://www.phsa.ca/health-info-site/Documents/post_covid-19_...
Can't say I feel any different, but it is enjoyable.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230609011808/https://old.reddi...
It's not perfect, but it was great for getting into the habit 3 times a week. Now I often make up my own sets as I go, taking note of what's sore on me and what I feel could use some work. Doing that gave me the time to do research and get a bit more familiar with how to engage certain muscles, and what machines will do what for me.
IMO: most of what makes fit people fit is becoming aware of their body in detail: how to use muscles, how they work, what they feel like, what they should feel like when they're working together -- all of this builds a foundation where, if they lost their fitness, they would just get it back again.
So if you don't know what you're doing: just learn by doing. Pick something that it seems like your body should be able to do easily, but can't, and fix it. Repeat x100 and you'll be fit as hell.
Not causing injuries is the hardest part.
You can start with bodyweight though. Pushups, pull-ups, etc. I recommend the YouTube channel FitnessFAQs or Calisthenicmovement for a good start there. No nonsense, direct guides with discussion of technique and injury avoidance.
Book some regular sessions with a personal trainer. He/she will give you a balanced basic routine and teach you good form.
I was fortunate to have an excellent PT when I first ventured into the gym age 19, a skinny, awkward, scared teenager. The structure of that gym program is still the basis of what I do 30 years later. Different exercises get incorporated, depending on my goals at the time, and variations in # of reps and sets. But still the same general approach.
Just a random source here because I'm too lazy:
https://www.balancedwellbeinghealthcare.com/are-you-taking-v...
> Because vitamin D is so good at improving calcium levels, by taking it alone you could be working to increase the calcification of your arteries instead of strengthening your bones so make sure to include K2 in your vitamin D supplement regimen!
But if you can be in the sun your skin can make vitamin D.
My doctor told me to get 15 minutes a day from May through the end of August - and these should be walks with at least the arms exposed (Am in Norway, so this isn't always possible for me, the immigrant). Walking alone isn't always enough.
I'd go to sleep under them, just dont have them too close to you though otherwise you will burn but never tan.
https://www.reptilecentre.com/collections/t5-uvb-fluorescent...
I'd also read this website entirely, its got loads of useful info. http://www.uvguide.co.uk/lightingsurveyintro.htm
There is a corrugated plastic sheet (2mx1m) which allows UV-B through, but it needs replacing every few years as it breaks down and its expensive!
Needs to be balanced with calcium. I wouldn't recommend supplements until you have blood work done.
You should take vitamin K2 with D3 though.
>But if you can be in the sun your skin can make vitamin D.
This is harder than people say. You need UVB light to hit your uncovered skin (glass blocks it entirely). The sun needs to be above 35-50 degrees in the sky. If it's below that (like in winter or evenings) then you won't get vitamin D from it.
Vitamin K2 is what essentially takes calcium out of your blood and puts it in your bones (and teeth). It's something that's rather lacking in western diets and could be a big reason why people in western countries suffer so many bones injuries in old age (and why our teeth suck).
https://www.amazon.com/Sports-Research-Plant-Based-Verified-...
Much more likely to just be aging. You're not too old for it.
After a number of years I feel normal, and I think it was due primarily to finding and sticking to a routine. The routine involves little things like watering plants and making coffee, and I just do them every day without thinking. Otherwise it includes exercise, sleep, chores, work, and procrastination.
One thing that I later noticed was that I e.g. couldn't enjoy any music anymore. I always used to be able to be absolutely amazed by some tracks and dance to it at home - but during that time there was just nothing.
During that time, is there any chance you weren’t eating enough? Did you lose weight?
it took a breakup, a sale of the business, and nearly 2 years of doing nothing until i recovered.
fwiw, the biggest takeaways the whole thing taught me are 1. be careful of what you wish for and 2. both attractive women and customers want outcomes, they don't give a shit about your problems and 3. never forego vacations/holidays for work.
as for me, well - you know how the saying goes - it's always darkest before the dawn, and life is good now. for the time being. but i know that if i wake up one day and i'm feeling like a fucking pack mule for people who don't appreciate me, it's time for a massive rapid change, without the period of suffering this time.
I massively agree, though I will make the mistake of staying for money again. Whenever I see I can work 3 years at A for every 1 year at B, I can't stomach the loss.
Might all be placebo effect, but I’m okay with that. My doctor seems to think that’s probably the case.
FWIW, I’m 20 years older than you.
How have you measured? I know people do decline cognitively in old age, but 30s is still young. I wonder if people only think they were sharper when younger. I knew much less in my 20s and made tons of mistakes. The mind has a peculiar way of highlighting good memories and downplaying the bad. The person I was in my 20s would not be able to do my current job.
Yes, accumulated knowledge and wisdom can make you more successful with age. It doesn't mean your fluid intelligence and ability to learn new things is keeping up.
If it were somehow possible to grant my 20s self these advantages, he’d run circles around me. Not just because he’s cognitively faster, but because he’s able to work for longer periods without feeling fatigued and can focus more deeply thanks to having fewer mental background tasks constantly running and not yet feeling the various time-related pressures that come with age.
Giving my teenage self current knowledge would also be interesting. Even though people aren’t cognitively complete yet at that point, at that age I had the ability to get lost in a project on a dime which was was amazing.
Fast forward 3 years, I go swimming thrice a week, and it sucks that STILL my breathing hasn't recovered. If I try to take a lot of air for several times, I'll start coughing. I get out of air quickly... even though I have strength to keep swimming.
Then my _dentist_ of all people ordered a Watch-PAT take-home sleep test (took a lab sleep test, but it was useless) which finally revealed I was having more than 10 events per hour. The dentist made me a Herbst appliance to hold my airways open during sleep. My life is 100x better now.
Excellent catch.
I should say that my health issue weren't all magically solved by the Herbst appliance, but addressing my sleep apnea was a major improvement.
I went to a neurologist who said there's tons of people coming in with the same complaint after COVID, and since there's no literature on that yet, he couldn't really do anything.
It gets better.
That's the issue with these anecdotes
But then I _got_ COVID and I can tell you COVID brain is real. Even after I had recovered physically there were a few weeks of obvious cognitive degradation. One of my first days testing negative I was trying to implement some pretty basic pagination logic but when it came time to writing the algos for it, it was like my body flipped a switch and I would get impossibly drowsy and have to go lie down.
I've had covid twice since then without the same problem but it is very real and wild.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2022.10.006
SARS-CoV-2 is known to cause brain damage, endocrine problems, and circulatory issues which impede oxygenation. Of the brain.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2022.10.006
https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10238-022-00871-8
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nerep.2022.100154
https://doi.org/10.1042/BCJ20220016
I would like to point to this kind of statement that doctors often make, that there is “no literature” or that “nothing is known”. This is very often flat out wrong. Consider the size of the statement: Nothing is known and there exists no literature. The domain of knowledge required for the statement is omniscience. Having read all papers. It’s not an acceptable statement for anyone to make.
I don't think there's much value taking the word that literally. I simply assume the acedemic conscious when I hear "there is no literature on X". I certainly wouldn't want a neurologist to tell me "oh yea I read some news on this last week and X" and treat that as gospel for an ongoing issue.
I of course accept the fact that information takes time to propagate, but the fact remains that I have been to specialist doctors for serious issues which have stated flat out that “nothing is known” – where they literally meant ”nothing is known”, which was completely contradicted by papers. Ten year old papers. Twenty year old papers. Fifty year old papers.
Again and again.
Certainly not all doctors are part of this culture. More than one time I have been present when a doctor who reads academic papers makes a decision based on that information which effectively saved a life.
Nonetheless, this hazard is a very real part of medical practicioner culture.
I certainly wouldn’t want a neurologist to treat last week’s news as gospel either. Absolutely not.
I just don’t know yet how to tell people how big this gulf can be between existing knowledge – established, proven, actionable knowledge – and what a given doctor acknowledges and/or doesn’t flat out deny the existence of.
Maybe this:
Anyone can read academic papers. In biology and medicine. Anyone. Really. And it is the minority of doctors who actually do so. I suggest that people verify doctors’ statements about the complete non-existence of knowledge about any given thing, should they make such statements. Read. Read as if lives were at stake.
—
Part of the reason doctors don’t read is that they are often overworked. They really, really are. (It’s not the only reason though.)
And: Of course!, reading science papers online IS NOT a substitute for medical training.
What I suggest people do is this: Help your doctors to help you.
With the utmost humility. As if lives were at stake.
The big problem was that I'd always been able to hide my adhd symptoms, or at least 'clever' my way around them, and long covid / covid brain just laid them all bare.
Over 3 years after my first covid infection - still can't really taste or smell - I'm medicated for adhd, and I feel almost like how I was in March 2020.
HN please stop upvoting this nonsense. Already the second and third answers are HN quality.
This is r/covid commentary. Does not belong here.
...and just like Reddit, chasing popular posts and comments is a race to the bottom as it attracts an ever-more juvenile crowd of participants.
Nuanced opinions and expert commentary are more boring but attract a more intellectually curious crowd - and that is what sets HN apart from reddit.
I use the collorary for evaluating stuff like this. I care less about a high polished acedemic answer than I do about the resulting discussion not diving into a dumpster afterwrds. For here, I don't see a de-evolution into COVID denailism and anti-vaxxers or even random anecdotes of an off the hinge relative who died and the OP has to be like "I told him but he wouldn't listen", like I would on reddit. I see interesting discussion on a topic that is still a very hotly researched topic even in academia. Ways to potentially get checked or self help to mitigate effects.
No one is an expert on "long COVID" yet, so it's interesting to see experiences (and IMO, see how they age as we learn more about such phenomenon).
If you think every comment with a personal anecdote tangentially related to the article is “nonsense” and “r/x” material then you must be constantly frustrated by nearly every HN comments section of sufficient length.
I also learn new stuff and program on projects, which are cognitively demanding, almost every single day. I don't regularly watch TV shows. On occasion I binge-watch something, only to stop it again for many months. I don't drink alcohol at all, but I consume small amounts of THC.
Your "mid 30s" claim might be true for people who are doing it wrong, which probably/likely is the vast majority, but there's absolutely no fair and objective way of putting an age on the beginning of cognitive or physical decline as if it was outside of ones personality responsibility/abilities to prevent it from happening until a much, much later age.
But ... to be the exception that agrees with the rule: If I lived how most people around seem to be living, I'd likely suffer from decline as well.
But tbf who said science was easy? You can't force definitive results, shit's just complex.
Update: I see I should rewatch "Life of Brian".
If you care desperately about "in mice" find a less "general interest" news source.
That would be nice, yes. Otherwise there's an endless stream of "revolutionary" discoveries that turn out to be nothing.
we do these experinebts on mice due to similar-ish brain chemistry. It hopefully leads to controlled human studies and then we start devloping medicine that way. It's always a process.
The underlying study that this PR hype piece is advertising does not, and correctly includes "in mice".
In fact, wasn't there a drug recently released that demonstrated that?
Plaque has never been proven to be the primary cause of decline, it's just associated with it.
https://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1...
… in humans
I think they may have found one mechanism or one part behind the cognitive decline in aging.
I am certain there are several different processes that contribute to it and finding all of them and then mitigating those may have side effects in other parts of the brain.
I have an extremely speculative and not based on science that the brain simply is not meant to function forever.
We extend life in various ways, and we get better at it. Perhaps in a couple of decades people will live (be kept alive) for 100 years on average. (well those who live in a country where such medication and treatment is available and at some level affordable)
But human evolution has not caught up with the prolonged life span since living that long has been an exception for 300.000 years and looking farther back in evolution probably millions of years
I think it's a better use of everybody time to say "Well, let's just wait until it's replicated in humans until we share articles"
Also, cognitive decline has been studied intensively enough that if there were a single mechanism responsible for most human instances of it, the science around that single mechanism would've been settled by now. Instead what we seems to have is a disease where toxins, chronic infections by bacteria, viruses and fungi, cardiovascular health, genetic variability (e.g., apoE4) and metabolic-lifestyle factors like insulin resistance and lack of sufficient exercise are all important.
But HN likes to upvote these announcements written by PR departments at universities.
(I don't do that, and I don't know anyone else's HN voting habits, but it seems at least plausible.)
The necessary hoops to jump when writing a scientific study seem to be very different from the hoops to advance a field.
This notion that HN must only be for “serious” conversations about serious submissions is a wholesale misunderstanding of what HN is.
What does that mean?
The title is literal.
It is literally incomplete and the missing context changes the entire meaning.
Pharmacological treatments are proposed - for humans.
This isn't what the title says or implies.
If one added that specification, it would change the meaning that David Kelly seems to have intended. (It would change it to what the poster understood.) Kelly does not seem to restrict the matter to mice, as Uli Bayer does not seem to.
> This isn't what the title says or implies
It is what the submitted divulgational article from the University writes, and the title follows.
This theory means nothing if it can't be tested, if we can't act on it in some way.
That's an important distinction. Alzheimer's disease is a specific problem, separate from long-term cognitive decline. That the mechanisms of both have been identified is real progress. One way medicine progresses is by differentiating causes of the same symptoms. Then specific treatments can be worked on.
Has viagra shown affects at reducing normal aging in the brain? It seems to do so in the heart.
https://news.vcu.edu/article/Nitric_Oxide_release_triggered_...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6705107/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53136-y
And Viagra has been identified as a potential tool against Alzhimers:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43587-021-00138-z
https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-alzheimers-...
Ideally, we'd identify the key mechanisms at play and be able to develop lifestyle modifications that would support them, but it's pretty cool that these drugs have benefits beyond just better bedroom performance.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22965356/ for more on short telomere syndromes.
article like these come out dozen per year, and it's all putative unless they can make a pill out of that knowledge
As opposed for us to read 1000s of them in the span of 10 years, and nothing ever coming out of them - except 200 more articles like that from other teams, on other competing mechanisms.
What about a more real title: "Scientists found a potential mechanism behind cognitive decline in aging, but it's more likely that they have not, the area of study is very complex and ill-understood still, and it will take decades at best to discover and verify any definitive mechanisms. More likely this study also has methodological errors or these guys are even padding their numbers to get a paper published and secure more grants".
Yes, it's a mouthful.
How about "Researchers find a way to induce cognititive decline in lab animals. Don't hold your breath for human relevance".
There’s no inherent reason we have to die. It’s an evolved strategy to allow newer models to replace us. Turn that off and you’d stay around until physical damage and irreparable decay takes you out.
It will be interesting from a societal standpoint. You’ll have the real scum people wanting free immortality and people arguing they should get it even though they’re horrible. You’ll have the rich people who want to keep it to themselves because the poor don’t deserve it. Things like prison sentences and the general value of time would all be messed up.
I'm a good bit younger than 200 and barely remember large portions of my earlier life already. What's so special about 200 that makes it any different?
So yes there is something special about reaching 200 years of age. As it will singal a milestone no other human has ever reached from all of history. On the other hand, life expectancy growing at an alarming rate is putting a lot of strain on resources and land availability.
But honestly I really don't think these arguments are motivated by/a consequence of real belief in them, it's more a kind of cope with the current situation that we've become acclimated to, something in the vein of "if god intended men to fly they'd have wings".
I say this because I do believe that a lot of research into aging is just finding a lot of strange oddities in our genes, and biological mechanisms. There was never any long term biological process such as natural selection, darwinism and survivorship bias to remove or refine them into something that works better or works for indefinite lengths of time. It is only recently that more humans are able to live 60+ years and that there is billions of humans compared to the numbers of live humans in previous centuries.
I don't think that's true and it's pretty difficult to argue that it is given how close to universal death is among living things... if it were true evolution would also have explored the adjacent possible of near immortality more often. After all living longer also means potentially producing more offspring, so it's not an impediment to natural selection. Probably more accurate to say that between the complexity required to keep repairing the accumulated damage in an individual organism over time and simply replacing the organism with a new model every so often, evolution prudently chose the later. Evolution is economical... making highly complex systems that are eternally resilient and repairable is not.
I don't doubt we'll soon be able to extend lifespan (and healthspan) by quite a bit but not indefinitely unless we can transfer the mind to a new body. And frankly I doubt that makes a lot of sense because I don't think 200-year-old me will feel much identity with 20-year-old me anyway. The Buddhists probably have it right that the sense of a continuous self is largely an illusion.
There are positive findings, and new research and practical openings.
"«May»" there means: "we have positively found leads". It is not "random".
then we can stay adults forever, thereby ceasing to exist
edit: I'm overthinking this, but the word "scientists" does a lot of heavy lifting in the headline. The number of things the human race in general and scientists especially are unsure about is vast. Putting a person in a white overcoat, spectacles, and pen in their pockets to lead the sentence with authority doesn't give them a chance of not looking dumb. Scientists in media language are 100% of the time more clownish than even politicians or any other profession.
Even the content in itself is garbage, in which case the headline does justice, or there was in fact something news-worthy but the meta-analysis by this article has missed it.
I wonder how many medications we have missed out on that would have worked on humans but never got to the human trial stage because it doesn’t work in any of the animal models we use.
I would expect not many and certainly far less than the number of medications that worked in animals but did not work or harmed humans.
There are many commonly used drugs with teratogenic risks that we discontinue in pregnancy or counsel the patient on, picking randomly from a list of medications that were approved in 2023: sparsentan
I'm not sure if I'm missing something but why are you thinking teratogenicity matters when the vast majority of patients are not pregnant at a given moment?
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1059235/great-contr...
I take dextroamphetamine for ADHD, and even though it's a lot less toxic than meth is, I still have to take frequent magnesium supplements or else my magnesium levels totally dive (confirmed by blood tests).
We probably need a standard bracket suffix like (in mice) for these sorts of things, as we do for year.
Should be by default attached to any medical news headline, just to be correct more often than not.
Some people aren't against committing suicide, but assuming you were someone who's afraid of death (so can't just commit suicide) but still doesn't want to live into their later years, what could you even do? I assume just increase the chance of accidents, but what kind of accident would result in death with minimal suffering?
But, most people I've come across that are outward with this attitude say they smoke tobacco to help, and have a suicide method all planned out and ready to go as a guarantee.
Ah, so that's where the saying "do you have a death wish?!" came from :)
> But, most people I've come across that are outward with this attitude say they smoke tobacco to help, and have a suicide method all planned out and ready to go as a guarantee.
Having a plan and having the guts to carry it out are two different things. I've attempted suicide twice but chickened out both times. Honestly glad I didn't go through with it.
1. Fix sleep
2. Drink water
3. Have Magnesium, Zinc, Vitamin D, and natural proteines
4. Move your behind
I think I would hate losing my cognitive function if I realized it was slipping away a lot more than needing to use a wheelchair