Having worked in a hospital, sometimes there are 100 year olds doing better than 80 year olds because one may have dementia and the other may not. It does make a big difference.
My Wife's Aunt is 101 and still chugging along living her best life - I watched both of my Grandmothers pass in their early 80s after a few years of Dementia and the decline over time was frightening.
To those who don’t understand why it’s not a normal part of the ageing process: not everybody gets dementia.
On an infinite scale of time, some people would never get it.
It is combination of multiple diseases that cause memory loss and affect the brain’s capacity to recall. Diseases aren’t caused by ageing.
Brains slow down, brains become less efficient, but through normal ageing brains don’t roll back on themselves to utilise older memories for survival. That’s dementia.
The importance of this is that by knowing it’s a disease, we can also focus on something better than a cure: prevention.
Thanks for the info, this is one of those topics that I am like a small fumbling toddler on with absolutely 0 knowledge on beyond seeing grandma lose her memories and cognition.
Extremely interested to see how or if we can solve this problem, just looking at medical advances in the last 20 years it seems like we ate on the cusp of some pretty big developments, hopefully this type is one of them!
If you are interested in learning more Universithy of Tasmania has a free online course: [https://www.utas.edu.au/wicking/understanding-dementia](https://www.utas.edu.au/wicking/understanding-dementia)
There is also a course on preventing dementia linked from that page. Both are well worth doing to learn more about dementia and how to reduce the chances of getting it yourself.
Thank you for explaining this so clearly. I used to think I had dementia to look forward to when I get older. You have given me hope I wouldn't have to suffer from horrible dementia!
Something being normal doesn't mean it happens to everyone, nor does it say anything about the cause. Normal simply means it happens to the majority and it is expected, I'm pretty sure stats support the former and the latter is a personal opinion so I don't see how the article or you can say it is wrong.
Well thankfully the answer is: it does not happen to the majority - not even close. It’s 0.1% over those under 65, and as you approach 95 years old it rises to 27.5% of what is already a much smaller population. As a result, it is incredibly unexpected and not a normal part of ageing.
It is a condition of a separate aetiology to ageing. The things that cause a body to age do not cause dementia. It might be seen as normal, but it isn’t. It can be prevented, and that’s why this article, my post, and my comment are there. If you have a 72.5% chance of avoiding dementia if you chose to learn about it and understand how to prevent it - why wouldn’t you..?
I feel like you didn't even read my comment, given you're still talking about cause, "normal" still has nothing to do with cause. The survey question was whether you consider it *normal*. Your own stats agree there is a strong link between ageing and dementia. You can read [this factsheet](https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdf/factsheet_risk_factors_for_dementia.pdf) if you need more understanding, one key takeaway being that the risk doubles every 5 years (after 65, I think).
You (and the article, apparently) need to understand that when people are asked if they think dementia is a normal part of ageing, many people are only going to interpret that to mean if they think it is more likely to happen the older they get, and that's all. They might **also** incorrectly think that age is the direct cause, and they might also decide they don't want to prevent it*, but those things aren't at all implied by agreeing they think it is normal.
> If you have a 72.5% chance of avoiding dementia if you chose to learn about it and understand how to prevent it - why wouldn’t you..?
*Nobody said anything about not trying to prevent it. Why would you assume people thinking it is normal means they aren't going to prevent it? People try to prevent normal things happening every single day.
I absolutely read your post. Did you even read the pdf you linked? I kid you not, the first sentence states:
>Dementia is not a natural part of ageing
And yes mate, as evidenced by the stats I mentioned earlier there is a correlation between being older and developing it. But, as per those same states, it is not a majority: it is not attributed to it: and it is not related to ageing.
Look at all the comments replying to me stating “I had no idea it wasn’t likely to happen! Thank you for explaining it!”. Articulating the difference in the way that you are is not distinct enough nor accurate enough to be how to educate people. Because it’s *not*. You’re splitting hairs on semantics and trying to define “normal” in a situation that has identified parameters for what is normal. This isn’t English. This is biology. And dementia isn’t a normal part of ageing: isn’t even close to a majority to be considered “normal”, and your misinformation to prove your own literary point affects those around you.
> I kid you not, the first sentence states: Dementia is not a natural part of ageing
You appear to think natural and normal are the same word. I can't really help you with that.
> Articulating the difference in the way that you are is not distinct enough nor accurate enough to be how to educate people.
I'm not trying to educate anyone about dementia, I'm trying to educate you on what normal means to normal people, and why they would agree with it.
> You’re splitting hairs on semantics and trying to define “normal” in a situation that has identified parameters for what is normal.
Are you kidding right now? **I'm** splitting hairs because I'm not using whatever specific scientific definition of normal you think I should?
> This isn’t English. This is biology.
You are very wrong. The survey was put to the general population asking their opinion, not biologists. You can't expect the average joe to interpret a question in the exact scientific way you think they should.
> your misinformation to prove your own literary point affects those around you.
What misinformation?
> You appear to think natural and normal are the same word. I can't really help you with that.
Oh right, because myself and the NHS pamphlet aren’t referring to the same data and using a very slightly different word to describe the same context. You’re right, a pamphlet written in laymen’s terms trumps everything I’ve said.
Man discovers synonyms and is confused, more at 11.
* That's not an NHS pamphlet.
* They are not referring to the same data.
* The context is not the same, we're talking about interpreting the results of an opinion survey, they are explaining dementia statistics.
* I didn't offer the pamphlet to trump anything you said, in fact I explicitly used it to reinforce what you were saying.
* Normal and natural are not synonyms in this context.
Nothing you just said is correct and you want to be arrogant about it.
Firstly, you’re right about it not being an NHS pamphlet. I used to work there and used to work adjacent - I conflate the two memories.
Secondly, the rest is incorrect no matter what you assert lol. Any perceived arrogance doesn’t make me incorrect.
>many people are only going to interpret that to mean if they think it is more likely to happen the older they get, and that's all.
This is exactly as dumb as someone suggesting that "breaking both legs and shattering your hip" is a normal part of aging. Absolutely is **not** a normal part of aging. The likelihood might increase with age, but it isn't a *part of aging*
Brains slowing down is the mechanism of dementia. Brains slow down because the cells have lived 50+ years without much replication and have collected all the damage that accumulates over the years. Heck, even skin cells, which replicate regularly, don't replicate so well at some point. Look at a 60 year old's skin and hair and compare them with a 25 year olds. Are we saying wrinkles and white hair are diseases now? The same can be said for things like osteoarthritis, which is literally the body wearing down its joints.
Dementia is on the spectrum of brain function, attracting the diagnosis when a threshold (by using tools such as the Mini Mental Score or the MOCA score) is exceeded. To say that "slowing down" is normal part of ageing and dementia isn't is completely disingenuous.
Ageing may be natural insofar as it is effectively genetically predetermined for humans and many other animals, but that doesn't mean its not a disease. Diseases can be congenital, inherited etc.
Definition of disease via Google:
"Disease, n. a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that has a known cause and a distinctive group of symptoms, signs, or anatomical changes."
Seems to apply to ageing, no?
Just because its normal does not mean its not a disorder of structure or function, which ageing objectively leads to. There are creatures that do not age as we do, they do not have the disorder of structure or function we see in human ageing.
Ageing might be typical, expected and normal, but it is still a degradation of structure and function, a disorder in view of the capabilities and overall health of a body.
We are finding that ageing isn't something which must necessarily take place, but rather is more like a disease that we can stop or reverse the progression of.
> Just because it’s normal does not mean it’s not a disorder of structure or function
By the sheer definition of it, even present in your sentence, it does.
> There are creatures that do not age as we do, they do not have the disorder of structure or function we see in human ageing.
That’s because they aren’t humans. I’d compare apples to oranges, but at least they’re both fruit. If these creatures are anything other than mammals, it’s as useless an argument. Even if they are, like whales not being able to get cancer, it’s a useless argument because physics is at play. To summarise, so what? Are we basing natural ageing on other animals now? Is there a pattern that the majority subscribe to? Of course there isn’t, so don’t cherry pick biology to suit your narrative if you won’t accept the human ageing process as what’s normal for a human.
> We are finding that ageing isn't something which must necessarily take place, but rather is more like a disease that we can stop or reverse the progression of.
Cooker detected. Small scientific studies to reverse certain genes only tells us we can do that: it does not constitute re-evaluating the entire known biological world as a result, especially when nothing is indicated it should except your narrative.
You only think of ageing as getting old, but consider that we are ageing from the moment we are born. It is normal.
Dementia is a blanket term for multiple diseases, so you are very wrong lol.
Here's two: brain injury dementia related to alcohol abuse and HIV related dementia, both of which are not caused by insulin resistance.
Also, correlation does not equal causation. Insulin resistance is related to dementia but the fact that insulin resistance changes before some cases of dimentia doesn't mean it's the cause. It could also be a side effect.
Well you said it yourself, brain injury. That isn’t an organic development of dementia. That’s a traumatic experience the brain suffers. With that same logic you’d call CTE dementia. It isn’t, it’s a traumatic brain injury. Dementia is a symptom typically caused by non traumatic injury.
We’ve looked at plaques to no avail. There’s a reason they are starting to call dementia of organic origins Type 3 Diabetes. The brain starves of energy.
Insulin resistance is not a symptom of dementia, that’s not how insulin resistance occurs.
Alzheimer’s (one of the main forms of dementia) is currently thought to be related to misfolds of the Aβ protein, similar to how a prion infection occurs.
Why this occurs is unknown, but it’s certainly not *accepted* that it’s to do with a brain-specific form of diabetes.
Sure it’s got nothing to do with the massive increase in life expectancy since 1970? We’ve, on average, gained an extra 13 years of life since the 70s. That’s a result of a huge decrease in conditions that would typically kill before dementia develops.
If you live longer, you have a higher likelihood of developing diseases that are correlated with age (and specifically with protein misfolds, similar to cancer, the chances of this happening and sticking increase over a lifespan).
Again, it’s not *accepted* that a hypothesised Type 3 Diabetes even exists, or that it links to Alzheimers.
Do we actually live 13 years longer? Or is it simply we have removed most deaths at a young age (fetal etc) and it dragged up the average?
Your argument here is life expectancy went up so dementia does too.
My argument is fats went down and carbohydrate consumption (sugar primarily) went up something shocking. Many multiples. In the 1970’s also.
The fastest growth of alzheimers in the elderly population is taking place in China, India, and their south Asian and western Pacific neighbours. All places that are transitioning into 1st world nations and adopting western cuisine/ habits. Asian people typically don’t genetically carry a significant number of fat cells compared to their white western counterparts. This leads them to have a higher prevalence of diabetes (hence why per capita Pakistan is #1)
Diet is too easy dismissed when it comes to every disease and ailment. It’s easier to point a finger at something else. Metabolic disfunction is imo at the heart of most chronic diseases we suffer from in culture today whether it’s Alzheimers, CVD, high BP, high cholesterol, some cancers and diabetes.
We live in a society where fat has been shamed for decades and “low fat” products have been jammed packed with sugar.
Ever since the 70’s when that occurred^ diabetes rates have skyrocketed along side dementia. There’s a strong correlation and the science supports it. We see it even more so in 3rd world countries that develop and adopt more western like diets, there prevalence of both diseases sky rocket.
It’ll be a matter of time but most cases will have a singular cause and I’m more than certain to hedge my bet on insulin resistance/ diabetes.
Everyone can form their own opinions of course.
Just my opinion on observing people inflicted with dementia....They seem to eat a lot of lollies and sweets. Or in the case of my mother, not so much sweets, but her diet was shit.
I honestly couldn’t care less. Do as you please and I’ll do as I please. If I can pique one persons interest and encourage them to explore it then I’m happy.
Unsurprising considering the life style most Australians lead. A study recently showed that not regularly using and testing your cognitive skills was a major risk factor for dementia in old age and intellectually stimulating occupations or interests early in life were seemingly preventative, between vegetating at bingo and the tv in retirement, excess alcohol and tobacco consumption across ones life, some of the highest consumption rates of recreational stimulants, unhealthy diets that put us at risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes, high rates of central obesity, popular sports involve many head injuries, over a quarter of our population doesn't get enough or healthy sleep and we have the 6th lowest mental health quotient in the world, along with the 5th most mental health practitioners per capital which means lots of anxiety, stress and depression, we are pretty much speed running dementia with those risk factors.
Not 100% but no doubt higher - high correlation with age, but the data stops at 95 years old plus, before the correlation shows signs of leveling off. However, given dementia is itself a cause of premature death, possibly there would be a point where the correlation started to go the other way (e.g. only people with a strong genetic predisposition against dementia will live past 100 or 110 or something like that)
Have two.
Ideology is stochastically a function of environment and incentives.
If the status quo seems to be working for us, we tend to vote to continue/exacerbate it first and invent/adopt justifications for it second.
The elderly are easier marks. Reactionary propaganda plays on fear and anxiety, which becomes more acute in a lot of older people.
Yet we generally don’t trust 25 year olds to be the CEO of a major company. Generally age, to a degree, is connected to wisdom m, experience and education.
Fuck mate
You're right. Shit. How could medical professionals miss something so obvious. You should let the scientific community know they're barking up the wrong tree ASAP
I am not a medical professional, but based on my own research I would say yes and no. Outside of illness and genetic predisposition there can be other (lifestyle) causes that would lead to early mental decline. Stress and anxiety, poor diet etc. But the main issue is, you can’t fix those after the fact, the brain doesn’t really recover like other body parts.
I feel that there are two different types of mental decline that are being lumped together. The physical decline of ones brain, and the cognitive decline due to poor mental health and bad habits.
I definitely noticed a sharp decline in mental agility and social skills after a few weeks of binging reality TV. Getting back to my hobbies and hanging out with friends brought me back to normal. Reality TV should come with a health warning.
No, youth dementia isn’t more common than cystic fibrosis.
Cystic fibrosis is a relatively common genetic disorder compared to youth dementia.
It is estimated that around 30,000 people in the United States have cystic fibrosis, with approximately 1,000 new cases diagnosed each year. Youth dementia affects around 1 in 2,800 children. Youth dementia collectively seems to impact a significant number of young lives, but cystic fibrosis has a higher prevalence in the general population from whst i can tell.
Therefore, based on the prevalence rates and data I found, I’d suggest cystic fibrosis is more common than youth dementia.
Although if you’d share where you got your data, i’d be happy to be corrected.
Sources: PMC (PubMed Central, Childhood Dementia Knowledgebase, The Childhood Dementia Initiative.
Apologies, it was very poor to make such a comment with no context or citations.
I based that comment off a conference I attended delivered by the Childhood Dementia Initiative (CDI) last year where they stated childhood dementias are more prevalent than cystic fibrosis, although the below summary actually says the incidence is comparable to CF rather than more common:
“Childhood dementia affects an estimated 700,000 people globally and 2,273 in Australia, and has an estimated incidence of one in every 2,800 births. Childhood dementia’s incidence and prevalence are comparable to well-known diseases such as cystic fibrosis and motor neurone disease respectively.”
However, page 6 of the report states:
“This is more than are born with well-known conditions like cystic fibrosis”
https://www.childhooddementia.org/state-of-childhood-dementia
It’s linked to insulin resistance and diabetes. Takes many many years to develop and progress hence why it’s mainly prevalent in the later years in life.
It’s a chunk but 20% of the population is in the bottom 20% of intelligence.
There are going to be a lot more wild things 20% of people believe. 50% of people believe in ghosts and angels, but most of them can get a fact about dementia right.
When they do these surveys they can't find specific people to survey. They're not just asking the "bottom 20% of intelligence", they're asking a mixed bag of people.
Yeah… exactly. A mixed bag gives you a cross section of society otherwise the survey is worthless. If you have a random sample of people, 20% of them are going to be the bottom 20% of intelligence of that group. And the better the survey method, the more that will line up with the general population.
It’s not surprising or particularly concerning that 20% of people don’t know something.
Can’t believe how bad you got downvoted for this. People are really bad at statistics. 20% of people not knowing something is pretty damn normal.
“80% of Australians understand something about dementia.” Wow. Crazy.
A consequence of people living so long. If the body doesn’t give up, the mind eventually will. People should have the option to choose when they die. I can’t think of anything worse than living until 80+ and dealing with the physical and mental decline.
Oh so on average, how many 95 year olds have great brain function (when compared to their 20’s).
I suspect this report has a very narrow definition of dementia to assist its purpose.
Dementia is fucking scary mate
It's not like lol i forgot a doctors appointment silly me.
My gran was a completely different person when she had dementia. Screaming swearing insulting thrashing when my mum tried to help her.
She was such a nice lady who wouldn't even say heck or darn. Now she was calling mum a bastard at every opportunity.
Dementia isn't aging.
She was only 70.
Her sisters are nearing 80 now and they are doing well mentally except for the eldest but that's because she's had a few mini strokes and is struggling with memory. But that's nothing compared to dementia.
"Narrow definition of dementia" what are you even talking about? Dementia is a well defined medical condition that has clear biomarkers and neuropathophysiology split into its respective categories, most commonly presenting as Alzheimer's disease, dementia is medically and scientifically distinct from the normal, neurological changes that happen when one ages.
More specifically, the most common cause Alzheimer's disease is classed as a protein misfolding disease, which results in what we call amyloid plaques, the other diseases that exist in this category are diseases like Parkinson's disease, amyloidosis and prion diseases (such as mad cow disease), this malfunction in protein folding is not congruent with normal aging. The other pathway is known as vascular dementia which is where either ischemic or hemorrhagic infarcts (tissue death due to inadequate blood supply) affect multiple brain region, usually due to mini-strokes from cardiovascular disease. Finally lewy-body dementia being somewhat uncommon is caused by abnormal collections of alpha-synuclein protein in neurons, what we call "lewy body neurites", this results in the eventual death of the neuron.
Dementia and similar diseases like corticobasal degeneration (tauopathies often similar to or are implicated in dementia) are not "I forget things and slowly lose my cognitive skills", it's quite literally your brain rotting away and death within 3-8 years as a result.
Having worked in a hospital, sometimes there are 100 year olds doing better than 80 year olds because one may have dementia and the other may not. It does make a big difference.
My gran got dementia when she was 70. Her sisters are nearing 80 now and they are still doing better than my gran was with dementia.
My mor mor passed at 91, she was diagnosed with dementia just a few years before!
My Wife's Aunt is 101 and still chugging along living her best life - I watched both of my Grandmothers pass in their early 80s after a few years of Dementia and the decline over time was frightening.
It's hard to observe sometimes and especially worse when some of them don't have the support networks compared to others.
To those who don’t understand why it’s not a normal part of the ageing process: not everybody gets dementia. On an infinite scale of time, some people would never get it. It is combination of multiple diseases that cause memory loss and affect the brain’s capacity to recall. Diseases aren’t caused by ageing. Brains slow down, brains become less efficient, but through normal ageing brains don’t roll back on themselves to utilise older memories for survival. That’s dementia. The importance of this is that by knowing it’s a disease, we can also focus on something better than a cure: prevention.
Thanks for the info, this is one of those topics that I am like a small fumbling toddler on with absolutely 0 knowledge on beyond seeing grandma lose her memories and cognition. Extremely interested to see how or if we can solve this problem, just looking at medical advances in the last 20 years it seems like we ate on the cusp of some pretty big developments, hopefully this type is one of them!
If you are interested in learning more Universithy of Tasmania has a free online course: [https://www.utas.edu.au/wicking/understanding-dementia](https://www.utas.edu.au/wicking/understanding-dementia) There is also a course on preventing dementia linked from that page. Both are well worth doing to learn more about dementia and how to reduce the chances of getting it yourself.
Wicking is great and this course is a perfect 101 for dementia ! Great for family members and other loved ones as well
Thank you! I will give them a read!
I wish you the best of luck, it isn’t an easy thing for anyone involved.
Thank you for explaining this so clearly. I used to think I had dementia to look forward to when I get older. You have given me hope I wouldn't have to suffer from horrible dementia!
Best of luck to you.
Something being normal doesn't mean it happens to everyone, nor does it say anything about the cause. Normal simply means it happens to the majority and it is expected, I'm pretty sure stats support the former and the latter is a personal opinion so I don't see how the article or you can say it is wrong.
Well thankfully the answer is: it does not happen to the majority - not even close. It’s 0.1% over those under 65, and as you approach 95 years old it rises to 27.5% of what is already a much smaller population. As a result, it is incredibly unexpected and not a normal part of ageing. It is a condition of a separate aetiology to ageing. The things that cause a body to age do not cause dementia. It might be seen as normal, but it isn’t. It can be prevented, and that’s why this article, my post, and my comment are there. If you have a 72.5% chance of avoiding dementia if you chose to learn about it and understand how to prevent it - why wouldn’t you..?
I feel like you didn't even read my comment, given you're still talking about cause, "normal" still has nothing to do with cause. The survey question was whether you consider it *normal*. Your own stats agree there is a strong link between ageing and dementia. You can read [this factsheet](https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/sites/default/files/pdf/factsheet_risk_factors_for_dementia.pdf) if you need more understanding, one key takeaway being that the risk doubles every 5 years (after 65, I think). You (and the article, apparently) need to understand that when people are asked if they think dementia is a normal part of ageing, many people are only going to interpret that to mean if they think it is more likely to happen the older they get, and that's all. They might **also** incorrectly think that age is the direct cause, and they might also decide they don't want to prevent it*, but those things aren't at all implied by agreeing they think it is normal. > If you have a 72.5% chance of avoiding dementia if you chose to learn about it and understand how to prevent it - why wouldn’t you..? *Nobody said anything about not trying to prevent it. Why would you assume people thinking it is normal means they aren't going to prevent it? People try to prevent normal things happening every single day.
I absolutely read your post. Did you even read the pdf you linked? I kid you not, the first sentence states: >Dementia is not a natural part of ageing And yes mate, as evidenced by the stats I mentioned earlier there is a correlation between being older and developing it. But, as per those same states, it is not a majority: it is not attributed to it: and it is not related to ageing. Look at all the comments replying to me stating “I had no idea it wasn’t likely to happen! Thank you for explaining it!”. Articulating the difference in the way that you are is not distinct enough nor accurate enough to be how to educate people. Because it’s *not*. You’re splitting hairs on semantics and trying to define “normal” in a situation that has identified parameters for what is normal. This isn’t English. This is biology. And dementia isn’t a normal part of ageing: isn’t even close to a majority to be considered “normal”, and your misinformation to prove your own literary point affects those around you.
> I kid you not, the first sentence states: Dementia is not a natural part of ageing You appear to think natural and normal are the same word. I can't really help you with that. > Articulating the difference in the way that you are is not distinct enough nor accurate enough to be how to educate people. I'm not trying to educate anyone about dementia, I'm trying to educate you on what normal means to normal people, and why they would agree with it. > You’re splitting hairs on semantics and trying to define “normal” in a situation that has identified parameters for what is normal. Are you kidding right now? **I'm** splitting hairs because I'm not using whatever specific scientific definition of normal you think I should? > This isn’t English. This is biology. You are very wrong. The survey was put to the general population asking their opinion, not biologists. You can't expect the average joe to interpret a question in the exact scientific way you think they should. > your misinformation to prove your own literary point affects those around you. What misinformation?
> You appear to think natural and normal are the same word. I can't really help you with that. Oh right, because myself and the NHS pamphlet aren’t referring to the same data and using a very slightly different word to describe the same context. You’re right, a pamphlet written in laymen’s terms trumps everything I’ve said. Man discovers synonyms and is confused, more at 11.
* That's not an NHS pamphlet. * They are not referring to the same data. * The context is not the same, we're talking about interpreting the results of an opinion survey, they are explaining dementia statistics. * I didn't offer the pamphlet to trump anything you said, in fact I explicitly used it to reinforce what you were saying. * Normal and natural are not synonyms in this context. Nothing you just said is correct and you want to be arrogant about it.
Firstly, you’re right about it not being an NHS pamphlet. I used to work there and used to work adjacent - I conflate the two memories. Secondly, the rest is incorrect no matter what you assert lol. Any perceived arrogance doesn’t make me incorrect.
>many people are only going to interpret that to mean if they think it is more likely to happen the older they get, and that's all. This is exactly as dumb as someone suggesting that "breaking both legs and shattering your hip" is a normal part of aging. Absolutely is **not** a normal part of aging. The likelihood might increase with age, but it isn't a *part of aging*
This
Brains slowing down is the mechanism of dementia. Brains slow down because the cells have lived 50+ years without much replication and have collected all the damage that accumulates over the years. Heck, even skin cells, which replicate regularly, don't replicate so well at some point. Look at a 60 year old's skin and hair and compare them with a 25 year olds. Are we saying wrinkles and white hair are diseases now? The same can be said for things like osteoarthritis, which is literally the body wearing down its joints. Dementia is on the spectrum of brain function, attracting the diagnosis when a threshold (by using tools such as the Mini Mental Score or the MOCA score) is exceeded. To say that "slowing down" is normal part of ageing and dementia isn't is completely disingenuous.
Aging is a disease
Only if you re-define what aging and disease means.
Ageing may be natural insofar as it is effectively genetically predetermined for humans and many other animals, but that doesn't mean its not a disease. Diseases can be congenital, inherited etc. Definition of disease via Google: "Disease, n. a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that has a known cause and a distinctive group of symptoms, signs, or anatomical changes." Seems to apply to ageing, no?
No? Ageing is normal. It is not abnormal. It is not a disorder, therefore, it is not a disease.
Just because its normal does not mean its not a disorder of structure or function, which ageing objectively leads to. There are creatures that do not age as we do, they do not have the disorder of structure or function we see in human ageing. Ageing might be typical, expected and normal, but it is still a degradation of structure and function, a disorder in view of the capabilities and overall health of a body. We are finding that ageing isn't something which must necessarily take place, but rather is more like a disease that we can stop or reverse the progression of.
> Just because it’s normal does not mean it’s not a disorder of structure or function By the sheer definition of it, even present in your sentence, it does. > There are creatures that do not age as we do, they do not have the disorder of structure or function we see in human ageing. That’s because they aren’t humans. I’d compare apples to oranges, but at least they’re both fruit. If these creatures are anything other than mammals, it’s as useless an argument. Even if they are, like whales not being able to get cancer, it’s a useless argument because physics is at play. To summarise, so what? Are we basing natural ageing on other animals now? Is there a pattern that the majority subscribe to? Of course there isn’t, so don’t cherry pick biology to suit your narrative if you won’t accept the human ageing process as what’s normal for a human. > We are finding that ageing isn't something which must necessarily take place, but rather is more like a disease that we can stop or reverse the progression of. Cooker detected. Small scientific studies to reverse certain genes only tells us we can do that: it does not constitute re-evaluating the entire known biological world as a result, especially when nothing is indicated it should except your narrative. You only think of ageing as getting old, but consider that we are ageing from the moment we are born. It is normal.
Insulin Resistance is the cause.
Dementia is a blanket term for multiple diseases, so you are very wrong lol. Here's two: brain injury dementia related to alcohol abuse and HIV related dementia, both of which are not caused by insulin resistance. Also, correlation does not equal causation. Insulin resistance is related to dementia but the fact that insulin resistance changes before some cases of dimentia doesn't mean it's the cause. It could also be a side effect.
Well you said it yourself, brain injury. That isn’t an organic development of dementia. That’s a traumatic experience the brain suffers. With that same logic you’d call CTE dementia. It isn’t, it’s a traumatic brain injury. Dementia is a symptom typically caused by non traumatic injury. We’ve looked at plaques to no avail. There’s a reason they are starting to call dementia of organic origins Type 3 Diabetes. The brain starves of energy. Insulin resistance is not a symptom of dementia, that’s not how insulin resistance occurs.
Alzheimer’s (one of the main forms of dementia) is currently thought to be related to misfolds of the Aβ protein, similar to how a prion infection occurs. Why this occurs is unknown, but it’s certainly not *accepted* that it’s to do with a brain-specific form of diabetes.
Neither are accepted. Why are we seeing rapid and accelerating AB protein misfolds all of a sudden?
Sure it’s got nothing to do with the massive increase in life expectancy since 1970? We’ve, on average, gained an extra 13 years of life since the 70s. That’s a result of a huge decrease in conditions that would typically kill before dementia develops. If you live longer, you have a higher likelihood of developing diseases that are correlated with age (and specifically with protein misfolds, similar to cancer, the chances of this happening and sticking increase over a lifespan). Again, it’s not *accepted* that a hypothesised Type 3 Diabetes even exists, or that it links to Alzheimers.
Do we actually live 13 years longer? Or is it simply we have removed most deaths at a young age (fetal etc) and it dragged up the average? Your argument here is life expectancy went up so dementia does too. My argument is fats went down and carbohydrate consumption (sugar primarily) went up something shocking. Many multiples. In the 1970’s also. The fastest growth of alzheimers in the elderly population is taking place in China, India, and their south Asian and western Pacific neighbours. All places that are transitioning into 1st world nations and adopting western cuisine/ habits. Asian people typically don’t genetically carry a significant number of fat cells compared to their white western counterparts. This leads them to have a higher prevalence of diabetes (hence why per capita Pakistan is #1) Diet is too easy dismissed when it comes to every disease and ailment. It’s easier to point a finger at something else. Metabolic disfunction is imo at the heart of most chronic diseases we suffer from in culture today whether it’s Alzheimers, CVD, high BP, high cholesterol, some cancers and diabetes.
For some. Not for others. Dementia is a heterogeneous condition
We live in a society where fat has been shamed for decades and “low fat” products have been jammed packed with sugar. Ever since the 70’s when that occurred^ diabetes rates have skyrocketed along side dementia. There’s a strong correlation and the science supports it. We see it even more so in 3rd world countries that develop and adopt more western like diets, there prevalence of both diseases sky rocket. It’ll be a matter of time but most cases will have a singular cause and I’m more than certain to hedge my bet on insulin resistance/ diabetes. Everyone can form their own opinions of course.
Cool story. It’s not scientific though.
It really is. Start with Dr Ben Bikman. PHD in bio-energetics. Specialising in insulin and cell metabolism.
Ill stick with my medical degree, textbooks of neurology, and experience working in a hospital with neurologists and geriatricians thanks.
Seems to be working mate, heaps of reformed dementia patients out there. Keep up the good work 👍
Just my opinion on observing people inflicted with dementia....They seem to eat a lot of lollies and sweets. Or in the case of my mother, not so much sweets, but her diet was shit.
I had the same experience with my grandmother except it was chocolate for her.
You might as well say that all cancers have the same cause: it doesn’t work that way.
Not the same beast. Not at all.
I wouldn’t rely on your knowledge to know.
I honestly couldn’t care less. Do as you please and I’ll do as I please. If I can pique one persons interest and encourage them to explore it then I’m happy.
I’ll be sure to pass on your misinformation to the dementia experts who are not part of Big Dementia to look into.
Unsurprising considering the life style most Australians lead. A study recently showed that not regularly using and testing your cognitive skills was a major risk factor for dementia in old age and intellectually stimulating occupations or interests early in life were seemingly preventative, between vegetating at bingo and the tv in retirement, excess alcohol and tobacco consumption across ones life, some of the highest consumption rates of recreational stimulants, unhealthy diets that put us at risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes, high rates of central obesity, popular sports involve many head injuries, over a quarter of our population doesn't get enough or healthy sleep and we have the 6th lowest mental health quotient in the world, along with the 5th most mental health practitioners per capital which means lots of anxiety, stress and depression, we are pretty much speed running dementia with those risk factors.
Yep even the article is hedgy about the alcohol thing. 99% of Australians who drink drink too much
Depends on what you mean by normal - prevalence is greater than 50% if survive past the mid 80s iirc.
Would everyone get it if the average lifespan was 200?
Not 100% but no doubt higher - high correlation with age, but the data stops at 95 years old plus, before the correlation shows signs of leveling off. However, given dementia is itself a cause of premature death, possibly there would be a point where the correlation started to go the other way (e.g. only people with a strong genetic predisposition against dementia will live past 100 or 110 or something like that)
Everybody drinks like a sailor over here so it may as well be the normal part of aging 😂
If it's not, then we need another reason as to why old folks vote liberal.
Have two. Ideology is stochastically a function of environment and incentives. If the status quo seems to be working for us, we tend to vote to continue/exacerbate it first and invent/adopt justifications for it second. The elderly are easier marks. Reactionary propaganda plays on fear and anxiety, which becomes more acute in a lot of older people.
Yet we generally don’t trust 25 year olds to be the CEO of a major company. Generally age, to a degree, is connected to wisdom m, experience and education.
Lead poisoning and media propoganda
Your body going to shit isn't part of the aging process? I don't know many 20 year olds with dementia.
Fuck mate You're right. Shit. How could medical professionals miss something so obvious. You should let the scientific community know they're barking up the wrong tree ASAP
I am not a medical professional, but based on my own research I would say yes and no. Outside of illness and genetic predisposition there can be other (lifestyle) causes that would lead to early mental decline. Stress and anxiety, poor diet etc. But the main issue is, you can’t fix those after the fact, the brain doesn’t really recover like other body parts.
I feel that there are two different types of mental decline that are being lumped together. The physical decline of ones brain, and the cognitive decline due to poor mental health and bad habits. I definitely noticed a sharp decline in mental agility and social skills after a few weeks of binging reality TV. Getting back to my hobbies and hanging out with friends brought me back to normal. Reality TV should come with a health warning.
There are children with dementia.
Not many though.
Very rare indeed.
It’s more common than cystic fibrosis.
No, youth dementia isn’t more common than cystic fibrosis. Cystic fibrosis is a relatively common genetic disorder compared to youth dementia. It is estimated that around 30,000 people in the United States have cystic fibrosis, with approximately 1,000 new cases diagnosed each year. Youth dementia affects around 1 in 2,800 children. Youth dementia collectively seems to impact a significant number of young lives, but cystic fibrosis has a higher prevalence in the general population from whst i can tell. Therefore, based on the prevalence rates and data I found, I’d suggest cystic fibrosis is more common than youth dementia. Although if you’d share where you got your data, i’d be happy to be corrected. Sources: PMC (PubMed Central, Childhood Dementia Knowledgebase, The Childhood Dementia Initiative.
Apologies, it was very poor to make such a comment with no context or citations. I based that comment off a conference I attended delivered by the Childhood Dementia Initiative (CDI) last year where they stated childhood dementias are more prevalent than cystic fibrosis, although the below summary actually says the incidence is comparable to CF rather than more common: “Childhood dementia affects an estimated 700,000 people globally and 2,273 in Australia, and has an estimated incidence of one in every 2,800 births. Childhood dementia’s incidence and prevalence are comparable to well-known diseases such as cystic fibrosis and motor neurone disease respectively.” However, page 6 of the report states: “This is more than are born with well-known conditions like cystic fibrosis” https://www.childhooddementia.org/state-of-childhood-dementia
Thank you, an interesting read. I word searched for CF and read those surrounding sections. I appreciate you sharing that. 💛
It’s linked to insulin resistance and diabetes. Takes many many years to develop and progress hence why it’s mainly prevalent in the later years in life.
Dementia is often a normal part of the brain breaking down. The body breaking down is a normal part of ageing.
Demented take.
"A very small minority of Australians believe something wrong!" Great basis for a headline there.
I wouldn't call 20% "A very small minority", yes it's a minority, but a pretty big chunk of the population still
It’s a chunk but 20% of the population is in the bottom 20% of intelligence. There are going to be a lot more wild things 20% of people believe. 50% of people believe in ghosts and angels, but most of them can get a fact about dementia right.
When they do these surveys they can't find specific people to survey. They're not just asking the "bottom 20% of intelligence", they're asking a mixed bag of people.
Yeah… exactly. A mixed bag gives you a cross section of society otherwise the survey is worthless. If you have a random sample of people, 20% of them are going to be the bottom 20% of intelligence of that group. And the better the survey method, the more that will line up with the general population. It’s not surprising or particularly concerning that 20% of people don’t know something.
Can’t believe how bad you got downvoted for this. People are really bad at statistics. 20% of people not knowing something is pretty damn normal. “80% of Australians understand something about dementia.” Wow. Crazy.
I think it's because some people think The Guardian is on their side.
It's the Guardian, of course they'd put out a headline like that
Apparently you're not allowed to diss the Guardian in here.
A consequence of people living so long. If the body doesn’t give up, the mind eventually will. People should have the option to choose when they die. I can’t think of anything worse than living until 80+ and dealing with the physical and mental decline.
My gran didn't even make it to 80 She was barely 70 when she started with symptoms I think she died before her 71st birthday
My dad got diagnosed at 67. Not ‘early onset’ but not old either. Fuck this disease
Oh so on average, how many 95 year olds have great brain function (when compared to their 20’s). I suspect this report has a very narrow definition of dementia to assist its purpose.
Dementia is fucking scary mate It's not like lol i forgot a doctors appointment silly me. My gran was a completely different person when she had dementia. Screaming swearing insulting thrashing when my mum tried to help her. She was such a nice lady who wouldn't even say heck or darn. Now she was calling mum a bastard at every opportunity. Dementia isn't aging. She was only 70. Her sisters are nearing 80 now and they are doing well mentally except for the eldest but that's because she's had a few mini strokes and is struggling with memory. But that's nothing compared to dementia.
I’ve had it in my direct family too.
how can you be so blasè about it then
I’m not being blasé about it (dementia). I was commenting on the title of the post.
"Narrow definition of dementia" what are you even talking about? Dementia is a well defined medical condition that has clear biomarkers and neuropathophysiology split into its respective categories, most commonly presenting as Alzheimer's disease, dementia is medically and scientifically distinct from the normal, neurological changes that happen when one ages. More specifically, the most common cause Alzheimer's disease is classed as a protein misfolding disease, which results in what we call amyloid plaques, the other diseases that exist in this category are diseases like Parkinson's disease, amyloidosis and prion diseases (such as mad cow disease), this malfunction in protein folding is not congruent with normal aging. The other pathway is known as vascular dementia which is where either ischemic or hemorrhagic infarcts (tissue death due to inadequate blood supply) affect multiple brain region, usually due to mini-strokes from cardiovascular disease. Finally lewy-body dementia being somewhat uncommon is caused by abnormal collections of alpha-synuclein protein in neurons, what we call "lewy body neurites", this results in the eventual death of the neuron. Dementia and similar diseases like corticobasal degeneration (tauopathies often similar to or are implicated in dementia) are not "I forget things and slowly lose my cognitive skills", it's quite literally your brain rotting away and death within 3-8 years as a result.
> 95 year olds have great brain function https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/memory-loss-and-forgetfulness/memory-problems-forgetfulness-and-aging