Flying Solo May Protect Your Brain, New Research Finds
In an era where marriage has long been lauded as a linchpin of mental and emotional well-being, emerging research is disrupting the narrative. A comprehensive new study from the National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) suggests that remaining unmarried—whether by choice or by circumstance—may actually protect against dementia, contradicting decades of assumptions in medical and social science circles.
The findings, recently published in Alzheimer's & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer's Association, tracked over 24,000 older adults for up to 18 years, exploring how marital status intersected with the risk of developing cognitive impairments like Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Lewy body dementia (LBD). The result? Those who were widowed, divorced, or had never married exhibited significantly lower dementia risk compared to married peers.
Among the most striking statistics:
These associations remained robust even after controlling for a wide swath of variables, including demographics, clinical histories, behavioral health, and even genetic predispositions. Contrary to long-held assumptions about the protective power of marriage, the data reveals a subtler truth: marriage is not a universal cognitive safeguard, and in some cases, it may even pose a risk.
Historically, the 'marital resource model' posits that spouses provide mutual emotional, financial, and social support, contributing to better health and longevity. But as society evolves—along with its definitions of intimacy, companionship, and independence—so too must our interpretation of how relationships impact health.
The study's authors note a critical pivot: while marriage may offer certain structural benefits, the psychological toll of caregiving, spousal illness, or enduring toxic dynamics can erode cognitive resilience. Divorced individuals, for example, may experience a psychological renaissance—greater life satisfaction and personal autonomy—that acts as a buffer against neurodegeneration.
Interestingly, divorced and never-married individuals not only had a lower risk of Alzheimer's and LBD but also showed reduced progression from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to full-blown dementia. This finding raises provocative questions: could autonomy and diversified social engagement among the unmarried actually nurture cognitive health?
One caveat emerges: could married individuals receive earlier diagnoses due to a partner's observation? Married people are more likely to undergo routine checkups and have symptoms flagged early by concerned spouses. Unmarried individuals—particularly those living alone—may not seek medical help until symptoms are more advanced, possibly skewing diagnosis timelines.
However, the study accounted for referral source (professional vs. self/relative) and reason for visiting the Alzheimer's Disease Research Centers (clinical vs. research)—and still found persistent, statistically significant associations. This suggests the findings are more than mere artifacts of healthcare-seeking behavior.
The protective effect of being unmarried was slightly more pronounced in men, younger participants, and those referred professionally. However, stratified analyses indicated that marital status impacted dementia risk consistently, regardless of a person's education, depression level, or genetic risk factors (e.g., APOE-e4 status).
This democratization of findings across subgroups underscores the robustness of the data—and the importance of moving beyond one-size-fits-all assumptions about marriage and cognitive health.
We are, perhaps, in the midst of a cultural neuro-reckoning. With marriage rates declining and the number of never-married older adults rising, the dominant societal narrative that equates matrimony with wellness is increasingly untenable. This research doesn't villainize marriage—it contextualizes it.
In some cases, marriage is cognitively nourishing. In others, mainly when marred by stress or constrained autonomy, it may be mentally depleting. As divorce becomes more normalized and singlehood more empowered, we must reframe cognitive resilience as a function not of marital status but of social richness, psychological safety, and agency.
The researchers behind this study call for more nuanced investigations into relationship quality, not just marital labels. Future work must explore how companionship, chosen family, social stimulation, and lifestyle habits mediate brain health—both inside and outside traditional marital frameworks.
In the meantime, the takeaway is clear: unmarried does not mean unwell. For many, it may mean cognitively liberated.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
NIH Director Struggles To Defend His Own Plan To Slash $18 Billion In Medical Research
WASHINGTON ― National Institutes of Health director Jayanta Bhattacharya got a cool reception from Democratic and Republican senators on Tuesday as he defended his agency's budget request for 2026, which would slash billions in cutting-edge biomedical research on cancer, Alzheimer's disease, diabetes and other health conditions. NIH is considered the crown jewel of American science and the global leader in biomedical research and innovation. Senators in both parties are proud of its success and of their own roles in boosting its funding over the years in support of medical breakthroughs. So Bhattacharya had to know his budget request would land with a thud as he presented it to a Senate appropriations subcommittee. He kept trying to square two things that didn't make sense: that Trump is committed to preserving America's role as the leader in biomedical research, and that his proposed $18 billion in cuts to the agency next year ― or 40% of its entire budget ― won't hamper that. Senators didn't buy it. At times, Bhattacharya didn't seem to want to defend it, either. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who chairs the full Senate Appropriations Committee, called the administration's proposed cuts to NIH 'so disturbing.' 'It would undo years of congressional investment in NIH, and it would delay or stop effective treatments and cures from being developed for diseases,' Collins said. 'We also risk falling behind China and other countries that are increasing their investment in biomedical research.' In particular, she asked why the administration is calling for the cutting of funding by 40% for the National Institutes of Aging, which funds most Alzheimer's research, when it's been successfully developing breakthrough drugs and blood tests. Bhattacharya, without defending his own proposed cuts, said 'the intention' of the Trump administration is to lead the world in biomedical research, suggesting Congress could make a counteroffer and potentially propose more spending. 'The budget is a collaborative effort between the Congress and the administration,' he said. Collins simply replied, 'We look forward to working with you to remedy these problems and the deficiencies in the budget.' Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the appropriations panel, ripped the administration's 'catastrophic' cuts to NIH to date. She said Trump has so far forced out nearly 5,000 employees, prevented nearly $3 billion in grants from being awarded, and terminated nearly 2,500 grants totaling almost $5 billion for life-saving research. 'The Trump administration is already systematically dismantling the American biomedical research enterprise that is the envy of the world, throwing away billions in economic activity in every one of our states,' Murray fumed. 'This budget proposal would effectively forfeit our leadership in research innovation and competitiveness to China.' She tangled with Bhattacharya over one of dozens of clinical trials that have been halted due to frozen NIH funds: a 23-year research effort to develop an HIV vaccine. Scientists there are on 'the cusp of a functional cure for HIV,' she said, and now 6,000 people in that trial have been cut off from treatment. Bhattacharya jumped in to say he is 'absolutely committed' to supporting research on HIV. 'But you did terminate the HIV research at Fred Hutch that, again, was on the cusp of a treatment for 6,000 patients nationwide,' Murray replied, referring to the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. 'You did do that,' she said, as they talked over each other. 'I'd have to get back to you on that,' said Bhattacharya. 'You did do that,' she repeated. After more back and forth, the NIH director said again, 'The budget request is a work of negotiation between Congress and the administration.' Minutes later, he said it yet again, as Murray pressed for details on how many fewer clinical trials there would be next year because of the Trump administration's proposed cuts. 'I'll say this,' Bhattacharya declared. 'The budget itself is a negotiation between Congress and the administration.' He said it several other times, too. In fact, it became clear this was the NIH director's go-to line for defending his own devastating budget request. It simultaneously allowed him to stand by his bosses ― Trump, and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ― while not exactly arguing in support of its specific cuts. 'President Trump has committed that the U.S. be the leading nation in biomedicine in the 21st century,' he said at one point. 'I entirely support that goal.' 'Well, I do too, but it's hard to understand how we're going to get there when the budget slashes funding,' replied Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.). 'Particularly in critical areas of research where our most critical competitor, the Chinese, are increasing funding in those areas and we're slashing the budgets.' Bhattacharya didn't respond. It's possible he may not have agreed with some of his own budget's cuts. Bhattacharya certainly had a hand in crafting his agency's budget, but so did other officials at the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services. Before becoming NIH director in April, Bhattacharya was a professor of medicine, economics and health research policy at Stanford University. He knows how vital and highly esteemed NIH is, worldwide. Why not put it on Congress to save it? 'You say this is a collaborative effort, and you're absolutely right, and I encourage Congress to exert its authorities,' said Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas). 'If Congress were to provide additional dollars above and beyond the president's budget request, how would we as a committee and how would you as NIH recommend for us to prioritize that spending?' Bhattacharya said he's focused on the 'real health needs' of Americans, like diabetes and cancer, and on the 'need to think big' for advancing science. 'Again, the budget, it's a collaborative effort,' he said. 'But I think it's going to be important that we address the real problems in science and the real needs of the American people with whatever budget comes out. That's my job.' Moran redirected Bhattacharya back to the need for more funding at NIH. 'I assume that means we need more resources,' said the Republican senator. 'And that you would put them to good use. Is that accurate?' 'That's my job,' replied the NIH director.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Decatur Police use radio transmitting bracelet to locate lost or missing individuals
DECATUR, Ala. (WHNT) — The Decatur Police Department wants to remind the community of a resource they offer, known as Project Lifesaver. It's a search and rescue program targeted for individuals who have cognitive disorders such as Autism and Alzheimer's that may be prone to wander or get lost. Opening statements begin in trial of Decatur chiropractor charged with attempted murder of wife Decatur Police said the bracelet works through radio frequencies. 'The bracelets have radio transmitters in them, so in the event they get separated from their family, they transmit a radio frequency, and that just really closes in on the amount of time it takes to find them,' Irene Cardenas Martinez said. Martinez is the Public Information Liaison for the Decatur Police Department. When a client signs up for the program, they are given a radio frequency tracking number. That number sits inside the bracelet and inside their computer system. To qualify, they say an individual must: Have a caregiver with them at least 75% of the time. Wear the bracelet at all times. Never drive a vehicle at any time. If an individual is lost, they can enter that number into the Project Lifesaver device, and it tells them where they are located. DPD said there is no cost to enroll in the bracelet department. For more information to see if you or a loved one qualifies, you can call (256) 341-4600 or visit the Police Department's front desk. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Sen. Collins grills NIH director on research cuts
Jun. 10—Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the new director of the National Institutes of Health, faced sharp questions from Sen. Susan Collins and other senators Tuesday about a proposed 40% budget reduction at the NIH and other cutbacks that are disrupting biomedical research. Bhattacharya appeared before the Senate Appropriations Committee's subcommittee on labor, health and human services and education on Tuesday as the Trump administration has slashed funding for biomedical research and public health. On Monday, hundreds of NIH scientists signed a letter, called the "Bethesda Declaration," asking the Trump administration to protect funding for biomedical research. Also Monday, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. raised concerns among public health advocates when he summarily dismissed all 17 members of a key committee that advises the government on approving vaccines. Kennedy, who has falsely questioned the safety and efficacy of vaccines, has not said who he would place on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which among other duties, recommends the formulation for the annual influenza vaccine. At the Senate hearing Tuesday, Bhattacharya largely dodged questions about the Trump administration's proposals to slash the agency, and the ongoing cuts to research grants. Collins, who voted to confirm Bhattacharya but has decried NIH cuts, questioned why the Trump administration is requesting a $19 billion cut to the NIH in the 2026 budget, which she said would "undo years of congressional investment." "It would delay or stop effective treatments and cures being developed for diseases like Alzheimer's, cancer and Type 1 diabetes," said Collins, who is chair of the Appropriations Committee. "We also risk falling behind China and other countries that are increasing their investment in biomedical research." Bhattacharya said the agency is "fully committed" to making progress on Alzheimer's and that the 2026 budget will be a "collaboration" between Congress and the White House. But, despite getting a series of questions from Collins and other Republican and Democratic senators, Bhattacharya did not specifically address the rationale for the budget cuts. Collins has also been speaking out for months against the agency's moves to cap the amount of money that biomedical researchers can use for indirect costs at no more than 15% of their NIH grants. The indirect costs include overhead expenses, equipment and technical support for scientific research and scientists say the cap would hobble research laboratories in Maine and across the country. The amount that NIH grants pay for indirect costs varies by grant, but made up 26% of the cost of each grant, on average, in 2023. Collins has also directly lobbied Kennedy to reverse the NIH cap on indirect costs, and Maine has joined other states in a lawsuit to block the cuts. On Tuesday, Collins said she is still "alarmed and surprised the administration's budget request (for next year) contains the same 15% cap." Bhattacharya said he couldn't discuss the indirect costs issue because of the pending lawsuit, but that there's "lots of great possibilities for reform" on how NIH awards grants for research. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, also pointed out that the NIH has so far in 2025 spent $3 billion less on biomedical research compared to the same time in 2024, largely by freezing or denying grant funding on research that Congress previously approved. Much of the denied funding is the subject of pending lawsuits by states and universities that argue the Trump administration is illegally blocking the funding. The lawsuits argue that the executive branch is required to spend money that Congress approves, and the Trump administration does not have the power to block previously approved funding. "How is this anything other than sabotaging biomedical research?" Baldwin said. Bhattacharya did not answer, except to say he's "happy to work with Congress" on funding issues. Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Illinois, said the cuts to research are disturbing. "For God's sake, we lead the world in medical research. Why would we walk away from it?" Durbin said. Copy the Story Link
