
Dementia May Not Always Be the Threat It Is Now. Here's Why.
Joan Presky worries about dementia. Her mother lived with Alzheimer's disease for 14 years, the last seven in a memory-care residence, and her maternal grandfather developed dementia, too.
'I'm 100 percent convinced that this is in my future,' said Ms. Presky, 70, a retired attorney in Thornton, Colo.
Last year, she spent almost a full day with a neuropsychologist, undergoing an extensive evaluation. The results indicated that her short-term memory was fine — which she found 'shocking and comforting' — and that she tested average or above in every cognitive category but one.
She's not reassured. 'I saw what Alzheimer's was like,' she said of her mother's long decline. 'The memory of what she went through is profound for me.'
The prospect of dementia, which encompasses Alzheimer's disease and a number of other cognitive disorders, so frightens Americans that a recent study projecting steep increases in cases over the next three decades drew enormous public attention.
The researchers' findings, published in January in Nature Medicine, even showed up as a joke on the Weekend Update segment of 'Saturday Night Live.'
'Dementia is a devastating condition, and it's very much related to the oldest ages,' said Dr. Josef Coresh, director of the Optimal Aging Institute at NYU Langone Health and the senior author of the study. 'The globe is getting older.'
Now the findings are being challenged by other dementia researchers who say that while increases are coming, they will be far smaller than Dr. Coresh and his co-authors predicted.
Using data from about 15,000 Americans over age 55, collected at four research clinics around the country from 1987 through 2020, Dr. Coresh's team projected a lifetime dementia risk much higher than previous studies had: 42 percent, though most of that risk didn't emerge until after age 85.
The higher lifetime number probably reflected the study's reliance on a more diverse sample than earlier researchers had used, Dr. Coresh said, and more dementia cases identified through in-depth questionnaires, regular phone calls, medical records and death certificates.
The researchers applied their risk calculations to the U.S. population and estimated that the number of people who would develop dementia each year would roughly double, to about a million by 2060, from 514,000 in 2020.
Eric Stallard, an actuary and co-director of the Biodemography of Aging Research Unit at Duke University, read the study and thought the team 'seemed very competent at their analysis' of individual risk.
But when it came to the projection that cases would double, which assumed that the incidence of dementia would remain stable over the next 40 years, 'I don't believe it,' Mr. Stallard said.
'The notion that the number of people with dementia will double over the next 25, 30 or 35 years due to the aging of baby boomers is widespread, it's pervasive — and it's wrong,' he added.
He and two other Duke researchers recently published a commentary in JAMA pointing out that the age-specific prevalence of dementia in this country had steadily declined for 40 years.
'If your risks are lower than your parents' risks and this trend continues, you won't see the doubling or tripling of dementia that's been projected,' said Dr. Murali Doraiswamy, director of the Neurocognitive Disorders Program at Duke and a co-author of the JAMA article.
To be clear, experts agree that the number of people with dementia will climb in coming decades, simply because the disorder rises so steeply with age and the number of older adults in the United States will increase.
But Mr. Stallard estimates that the increase will be more like 10 to 25 percent by 2050. 'It will still be a significant challenge for the health system in the U.S.,' he said.
The Duke group relied on its own long-term study of people over age 65, with more than 21,000 respondents in 1984 and about 16,000 in 2004, plus later data from the national Health and Retirement Study and the National Health and Aging Trends Study.
Their analysis found that among 85- to 89-year-olds, for instance, the proportion with dementia was about 23 percent in the cohort born in 1905. In those born 10 years later, the figure had dropped to about 18 percent.
By the time Americans born in 1935 reached their late 80s, about 11 percent had dementia; the projection for those born from 1945 to 1949 is now about 8 percent.
To Dr. Coresh, whose primary interest was in individual risk, the assumption that past declines would continue at about the current rate 'would be great, but is quite an optimistic, dramatic decrease,' he said in an email.
Yet in another longitudinal study of older adults in England and China, published in Nature Aging last year, 'we also found these quite marked improvements in more recently born cohorts,' said the lead author, Dr. John Beard, a medical epidemiologist at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University.
'You would expect the increase in the absolute numbers of people with dementia in the U.S. will be less than we feared,' Dr. Beard said.
What has led to the decrease in dementia, also seen in several European countries? Often cited explanations include rising education levels, reduced smoking and improved treatment for high blood pressure and high cholesterol.
The Lancet Commission on dementia, intervention and care has developed a list of 14 modifiable risk factors, including greater use of hearing aids and reduced air pollution, that could still lead to greater declines.
Yet the reverse could also happen. If earlier and more widespread testing increases the number of dementia diagnoses, or if the definition of dementia broadens, rates will increase, Dr. Doraiswamy noted. Increasing life expectancy would have the same effect.
Obesity and diabetes, more common in recent decades, could lead to more dementia, but much-touted new drugs that reduce them could blunt that trend — if people can get them.
'None of this is inevitable,' said Dr. Gill Livingston, a psychiatrist at University College London who leads the Lancet Commission. 'It depends on what we do.'
Public health policy makes a major difference, she noted, and, 'The U.S. is in a time where policy is changing enormously.'
Dementia rates might rise, for example, 'if people have less access to health care, so they are less likely to get their blood pressure treated and their high cholesterol treated,' Dr. Livingston said.
Slashed Medicaid coverage could lead to that result. So could a rollback of environmental policies, 'if air pollution increases because of fossil fuels,' she added.
Already, dementia afflicts some American populations far more than others, researchers point out. Older women and Black people face greater risk, along with those who carry the APOE4 gene associated with Alzheimer's disease.
Health disparities could mean that 'affluent people will see lower rates of dementia' because of the new diabetes and obesity drugs, Dr. Doraiswamy said. 'People who can't afford them and whose conditions are not well-managed will see rates go up.'
The debate about how many older adults will develop dementia in coming decades, and about how individuals, families, government and the health care system should respond, will likely continue.
So will Ms. Presky's fears.
For now, she enrolls in lifelong learning classes, takes walks and yoga classes despite orthopedic problems, listens to podcasts and reads a lot of history and fiction. She and her husband take in theater in New York and Phish concerts on the West Coast and will soon be heading to London and Paris.
Still, her advance directive contains many provisions about dementia. 'I remain pessimistic,' she said, noting that her mother was diagnosed at 77. 'I have seven more years before I meet her fate.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Chicago Tribune
43 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Jim Taylor: What my wife's experience with Alzheimer's has taught me
After several unexplained memory slips, there came a day when my wife, Geri, didn't recognize her own face in the mirror. That's when we knew it was time for her to get checked out. It was 2012, and Alzheimer's was a feared diagnosis. At the time, billions of dollars of investments into research and development had failed to produce treatments that could prevent, slow or cure the disease. Getting a definitive diagnosis would be extremely difficult, but the alternative was living with years of the landscape for Alzheimer's diagnosis and treatment has taken a great leap forward. It is increasingly possible to manage the disease and live a fulfilling life. We have reached a historic moment with the FDA's approval of the first blood biomarker tests for Alzheimer's. This long-awaited breakthrough means physicians can now detect early signs of Alzheimer's — which accounts for 70% of all cases of dementia — using a simple blood test that can be done during a regular check-up with your PET scans remain important for confirming a diagnosis, they are only available at specialized centers, typically in urban medical centers, and they are expensive. Blood biomarker tests now offer an easy first step in the diagnostic journey. They provide fast answers for people experiencing memory problems and can even spot early signs of cognitive decline years before symptoms appear. Without these tests, most people have a long, challenging path to wife Geri's path to diagnosis was anything but simple. In 2012, a neurologist confirmed she had mild cognitive impairment, a common precursor to Alzheimer's. It was a life-altering event. Over the next few years, we knew we had to dig deeper into the cause of her condition, to uncover any potential medical options. Eventually we found a clinical trial for an experimental Alzheimer's drug, and she received a PET scan to determine whether she qualified for the trial. Her brain scan detected amyloid plaque, the telltale sign of Alzheimer's. The diagnosis was difficult to face, but it meant we didn't have to struggle with uncertainty. We could act.I understand the fear that surrounds an Alzheimer's diagnosis, but catching it early helps. Changes in the brain begin years before memory problems become noticeable. The earlier the diagnosis, the more options people have. Research shows that anti-amyloid therapies are more effective when administered earlier: In one clinical trial, patients with early Alzheimer's showed 35% slowing of cognitive decline, compared with those on the placebo. These treatments can help people maintain their independence longer and make the most of their lucid was fortunate to participate in a clinical trial that significantly slowed her disease progression. The seven-year trial period was a game-changer for us. The regular infusions were a source of hope as we saw her benefit from the medication. This precious time allowed Geri to develop coping strategies to manage her disease. Together, we traveled across the country giving talks about living with Alzheimer's disease, and Geri needed very little assistance. We cherished this time together — years made possible because we sought answers early. Following the FDA's landmark approval of blood biomarker tests, the next step is making these tests widely available. Hospitals and health care systems across the country should ensure primary care physicians are aware of these tests and understand how to use them. Public education campaigns can raise awareness with people who have concerns about cognitive impairment and their detection gives people meaningful choices, and most importantly it gives people time. Time to benefit from lifestyle changes, participate in groundbreaking clinical trials, and access treatments when they can make the greatest difference. Although facing a potential Alzheimer's diagnosis is daunting, waiting only limits a person's options. If you're concerned that you or a loved one might have signs of cognitive impairment, please don't stay in the dark. Blood biomarker tests offer real hope in a new era of Alzheimer's care. The sooner we embrace these advances, the more precious time we can preserve.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Yes, biking can be a lot of fun. But is it good exercise?
Few summer activities are as popular as cycling. Whether you're going for a leisurely ride along a city bike trail, hopping on a mountain bike to practice stunts and explore nature or using your bicycle as a mode of transportation to and from the store or work, you're sure to spot other cyclists nearby. In fact, cycling is the third most popular recreational activity in the U.S. with more than 56 million Americans doing it in 2024 alone. But beyond being a lot of fun and good for one's mental health by improving social connections and spending time outside, is cycling actually good exercise? Here's how biking can be good for both your heart and your muscles, plus how to get the most out of a cycling workout. Biking – or cycling, as it is more commonly called – "is considered an excellent form of exercise due to its numerous health benefits," says Dr. Michael Fredericson, director of the physical medicine and rehabilitation division of Stanford University. As a moderate-intensity aerobic exercise, it boosts cardiovascular health by elevating your heart rate, lowering your blood pressure, strengthening cardiac tissue, improving respiratory fitness and reducing your risk of heart disease. "It's also helpful in stabilizing blood glucose levels, lessening insulin resistance and lowering cholesterol by improving blood lipids," says Daryl Parker, emeritus professor of exercise science at Sacramento State University. Such benefits are among the reasons research shows "a strong relationship between commuter cycling and decreased all-cause mortality," says Fredericson. Cycling also builds endurance, releases feel-good hormones and improves flexibility and joint mobility. And the activity burns plenty of calories, with research from Harvard Medical School showing a 155-pound person burning 252 calories in just 30 minutes of moderate intensity cycling and close to 300 calories when doing so vigorously. The exercise also "enhances metabolic function," says Brad Schoenfeld, a professor of exercise science at Lehman College of the City University of New York, which means it's using more energy that other movements, leading to burning more fat stores for energy. This is why studies show that cycling can be helpful in preventing obesity and maintaining a healthy is aerobic exercise? And what are some examples? Along with such cardiovascular and weight management benefits, regularly riding your bike can also help you build muscle. While cycling involves muscle groups throughout most of the body, most growth occurs in the lower body and hip flexor muscles. "The quadriceps muscle group is particularly heavily engaged during pedaling," says Fredericson, "and the hamstrings are also activated." He points out that hip flexors are involved to aid with balance and stabilization and glute muscles are also strengthened. "And it's fair to say that upper body muscles such as the trapezius, latissimus dorsi and anterior deltoid are also engaged," he adds. Cycling accomplishes such growth through the force of resistance that propelling one's weight forward, but it also releases "chemicals known as metabolic stimuli in the muscle that can lead to an increase in muscle size," says Parker. What's more, the activity has the advantage of aiding in muscle growth and maintenance while still being a low-impact exercise – meaning it's unlikely to aggravate your bones and joints. At the same time, you're only likely to keep building muscle to a certain point before most of your time on a bike will be spent maintaining the muscles you already have. Because you're not able to keep adding more and more weight to the exercise, "cycling does not progressively overload your muscles," Schoenfeld says. "For continued increases in muscle size, a person would need to perform resistance training." Resistance vs. strength training? Learn how to build strength and muscle mass Capitalizing on the cardiovascular and muscle-building benefits of cycling means participating in the sport regularly. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends adults get at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity per week. Cycling is one of many exercises that qualify, but meeting this recommendation means doing it or other similar activities for at least 30 minutes a day, 5 days a week. No matter how often you engage in cycling, it's important to do so safely. "To stay safe while bike riding, wear a helmet, be visible with bright clothing and lights, follow traffic laws, use hand signals and be aware of your surroundings," advises Fredericson. He also recommends inspecting your tires, brakes and other components often to ensure they are in good working order and making sure your bike frame is the correct size for your body. Parker agrees, noting that local bike shops can be helpful with fitting you to the best size of bicycle. "And don't neglect learning how to handle your bicycle effectively," he adds. "The knowledge of how to stop quickly and dismount and how to make quick turns to avoid obstacles, other riders and automobiles are all important skills in staying safe." This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Is biking good exercise? It's better for you than you might think.


Newsweek
3 hours ago
- Newsweek
Can Tackling Addictions Reduce Medicaid Costs?
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Discussions around Medicaid costs have become more heated than ever in recent months as President Donald Trump's administration tries to push its budget bill through the legislative ranks. House Republicans have instructed the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to slash $880 billion in spending over the next decade, with Medicaid making up 93 percent of the committee's budget. As a result, the amount of money the federal Medicaid program needs to provide health care services for more than 70 million Americans has been under dispute, with some arguing there is significant waste and misuse of money in the system, while others have warned cuts would leave millions of vulnerable people without access to health care. While lawmakers continue debating the divisive legislation, experts have discussed with Newsweek whether there could be another way of reducing Medicaid costs—tackling substance use disorders. Medicaid enrollees with substance use disorders require significantly higher health costs than those without—around $1,200 per month on average compared to $550, according to KFF. Around 7.2 percent of Medicaid recipients age 12 to 64 have a diagnosed substance use disorder, and treatment is key to addressing overdoses, deaths and other health or social complications, KFF reported. So could tackling substance use disorders in turn reduce costs for the Medicaid program? Here's what experts told Newsweek. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva Why Are Medicaid Costs Higher for Those With Substance Use Disorders? The reason Medicaid enrollees with substance use disorders have higher health costs is because they often also have additional health complications, Dr. Joshua Lynch, professor of emergency and addiction medicine at the University at Buffalo Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, New York, told Newsweek. This could be physical health conditions, such as hypertension, high cholesterol and diabetes, or mental health disorders, "which can lead to more complex health care needs," he added. Those with substance use disorders also may "experience more fragmented care and more challenging access to high quality, lower cost care and preventative services," Lynch said. They may also struggle to work, or stay in work, and this may "contribute to increased reliance on higher-cost healthcare services," he added. Many Americans with substance use disorders also go undiagnosed, Brendan Saloner, professor of health policy and management at the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Maryland, told Newsweek. He added that those with substance addiction can have a lot of problems, such as the risk of overdose, or contracting blood-borne diseases like HIV or hepatitis C, as well as other issues, so "it's much better to get people into care proactively then to wait for their problems to become a crisis." The higher costs for those with substance use disorders, therefore, could "reflect the devastating physical consequences of substance use itself," Heidi Allen, professor of social work at the Columbia University School of Social Work, New York, told Newsweek, pointing to overdoses, increased vulnerability for chronic illness and exposure to infectious diseases. It's also not just about health complications, John Kelly, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and director of the Recovery Research Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital, told Newsweek. "The nature of these disorders means also that, on average, in the Medicaid population, individuals suffering from substance use disorder tend to have more social instability in terms of secure housing, employment, and criminal justice complications. These all contribute to increased costs," he said. Could Tackling Substance Use Disorders Reduce Medicaid Costs? While tackling substance use disorders may not slash Medicaid costs in the short term, as it would require investment in prevention and treatment, it could have positive economic impacts in the long run. "Prioritizing substance use treatment for enrollees might not reduce Medicaid costs in the short term, since we would expect more Medicaid enrollees to engage with treatment, which itself costs money," Allen said. However, she added that "it could certainly improve the health of enrollees, which might result in Medicaid savings down the road." If patients also have access to high-quality treatment and are able to manage their condition, "they have a lower reliance on high-cost health care such as emergency visits and inpatient hospitalizations," Lynch said. He added that other comorbidities also become more manageable, while housing stability and employment turn more achievable. "All of these will lead to a decrease in overall Medicaid spending," he said. Kelly also said he thought that tackling substance use disorders could reduce costs for Medicaid, adding that "focus on earlier intervention, and better implementation of care coordination will result in reduced use of more expensive acute medical care services, as well as prevention of the contraction of more chronic disease such as alcohol-associated liver diseases, HIV and hepatitis infections." "I am very confident that it would help to prevent some long-term costs to the program and would have a huge impact on other non-health needs like employment and reduced incarceration," Saloner said. But he added that whether it fully pays for itself, or saves money, is a more difficult question to answer. "We have some older studies showing that substance use care can offset lots of costs to society, but purely from the perspective of the Medicaid budget it's hard to say. The quality of life gains make it very cost-effective, whether or not it's cost saving," he said. Carrie Fry, professor in the department of health policy at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Tennessee, told Newsweek: "Research shows that addressing substance use disorder with effective, evidence-based treatments reduces Medicaid costs." In order to cut Medicaid costs, Fry said, making it easier for people with substance use disorders "to start and remain on effective treatment" would be an important step in the process. "For opioid use disorder, this means expanding availability of medications for opioid use disorder including methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone," she said. She added that only about half of Medicaid enrollees with an opioid use disorder receive evidence-based treatment in a given year. "So, treatment is an important first step to addressing the burden of substance use disorders in Medicaid and can reduce or prevent additional downstream costs," Fry said. She added that reducing the prevalence of substance use disorder via prevention will "require a more comprehensive approach to addressing broader social conditions that lead to increased risk of developing a substance use disorder."