The One Quality Most ‘Super-Agers' Share
Leigh Steinman, 82, spends much of his time working on art projects with the children who live in his Chicago neighborhood and watching the Cubs play at Wrigley Field, which is just a block away. Mr. Steinman worked at the stadium as a security guard for 17 years before retiring at the beginning of the pandemic (his prior career was as an advertising copywriter). But he still walks over three or four times a week during the summer to see former co-workers and fellow fans.
Mr. Rehbock and Mr. Steinman are both considered 'super-agers,' people 80 and up who have the same memory ability as someone 20 to 30 years younger. Scientists at Northwestern University have been studying this remarkable group since 2000, in the hopes of discovering how they've avoided typical age-related cognitive decline, as well as more serious memory disorders like Alzheimer's disease. A new review paper published Thursday summarizes a quarter century of their findings.
Super-agers are a diverse bunch; they don't share a magic diet, exercise regimen or medication. But the one thing that does unite them is 'how they view the importance of social relationships,' said Sandra Weintraub, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine, who has been involved in the research since the start. 'And personality wise, they tend to be on the extroverted side.'
This doesn't surprise Ben Rein, a neuroscientist and the author of the forthcoming book, 'Why Brains Need Friends: The Neuroscience of Social Connection.'
'People who socialize more are more resistant to cognitive decline as they get older,' Dr. Rein said. And, he added, they 'have generally larger brains.'
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'There's a core ethical dilemma': How ringside doctors in boxing and MMA approach a difficult job in brutal sports
Margaret Goodman was a young neurologist just beginning to try out the role of ringside physician in her home state of Nevada when she got some advice from Donald 'Doc' Romeo, a man who by then estimated he'd worked somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000 fights, from Muhammad Ali's destruction of Floyd Patterson to the 'eight minutes of fury' between Marvin Hagler and Thomas Hearns. 'First thing he told me was, 'don't go in the ring,'' Goodman said. 'I was like, what? I'm the ringside physician. If a fighter's hurt, that's what I'm here for. I've got to go in the ring. [Romeo] shook his head and said, 'no matter what happens, don't go in the ring.'' It took Goodman a while to understand what he was telling her. She didn't get it at first. But after she went from working amateur Golden Gloves events to major pro fights in Las Vegas, the epicenter of boxing in America, it started to become clear. Once a doctor steps in the ring, she's essentially on stage, in the spotlight, subject to all kinds of scrutiny. This is also why Goodman's partner, a fellow ringside physician named Edwin 'Flip' Homansky (the man called in to examine the bite marks on Evander Holyfield's ear that night against Mike Tyson in 1997), asked her if she was sure she'd be able to handle the pressure of this kind of work. 'I thought, pressure? I'm a neurologist. I deal with all kinds of really serious issues. But he was right,' Goodman said. 'Especially somewhere like Las Vegas, where everything is on TV, it is a lot of pressure. It's not just the crowds, either. It's a lot of other people expressing opinions on your work. Commentators, fighters, promoters, other ring doctors. Pressure from the [state athletic] commission. Pressure from the cornermen. You tell yourself none of that is important — and it isn't, because you're still going to do your job and do the right thing — but you realize there's a lot riding on your decisions.' For starters, there's the obvious. What if you recommended that the fight be allowed to continue, only for one fighter to suffer serious or even life-threatening injuries? What if you put a fighter in the ring who was medically unfit to be there in the first place? What if you failed to recognize the seriousness of a cut, and it ended up costing a fighter his eye? But what Goodman found, as she got deeper into the work and got to know more fighters and trainers on a personal level, was that she also had people's careers in her hands at times. And since she was one of the very few female doctors in this space, not to mention one with bright red hair, which made her instantly recognizable on TV broadcasts, people tended to remember every call she made — and they weren't hesitant about bringing them up to her later. 'If a fighter loses or gets stopped in a fight, it can really change what happens to them and where their careers go from there,' Goodman said. 'That's especially true in boxing, though also in MMA to some extent. There are implications, so you have to be aware of that. Bottom line, if someone's in danger, you get them out of there. But you do have to be aware of what that's going to mean for them.' Most fight fans never think about the doctors at ring or cageside unless something bad happens. Maybe the attending physician suggests a fight be stopped due to a cut that really isn't so bad. (Doctors have the power to stop fights on their own in some states, but in others can only recommend that the referee do so, which is a suggestion referees almost always follow.) Even worse, maybe the doctor fails to intervene on time, leaving a fighter to suffer serious injury or death long after the fight should have been stopped. It can be a tricky tightrope to walk for people who have dedicated so much of their lives to healing and helping people. In fight sports, they find themselves a party to something that has as its stated goal the inflicting of damage on one human being at the hands of another. 'This is the core ethical dilemma of every ringside doctor,' said Kirlos Haroun, an emergency room physician at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, who also works as a ringside physician for the Maryland State Athletic Commission. 'Some doctors think about it a lot, and others don't. I've been challenged by some of my mentors who say, are you not consenting to long-term brain damage by being ringside? And I don't have a perfect answer to this. I think, without it being an excuse, this is something that society has accepted. We are allowing people to do this to make money. At a minimum, ringside doctors can be a pathway towards making it as healthy as possible.' As a longtime MMA fan, Haroun admitted that it's far less fun to watch fights as a ringside physician than as a regular observer. 'As a fan, I'm rooting for a knockout,' Haroun said. 'When I'm a ringside doctor, I'm praying for a decision because I do not want to walk in there.' But on those occasions when he is called upon to make a decision about which fights can continue, Haroun said, it requires a doctor to tap into a different kind of thinking. Because, quite frankly, none of this is good for the human body or brain. That's a given. But what a doctor is being asked to decide is whether it's suddenly become unreasonably dangerous as opposed to acceptably risky. That can be a strange head space for a physician to occupy. 'It's mitigation,' Haroun said. 'It's not removing risk, because you can't. The core idea here is to cause traumatic brain injury and knock the other person out. Personally, I think I'm usually able to disconnect it. But every once in a while I'm sitting next to a friend watching fights and they ask me, 'are you OK with this?' I do have these moments of ethical dilemma, and it's hard. It's hard.' Manjit Gosal is not only the medical director for the British Columbia Athletic Commission, he's also a family practice doctor and lifelong martial arts practitioner. This, he said, gives him a certain perspective on the work, since he knows what it feels like to push through pain in competition or insist he's fine when he knows he's not. He also knows what it feels like to suffer a concussion from a well-placed strike. 'I think it was one of my patients who first told me there were MMA events going down on one of the reserves here, back before it was legal,' Gosal said. 'So I thought, well I have to go help out and keep an eye on these guys. … I remember I got a call from the B.C. Athletic Commission — this is, again, way back before MMA was legal here — and they wanted to slap me on the wrist for it. I said, well, I'm a physician. I can help out any person who's in need, anywhere necessary. Then about a year and a half later, as MMA was getting legalized here, they called me back and said, 'we've heard you do these kinds of events. Would you like to work for us?'' Gosal said he's been present for every UFC event in Vancouver since the promotion first starting bringing shows to British Columbia in 2010. He's also worked multiple regional events over the years, watching the sport grow and change in the process. In that time he's had to stop fights over the protests of fighters and their corners. 'Initially, maybe they think they're fine to continue, they can push through this,' Gosal said. 'But I've never had a fighter afterwards say to me, 'how dare you stop that fight.' They've always acted respectfully and said, 'thanks for looking out for me, doc.' I tell them what I'm there to do is protect them, so they can still walk down the stairs and bring a fork to their mouth in their later years. And they understand that.' Many people think cuts come with the toughest judgment calls for a doctor, Gosal said, but it's generally not the case. Most facial lacerations produce more blood than genuine cause for concern. And those that are worth stopping a fight over tend to announce themselves with a certain obvious clarity. 'You're asking yourself, is it in a high-risk area? Is it blocking the vision?' Gosal said. 'If it is, that's pretty simple. It doesn't matter how big the fight is, if I can see bone and it's in an area where the next blow could damage the nerve, over the eye for example and affect this person's vision for the rest of his life, then the fight's got to stop.' The really tricky ones, in Gosal's experience, are the eye pokes that continue to plague MMA, with its open-fingered gloves. Those often come with controversy, as fans argue over what's inadvertent and what might be purposeful, as well as which fighters might be making it out to be more severe than it is in hopes of a point deduction or even a disqualification victory. A lot is left to interpretation in these instances. Sometimes a fighter's vision can clear quickly after an eye poke. Other times it might be impaired for hours or even days. The ringside doctor has a limited time in which to conduct an examination in the cage and make a decision. 'If it's accidental or whether it's deliberate, that doesn't really matter,' Gosal said. 'But there's two aspects to it. Can the athlete see or not? You can assess that, but it's a very short exam that you do when you're in there assessing somebody. You want to be very direct, very quick and get an answer. … But it's going to happen from time to time where those can be used for a way of getting out of a fight, which is fine too. If a fighter wants out, you want to stop it. But I'm sure the fighters sometimes make some calculations on that. Is it the first round? Is it the last round? Am I ahead? That's part of the game as well.' One thing Goodman learned from all her years working boxing and MMA events is that deception is always part of the fight game, and in many different ways. Fighters are constantly trying to trick each other, but also referees and doctors and maybe even their own coaches. That includes not just what happens in the ring or cage, but what's happened in the weeks or months before. 'One of the hardest parts is that you don't know where everyone's coming from,' Goodman said. 'You don't know what's happened in training, if they got hurt in the gym. To really do this job well, I think you need to do as much preparatory work as you can to know who you're dealing with, what might have happened to them in other fights in other jurisdictions.' This, Goodman said, is one reason why it's important for athletic commissions to share information with one another. Without a shared database of fights and fighters, it's left to individual doctors to know who might be coming off a knockout loss too soon, or who's had eye trouble in the past that could become an issue again in future fights, for example. 'But no matter what you think you know,' Goodman said, 'one thing about this sport is you can always have something happen that's never happened before. Then you have to make a decision.'
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The One Supplement You Should Never, Ever Take If You Have High Blood Pressure
The One Supplement You Should Never, Ever Take If You Have High Blood Pressure originally appeared on Parade. If you have high blood pressure, you're likely already aware of the foods you should minimize. Bacon, cheesy entrees, soda and pastries should all only be consumed in moderation. You probably know what you should prioritize too, namely lots of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, plant-based proteins, chicken and you've looked into herbal supplements as a way to further lower your blood pressure. After all, herbs are high in antioxidants, which means they support cardiovascular health, right? While it's true that most herbs are beneficial for heart health—and a great way to add flavor to food in place of salt—there is one herbal supplement that cardiologists warn against taking if you have high blood pressure. It sounds beneficial, but the reality is that it can do more harm than good, and even be dangerous. 🩺SIGN UP for tips to stay healthy & fit with the top moves, clean eats, health trends & more delivered right to your inbox twice a week💊 The Supplement To Avoid If You Have High Blood Pressure We talked to three cardiologists and they all say that people with high blood pressure should avoid taking licorice supplements. 'Licorice root can raise blood pressure by causing sodium retention and potassium loss. This leads to an imbalance that places strain on the cardiovascular system and may lead to serious complications in people with hypertension, says Dr. David G. Rizik, MD,an interventional cardiologist and chief medical officer at High Level Science. Dr. Khashayar Hematpour, MD, a cardiologist with Memorial Hermann and UTHealth Houston, says this too. He says that some people with high blood pressure want to take a licorice root supplement as a way to lower inflammation or to combat symptoms like ulcers and acid reflux. (He adds that licorice supplements are also sometimes taken to soothe a sore throat.) But taking one can be detrimental to heart health if you already have high blood pressure. Related: 'The substance that is in licorice root is glycyrrhizin, and that has a direct effect on increasing your blood pressure, causing fluid retention and lowering your potassium,' Dr. Hematpour says. This means that if you have high blood pressure, you should avoid consuming licorice in any form, such as teas or candies. 'The Food and Drug Administration warns that consuming two ounces of black licorice a day for two weeks will cause potentially serious cardiovascular problems due to increased blood pressure,' Dr. Hematpour says. If you have high blood pressure and you do consume licorice, Dr. Rohit Vuppuluri, DO, an interventional and vascular cardiologist at Chicago Heart & Vascular Specialists, says that this can cause blood pressure to be raised even more, which can lead to symptoms like a headache, blurry vision and swelling due to fluid retention. Dr. Rizik adds that it could even cause arrhythmias, which are an abnormal heart rhythm. 'It's not worth experimenting with if you're managing hypertension,' he says. Related: More Effective Ways To Lower Your Blood Pressure Besides licorice root, Dr. Rizik says that people with high blood pressure should avoid bitter orange because it contains compounds that raise blood pressure. In fact, it's best to talk to your cardiologist or primary care doctor before starting any new supplements if you have high blood pressure. 'I would recommend to anyone considering adding a new supplement to their routine to consult with their physician first, especially if they have high blood pressure or any other medical condition. Everyone is different, and your doctor will be able to advise you on whether a supplement is safe to take, and in what quantity,' Dr. Hematpour says. Related: Instead of relying on supplements, all three cardiologists recommend focusing on having a heart-healthy diet, such as the DASH diet, which was specifically created to keep blood pressure levels in check. Dr. Hematpour says the Mediterranean diet is another eating plan to follow that has been scientifically shown to reduce blood pressure and support cardiovascular health. These diets, he explains, emphasize foods rich in antioxidants, which help lower inflammation. Dr. Vuppuluri adds on to this advice, saying, 'A heart-healthy, anti-inflammatory lifestyle is key. This includes a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, olive oil, nuts, whole grains and fatty fish, along with regular physical activity and seven to eight hours of quality sleep per night.' If you do want to take a supplement that supports your cardiovascular health, Dr. Rizik recommends an omega-3 fatty acid supplement. But you can also get this heart-healthy nutrient by consuming fatty fish, olive oil, nuts and seeds. Diet can play a powerful role in managing blood pressure, but when it comes to taking any supplements, it's best to talk to your doctor first. That way, if you do decide to take a supplement, you'll know it's truly supporting your cardiovascular health. Up Next:Sources Dr. David G. Rizik, MD,interventional cardiologist and chief medical officer at High Level Science Dr. Khashayar Hematpour, MD, cardiologist with Memorial Hermann and UTHealth Houston Dr. Rohit Vuppuluri, DO, interventional and vascular cardiologist at Chicago Heart & Vascular Specialists The One Supplement You Should Never, Ever Take If You Have High Blood Pressure first appeared on Parade on Aug 10, 2025 This story was originally reported by Parade on Aug 10, 2025, where it first appeared.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Hiltzik: These nonfiction writers looked for the future of L.A. Did they find it?
The Los Angeles we know has long been an irresistible subject for novelists and moviemakers — so much so that they've often tortured reality to make it conform to their imagination. Robert Towne mined the history of the Los Angeles Aqueduct in his screenplay for "Chinatown" but moved the story ahead up by some two decades, from 1913 to the 1930s, to give his scenario its noir sensibility. Ridley Scott and his filmmaking team depicted a future Los Angeles beset with darkness and a never-ending downpour of rain for "Blade Runner" — never mind that its source material, Philip K. Dick's novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep," was set in San Francisco, that provincial burg some 400 miles to the north. But the task of depicting a future Los Angeles hasn't been monopolized by fiction writers. Nonfiction writers have joined them in their obsession. They include the late environmentalist Marc Reisner, author of the indispensable "Cadillac Desert," the public policy expert Steven P. Erie of UC San Diego, historians such as Kevin Starr and Carey McWilliams, and polemicists such as Mike Davis. Even most of those whose subject is or has been the L.A. of their own time have taken pains to look ahead. How well have they outlined the future of Los Angeles and Southern California? Let's see. The tone of nonfiction conjectures about the future of Los Angeles generally fall into two categories, elegiac or apocalyptic — and sometimes both: "utopia or dystopia," in the words of Davis. Read more: The 3 essential Mike Davis books that explain L.A. Davis was the avatar of the latter approach. The first of his books about Los Angeles, "City of Quartz" (1990), mostly looked back at the history of the city's development. It was his follow-up, "Ecology of Fear" (1998), that really attempted to sketch out a future for the city, based on his vision of "the great unbroken plains of aging bungalows, stucco apartments, and ranch-style homes — as it erodes socially and physically into the twenty-first century." Davis drew a line from what he saw as "the current obsession with personal safety and social insulation ... in the face of intractable urban poverty and homelessness, and despite one of the greatest expansions in American business history" in the mid-1990s to explain "why fear eats the soul of Los Angeles." He wasn't far wrong. A few years later, I visited the maker of underground nuclear shelters fashioned from corrugated steel at his shop and showroom on the 5 Freeway in Montebello, where he was doing great business for models that started at $78,000 each; "Yes, paranoia does sell" was how I headlined my column. It still does: Guard dogs, surveillance cameras and sentry-protected neighborhood tracts have proliferated all around the Southland. Davis foresaw the continued development of "tourist bubbles" — theme park-like "historical district, entertainment precincts, malls ... partitioned off from the rest of the city" — think developer Rick Caruso's shopping center the Grove, opened in the Fairfax District in 2002, which presents blank or billboarded walls to the outside world, enclosing a Disneyesque landscape of shops and restaurants inconspicuously monitored by security services. ::: As opinion pollsters know, when you ask people what the future will look like, they invariably paint a picture that looks just like the present, only more so: If there's a crime wave when they're being polled, they foretell a world beleaguered by armed gangs; if there's a recession, they expect a world of unrelieved poverty; if it's a period of technological advancement, they foresee a world of flying cars. Writers projecting a future of L.A. tended to fall into the same pattern. The Slovenian transplant Louis Adamic, who had emigrated to the United States in 1913 and settled in the port community of San Pedro, scrutinized Southern California with pitiless objectivity in a 1930 essay titled "Los Angeles! There she blows!" Read more: Reading L.A.: Louis Adamic and Morrow Mayo Adamic mentioned the conviction among Angelenos that their city "will ultimately — perhaps within the next three or four decades — be the biggest city in the world." And he acknowledged that "the place has many great advantages, among the foremost, of course, being Climate, and but a single drawback, which, however, is an extremely serious one — that of water shortage." Nevertheless, noting that the city's population had doubled over the previous 10 years to nearly 2 million, he confidently predicted that it would number 3 million by 1935. It didn't reach that mark until the 1980s, and it's not the first time, nor the last, that a prediction of the city's future overshot the target. His concern about water, of course, was spot-on. Another writer who extrapolated from what he saw of the Los Angeles of his time was Morrow Mayo, whose 1933 book "Los Angeles" is quoted elsewhere in The Times' Future of L.A. package. Mayo expressed the opinion that even if "the territory known as the 'City of Los Angeles'" grew from its then-population of 1.2 million to 4 million or more, he doubted that "it will ever be permanently the great vibrant, vital, nerve-center of the Pacific coast." The reason, Mayo wrote, was its climate — "meant for slow-pulsing life; a climate where man, when he gets adjusted to the environment, takes his siesta in the middle of the day. Go-getterism in this climate does violence to every law of nature." What kept Los Angeles even marginally vibrant was the steady influx of vigorous immigrants from the East and Midwest. After a few generations under the sun, Mayo concluded, "it will settle back to normalcy, and become in tune with nature, for man has never yet failed to adjust himself to the climate in which he lives." Thus did Mayo pioneer the stereotype of the laid-back Angeleno with barely a care in the world. On the other hand, Mayo quoted a fellow prognosticator as finding in the city's industrial districts "that same peculiarly contented type of workman, the same love of little homes 'across the street from the factory,' the diligence and care for the flowers in the front yard, or the fruit trees and vegetables in the rear, a total lack of the Bohemian spirit, the love of a comfortable, humble existence," that could be seen in Philadelphia. As a picture of Los Angeles, Mayo wrote, "I suspect that it is prophetic. 'Los Angeles — the Philadelphia of the West.'" Read more: Contemplating the 'Cadillac Subdivision' Such miscalculations point to another pitfall facing those who would dare to predict the future of Los Angeles: Change has come so rapidly that any prediction can be confounded within the lifetime of its author. Thus Carey McWilliams, that indefatigable chronicler of the California pageant, wrote in his book "Southern California Country: An Island on the Land" that the aircraft industry was "likely to remain in the region and even to expand production." McWillliams wrote those words in 1946; by 1980, when he died, the industry had crashed in Southern California, entering a long period of retrenchment that ended with Boeing's closing of the region's last commercial aircraft manufacturing plant in 2005. The Long Beach plant's 300 workers were transferred to Boeing's military aircraft assembly line, but that was shut down in 2015, ending an era, as The Times observed, in which the region was. "once synonymous with the manufacture of aircraft." The trajectory of the Los Angeles ecology, and by extension that of Southern California and the entire state of California, was the subject of Reisner's 1986 book, "Cadillac Desert." He viewed the water politics of the region, quite properly, through the prism of winner-take-all economics. Water was wasted by farmers and urban residents because it was almost free. That was already beginning to change in his time, he observed, but the process would need years, even decades, to play out — if it ever could. "The West's real crisis is one of inertia, of will, and of myth," he wrote in the closing pages of "Cadillac Desert." Reisner looked ahead, hopefully, to a West that "might import a lot more meat and dairy products from states where they are raised on rain, rather than dream of importing those states' rain .... A region where people begin to recognize that water left in rivers can be worth a lot more — in revenues, in jobs — than water taken out of the rivers." "At some point, perhaps within my lifetime, the American West will go back to the future than forward to the past." Regrettably, Reisner, who died in 2000, didn't live to see that happen. Whether his hope will ever be fulfilled remains an open question. Perhaps the most penetrating look at the future of Los Angeles and its state came from Peter Schrag, a former editorial page editor at the Sacramento Bee. In his 1998 book "Paradise Lost," Schrag sought not simply to foretell the region's future, but to explicate how its future foretold what was in store for the country as a whole. (Its subtitle was "California's Experience, America's Future.") When he wrote the book, California was in one of its boom phases. It was again "the driving engine of national economic growth and likely to remain in that position until well into the next century .... Because of foundations laid forty years go ... it is at the forefront of the world's leading-edge technologies and of its creative energy." (He was right about that, at least up to this moment.) But Schrag also pointed to the state's "increasingly dysfunctional governmental and fiscal public institutions, the depleted state of its public infrastructure, services, and amenities, the growing gaps between its affluent and its poorer residents, and its pinched social ethos," which "hang like dark clouds in the sunny skies." California had exported to other states the facile low-tax policies of Howard Jarvis and Ronald Reagan's view of government as "the problem, not the solution." In addition, Schrag saw that the emergence of social media "may insure against the power of Big Brother to dominate communications, but they also amplify the power of shared ignorance .... What used to be limited to gossip over the back fence is now spread in milliseconds." And he foresaw how the changing demographics of California would be replicated nationwide: "The new kids now crowding into the schools and universities of California — black, brown, Asian — will constitute the majority of the state's workforce, and a good part of the nation's, in the next decade, and forever after," he wrote. Schrag had his finger on an essential truth about Los Angeles and California that remains true to this day: They're the subject of unending curiosity for readers of history and current affairs no less than for consumers of novels and movies. That has been true since the vision of a land of gold — El Dorado — drew the Spanish conquistadors to these shores. The world wishes to know what L.A. and California are, and where they are headed. Kevin Starr, writing in 1995, understood how that impulse would play out in the decades to come. "The United States is testing its future through California," he said in an essay for the website of the California State Library, which he served as state librarian from 1994 to 2004. Establishing California as a "bellwether state," he wrote: "The American people are asking a series of questions which now become the California challenge .... Can the American people turn to positive effect the cultural diversity of a nation in the process of being transformed? ... Can the American people maintain their standards of living and education?" Starr's answer to the questions he posed was a resounding yes! "In recent times," he wrote, the American people have turned to California and asked it to create a technology revolution, and California responded .... The American people have turned to California for new models of lifestyle, new ways of enjoying and celebrating the gift of life, and California responded with an outpouring of architecture, landscaping, entertainment, sport and recreation." The confidence that Starr projected 20 years ago may have faded, and may fade further in the future in Los Angeles and up and down the state. But one thing that probably will remain true is that the region's path into the future will inspire writers to keep peering into their crystal balls, cloudy as they are. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times. Solve the daily Crossword
