Federal food assistance program may slow cognitive decline, study suggests
Although many adults begin to mentally slow down in midlife, researchers found that people over 50 who participated in SNAP, which helps people with low incomes afford groceries, had a 10% slower rate of decline in their memory and thinking skills compared with their peers.
That's equal to gaining two to three additional years of cognitive health over 10 years, said Linlin Da, lead author of the study, who presented her findings Wednesday at the Alzheimer's Association International Conference in Toronto.
By providing a secure source of food, SNAP 'may have some underappreciated benefits for brain health,' said Da, who led the study while she was a doctoral student at the University of Georgia College of Public Health.
The National Institutes of Health-funded study comes just weeks after President Donald Trump signed legislation that the Congressional Budget Office estimates will cut funding for SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, by $186 billion through 2034. Food banks across the United States are already struggling to meet growing demand amid funding cuts from the Agriculture Department.
Food insecurity 'can lead to poor nutrition and chronic disease, and all of that can negatively impact the brain,' Da said. 'So by improving access to nutrient-rich foods, SNAP may support brain health, reduce the stress and promote better health overall.'
The new study, which hasn't yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, leaves many questions unanswered.
Researchers didn't measure which foods study participants consumed, so they don't know if people receiving SNAP benefits had healthier diets.
But doctors know that high-sodium diets can raise blood pressure, one of the most important risk factors for dementia, said Dr. Mitchell Elkind, chief science officer for brain health and stroke at the American Heart Association.
The study also doesn't explain how food security might benefit the brain, said Elkind, who wasn't involved with the research. It's possible that programs such as SNAP relieve the anxiety that people feel when they can't afford their groceries or when they have to choose between paying for food or medication, giving them more mental bandwidth to focus on other issues. Chronic stress has been linked to a higher risk for dementia.
The design of the new study, which followed more than 2,300 older people for 10 years, can't definitively prove that participating in SNAP protects brain health.
It's possible that people who participated in SNAP were cognitively healthier before the study began, Da said. Enrolling in SNAP can be time-consuming and complicated, making it more difficult for people with cognitive problems to complete their applications.
Yet a growing field of research links nutrition, food security and dementia risk.
'Observational studies from around the world have shown us that food insecurity and poor cognitive health go together,' said Kriti Jain, a health administrator at the National Institute on Aging, part of the NIH, who wasn't involved in the study. 'More recent studies have shown us that food insecurity comes before cognitive health gets worse.'
Brain health is shaped by far more than genetics, Da said.
Cognitive aging 'can also be shaped by policies, by the environment and by access to different resources,' she said. 'That means we can do something to change it and improve it.'
Anti-hunger groups contend that cutting SNAP benefits will leave people hungry and less healthy. Research shows that poverty and food insecurity — a condition in which people lack a consistent source of nutritious food —are common risk factors for malnutrition among older adults.
'SNAP is both a lifeline for older adults and a critical public health tool,' said Crystal FitzSimons, president of the Food Research & Action Center, an advocacy group. 'Participating in SNAP can mean extra years of cognitive health, helping older adults remain independent,' instead of moving into nursing homes.
The Republican-led House Agriculture Committee has said the funding reduction 'restores SNAP to its original intent—promoting work, not welfare—while saving taxpayer dollars and investing in American agriculture.'
Food as medicine
Karen Forbes, 61, first participated in SNAP decades ago when she was a single mother of a young child. She reapplied for the program during the pandemic when her pet sitting customers stopped needing her.
Forbes, who lives outside Portland, Oregon, said SNAP has been especially important since she developed long Covid in 2022, which has left her with heavy fatigue, prevents her from working and has caused 'brain fog' that resembles age-related cognitive decline. Forbes said she and her father, who is 82, 'are going through a sort of Alzheimer's thing together.'
Although Forbes said she used to talk 'a million miles a minute,' she now often struggles to find the right word. If she tries to speak too quickly, 'everything comes out jumbled and stupid.' After an 18-month wait, Forbes said she recently began receiving disability benefits from Social Security.
Because of SNAP, Forbes said, she doesn't have to choose between buying groceries and paying her rent or electric bills. Her favorite part of SNAP is being able to afford fresh fruits and vegetables, she said. Oregon's SNAP program provides 'double benefits' for shopping at farmers markets, so people can buy twice as much fresh produce for the same amount of money. Forbes said she tries to follow a healthy diet in the hope of overcoming her illness.
'When you're chronically ill, every little tiny thing you can do to improve your health makes all the difference in the world,' she said.
Food insecurity linked to dementia
Jain described food insecurity as 'a severe and growing public health issue in America.'
In families with member over age 60, the prevalence of food insecurity has almost doubled in the past two decades. Twenty-three percent of such families faced chronic or recurring food insecurity from 2015 to 2019, according to a survey from the NIH published last year in JAMA Health Forum.
Another study published last year found that food insecurity doubled the risk of probable cognitive decline.
And a paper published in 2024 in the Journal of Nutrition found that adults with food insecurity and lower-quality diets had significantly steeper declines in cognitive scores during the study, conducted from 2012 to 2020. In that study, however, participating in SNAP wasn't related to the rate of mental decline, suggesting that SNAP alone 'may be insufficient to prevent negative cognitive effects of poor diet and limited access to nutritious foods.'
Unprecedented cutbacks
The Urban Institute, a nonprofit research organization that focuses on social and economic policy, estimates that funding cuts could lead 22.3 million families to lose some or all of their food benefits.
The 20% decrease in funding is 'the largest cut to SNAP in history,' according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan think tank. The measure will also shift much of the program's cost from the federal government to the states beginning in 2028, as well as expand work requirements for participants.
Seven in 10 of the 42 million people who participate in SNAP are older adults, people with disabilities and families with children.
The new study suggests 'we need more research on the role of healthy diet and nutrition in brain health,' Elkind said. 'In particular, it suggests that there should be more research in the area of food as medicine, meaning the provision of healthy food to people to see what the impact is on cognition, dementia risks and brain health.'
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
6 minutes ago
- Medscape
Unnecessary Blood Culture Testing Persists in Pediatrics
Rates of routine blood culture (BC) testing for uncomplicated infections in children had no significant effect on length of stay, costs, return emergency department visits, or hospital readmissions, according to data from nearly 95,000 hospitalizations presented at the Pediatric Hospital Medicine (PHM) 2025. Routine BC testing has shown minimal value in the clinical management of uncomplicated community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI), and urinary tract infections (UTI), according to Smit K. Shah, MD, a clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine, who presented the findings at the meeting. While such BC testing in an otherwise healthy pediatric population has low clinical benefit, said Shah in an interview, 'downstream harms of such testing may be leading to not just healthcare waste but patient harm.' To review the effect of BC testing patterns on outcomes, Shah and colleagues identified hospitalizations for patients aged 3 months to 18 years admitted with CAP, SSTI, or UTI from 2016 to 2023. The data on 94,524 hospitalizations across 31 hospitals came from the Pediatric Health Information System database. The researchers excluded patients with complicated infections, ICU admission, or hospital stays longer than 1 week. Hospitals were characterized as low-, moderate-, or high-BC testers (13, 10, and 8 hospitals, respectively). The primary outcomes were rates of blood culture testing by infection and hospital, annual rates of testing over 8 years, and clinical outcomes including length of hospital stay, costs, emergency department return visits, and hospital readmissions. The researchers reviewed data for 41% of CAP, 45% of SSTI, and 55% of UTI cases. BC testing rates varied widely; the widest range was from 16% to 77% for low-testing and high-testing hospitals for CAP, respectively. BC testing ranged from approximately 38% to 77% for SSTI and from approximately 22% to 77% for UTI for the low-testing and high-testing hospitals. Over the study period, seven hospitals showed significant increases, 17 showed no changes, and seven showed decreases in annual BC testing. Overall, no significant differences appeared between the high- and low-testing groups in outcome measures of adjusted length of stay, costs, emergency department return visits, hospital readmissions at 7 days, or bacteremia. The findings were limited by several factors including the use of administrative data and potential lack of generalizability to nonacademic hospitals, Shah noted. Many hospitals showed no reduction in BC testing over time, despite growing evidence of no change in outcomes, Shah said in his presentation. The results of the current study suggest that the reassessment of BC use and reduction of unnecessary testing is needed to optimize resources and improve healthcare value, Shah concluded. What Drives Disregard for Guidelines Despite guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics on the futility of BC testing in uncomplicated SSTIs, the proportion of hospitalized children with this infection undergoing testing is alarming and continues to remain high over time, Shah told Medscape Medical News . 'We need to understand drivers of unnecessary testing,' said Shah. Identifying whether unnecessary testing stems from institutional factors or lack of education about futility and downstream effects of unnecessary testing would help direct national stewardship efforts to reduce testing overuse, he said. 'The recent blood culture vial shortage could act as a natural experiment in reducing testing,' Shah noted 'Diagnostic stewardship in regard to blood cultures is important as overuse of blood cultures when not clinically indicated has the potential to lead to false-positive results, antibiotic overuse, antibiotic resistance, and can potentially increase healthcare costs,' said Shirin Mazumder, MD, an infectious diseases specialist in Memphis, Tennessee, in an interview. 'Evaluating scenarios where blood cultures may not be clinically indicated can help to address these issues,' said Mazumder, who was not involved in the study. The fear of missing an invasive infection and changing long-standing practice habits are some barriers to reducing unnecessary BC culture testing, but they can be overcome in part by sharing available study data, said Mazumder. In addition, the development of guidelines to determine which candidates would or would not benefit from BCs would help guide clinicians in best practices, she said. This study was supported in part by grants from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to two of the coauthors. Shah reported no financial conflicts of interest.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Doctors Explain What They Really Think of Biohacking
There are plenty of health trends that pop up and fizzle out fast, but biohacking seems to have staying power. The practice of trying to 'hack' your health for longevity is showing up on podcasts, Netflix documentaries, and all over your For You feed, making it hard to miss. But for all the chatter about biohacking, it's easy to gloss over the actual definition of this practice. What is biohacking, and is it something you should be doing? It's important to state this upfront: Biohacking is a little controversial in the medical field. 'It's using your body as an experiment,' points out Mikhail Kogan, M.D., medical director of the George Washington University Center for Integrative Medicine. While some doctors have a broad view of biohacking that includes things like eating a healthy, varied diet, others view biohacking as more focused on less-proven strategies, like loading up on certain supplements that don't have robust data to back them up. (More on that in a bit.) Meet the experts: Mikhail Kogan, M.D., medical director of the George Washington University Center for Integrative Medicine; Bert Mandelbaum, M.D., sports medicine specialist and co-director of the Regenerative Orthobiologic Center at Cedars-Sinai Orthopaedics in Los Angeles; Kanwar Kelley, M.D., physician and co-founder of Side Health in Orinda, CA; Salim Hayek, M.D., chair of internal medicine at the University of Texas Medical Branch. Whatever your take on biohacking, it's important to at least know what's out there and what it all means. With that in mind, here's what doctors want you to know about biohacking, as well as how to decide if it's right for you. What is biohacking? Biohacking is a broad term used to describe the process of making tweaks to try to improve your health. It can involve sleep, workout routines, supplements, dietary changes, and more. 'Biohacking is essentially DIY biology—making intentional changes to your lifestyle, diet, or environment to optimize health and performance,' explains Salim Hayek, M.D., chair of internal medicine at the University of Texas Medical Branch. 'It ranges from simple tweaks like tracking your sleep or trying intermittent fasting, to more extreme practices like implanting microchips.' Biohacking in the traditional sense means that it's experimental, says Dr. Kogan. 'It wouldn't be called 'biohacking' if it's scientifically proven—that would be standard of care,' he says. But some doctors look at biohacking as people simply trying to improve their health beyond what they may discuss in a routine exam with their physician. 'It's a marketing term that describes things that enhance health, healthspan, and playspan,' says Bert Mandelbaum, M.D., sports medicine specialist and co-director of the Regenerative Orthobiologic Center at Cedars-Sinai Orthopaedics in Los Angeles. 'The essential aspect is that you are what you eat, think, drink, and do. Those are all very important.' The right ways to try biohacking—according to experts Dr. Mandelbaum prefers to look at biohacking as enhancing what you've got with the help of scientifically-proven methods. Kanwar Kelley, M.D., physician and co-founder of Side Health in Orinda, CA, also suggests this approach. 'Biohacking does not need to be overly complicated or require specialized equipment,' he says. 'Adjusting your approach to diet, supplementation, and sleep can help enhance performance and overall health, leading to increased productivity and longevity.' Even meditation and incorporating foods with beneficial properties can fall into this category, he says, among other things. On the supplement front, it's important to talk to your doctor before trying anything new—and your doctor may recommend a blood test to identify if you have any deficiencies. Dr. Hayek also recommends leaning into biohacking in the sense of adding new scientifically-proven healthy behaviors to your life vs. trying whatever crosses your social media feed. 'The real benefits come from evidence-based practices,' Dr. Hayek says, such as prioritizing sleep, exercising, and managing stress. 'The key is that most genuine benefits come from consistent, healthy lifestyle changes—not magic pills or high-tech gadgets,' he says. Some tech can be useful, though, especially in how it helps promote self-awareness: 'Use technology wisely—fitness trackers can keep you accountable, but don't become obsessed with the numbers,' Dr. Hayek says. His other tip? 'Try one change at a time so you can actually tell what's working.' Biohacking practices to avoid—according to experts There are several biohacking practices that doctors recommend taking a pass on, but Dr. Mandelbaum points out that the practice of taking several supplements without talking to a doctor first has been somewhat normalized, even though it's potentially risky. 'Those are the kinds of things you want to avoid: Things that are marketed with no scientific evidence.' Dr. Kelley also suggests being wary of techniques that are marketed as 'complete solutions' to health issues. 'While biohacking can help improve performance, no single method will solve all problems,' he says. 'Techniques should be plausible scientifically and have peer-reviewed scientific backing.' Dr. Hayek recommends avoiding biohacking treatments like "young blood" transfusions, DIY genetic engineering, and amateur implant surgeries. And of course, don't take prescription drugs that weren't prescribed to you, he says. 'Be wary of extreme diets promising miraculous results, or mega-dosing supplements,' he adds. 'If a practice could realistically land you in the hospital, think twice.' Risks of biohacking Because biohacking is such a broad category, there are plenty of potential risks involved in it, Dr. Kogan says. 'Almost anything you can think of is a risk,' he says. If used incorrectly, certain 'anti-aging' drugs may cause heart issues and even death, he points out. 'Many DIY biohacking experiments also lack regulation and safety oversight,' Dr. Hayek says. 'Misinformation is rampant online, and people might delay proven medical treatments for unproven hacks. Plus, it can become expensive and psychologically obsessive.' Does biohacking actually help you live longer and increase healthspan? 'We have no proven way to dramatically extend human lifespan through biohacking yet,' Dr. Hayek says, although who knows what the future may hold. For now: 'The best-documented longevity strategies are quite simple: Don't smoke, eat well, exercise, sleep enough, and manage stress,' he continues. 'Some biohacks that promote these behaviors can contribute to healthspan, living more years in good health. But the extreme anti-aging interventions making headlines? Most lack definitive proof and some are potentially dangerous.' Ultimately, if you want to try to enhance your healthspan and lifespan, doctors recommend sticking with the scientifically-proven basics. You Might Also Like Can Apple Cider Vinegar Lead to Weight Loss? Bobbi Brown Shares Her Top Face-Transforming Makeup Tips for Women Over 50 Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
CVS Health Corporation (CVS) Is A Key Part Of Weight Loss Drug Distribution, Says Jim Cramer
We recently published . CVS Health Corporation (NYSE:CVS) is one of the stocks Jim Cramer recently discussed. CVS Health Corporation (NYSE:CVS) is one of the largest pharmaceutical retailers in America. The shares have gained 36% year-to-date as the firm has enjoyed tailwinds from the struggles of its rival Walgreens. CVS Health Corporation (NYSE:CVS) has also benefited from robust earnings performance and the decision to exit its Obamacare direct sales business. Cramer's previous comments have praised CVS Health Corporation (NYSE:CVS)'s performance in its core drug store business. This time, he pointed to the role the firm plays in the weight loss drug market: '[If market should start thinking about sectoral tariffs after Trump's latest remarks]I mean when I heard it first I said okay, so they put a tariff on Novo Nordisk. It's really good for Eli Lilly. Now that's not necessarily what we're talking about but remember this price differential right now. . CVS, Eli Lilly versus Novo. So for Wegovy versus Zepbound.' Photo by National Cancer Institute on Unsplash In an earlier appearance, Cramer discussed CVS Health Corporation (NYSE:CVS)'s business performance: 'Now we've got some healthcare, some issues to talk about on Thursday, that's right, and these are anything but common steady healthcare companies…. There's CVS, which is under new management, put up some really good numbers, and it's just, that's in health insurance, but also it's core drugstore business, which they've closed, all the under performers… As for CVS, the health insurers have taken it on the chin of late. UnitedHealth and Centene both missed expectations. I bet Aetna sticks it.' While we acknowledge the potential of CVS as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an extremely cheap AI stock that is also a major beneficiary of Trump tariffs and onshoring, see our free report on the . READ NEXT: 30 Stocks That Should Double in 3 Years and 11 Hidden AI Stocks to Buy Right Now. Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey.
