From Melville House:
In 2017, there were reportedly more than 50 million people struggle with dementia worldwide. A shocking number, and one said to double every twenty years. Any doctor will recommend that you keep on top of your physical health — eat right, exercise, get enough sleep. But how often do we take stock of our mental health?
A new study, published by the Journal of the American Medical Association, is the latest in a number of studies exploring how “intellectual activities”—such as, ahem, reading books, newspapers, and magazines—can decrease a person’s chances of developing dementia. Using a sample size of 15,582 Hong Kongers sixty-five and older, the researchers tracked daily activities for five years to investigate whether regular activation of the intellect can reduce risk independent of other lifestyle practices.
. . . .
The conclusion is straightforward: “Active participation in intellectual activities, even in late life, might help delay or prevent dementia in older adults.”
Link to the rest at Melville House
PG reads a great deal, so he hopes the study is valid.
However, he wonders about correlation/causation issues. In his non-expert view, the early stages of dementia could reduce the active participation in intellectual activities by sufferers of the condition.
What evidence would you need to be convinced I have understood A) the article; and B) your point?
I suggest that there is none, other than I agree with you, which I won’t. Not because in principle I wouldn’t, but because your central assertion is unprovable.
The brain is not a muscle like the heart. And the exercise metaphor is just that, a metaphor. The brain is not something that sits idle doing nothing. The myth that we don’t use 90% of our brains is just that a myth.
Your assertion about exercising the brain could be disproved by showing the effects of reading, came not from the act of reading, but from the physical exercise required to get up and join a research programme, and under those conditions sitting and reading is no better than sitting and talking, or sitting and listening to classical music.
However, much that may annoy you, this conversation is over, since we disagree, and there’s no benefit to either of us being that one person who is wrong on the internet.
And since you posted twice, I’m taking the opportunity to expand my reply.
While the source article is sound, the reportage is less so.
“Might” being the operative word that has a slightly different meaning from the lay use of the term.
I look forward to replication studies with different cohorts; and by that different populations, because what one can find in one group doesn’t always appear in another.
I wish it weren’t so.
Sorry for the double post–stupid on my part. I didn’t think the first one went through.
I still think you’re missing the point.
The reason we can’t untangle correlation and causation is because people who are inclined to read might just happen to be less suceptible to dementia, rather than the reading actually helping reduce dementia. The way to test that is to do a design of experiments where you take people who ARE inclined to read and have them not and see if you can get a statistcally measurable effect. In that case you absolutely ARE testing the null hypothesis.
H0 = the effect is not statistically meaninguful (i.e. P > alpha risk)
Ha = the effect is measurable. (i.e. P < alpha risk)
But I can't see any readers signing up for that test–I wouldn't.
Also, saying you can't design an experiment that can SEE the difference, is NOT the same as saying their is no difference. There's a reason it's called inferential statistics.
Anyway, I find it hard to believe that people who vigorously use their brains (like people who vigorously use their hearts) won't do better than people who don't. I can't prove it–but I don't think you've presented any evidence to the contrary.
S. (hopefully posting just once this time.)
I’m afraid this is likely to be correlation rather than causal. While dementia has a large genetic component to it, live long enough, humans all fall to cellular deterioration: be it the brain or another organ.
>I’m afraid this is likely to be correlation rather than causal.
Ashley, you’re guessing. You might be right–though I doubt it. Yes, humans eventually deteriorate as they age. The question is whether reading, et al slows the process. Just as physical exercise strengthens the heart, I suspect mental exercise strengthens the mind. (Of course, I’m guessing, too.)
The way to find out is to do a study where people are told NOT to read, or to read, irrespective of their wishes. Unfortunately I can’t see any readers willing to STOP reading for the rest of their lives to see if they lose their minds. Doesn’t sound super appealing to me.
In the mean time, I doubt it will hurt people to encourage them to be mentally active (including reading)–and it MIGHT help!
S.
I used to work in mental health and studying research and determining the validity of results was part of my job. Yes, I’m guessing, but I’ll stand by correlation doesn’t equal causation.
Psychological research is notorious for the lack of replicability, because of confounding variables.
Where studies have controlled for these (age, education, social class, wealth) what emerges is that one’s genetic inheritance plays a large part in determining predictions about your health.
And BTW your research proposal wouldn’t pass muster. What one needs is to test the null-hypothesis; look for the evidence that contradicts your hypothesis, rather than make assertions that doing “X” might help.
>I’m afraid this is likely to be correlation rather than causal.
Ashley, you’re guessing. You might be right–though I doubt it. Just as physical exercise strengthens the heart, I suspect mental exercise strengthens the mind.
The way to find out is to do a study where people are told NOT to read, or to read, irrespective of their wishes. Unfortunately I can’t see any readers willing to STOP reading for the rest of their lives to see if they lose their minds. Doesn’t sound super appealing to me.
In the mean time, I doubt it will hurt people to encourage them to be mentally active (including reading)–and it MIGHT help!
My dad suffers from dementia. He’s a life-long reader, and his first sign, five years before any other, was when he stopped reading.
He said that he stopped being able to sink into a story; the individual words just sat in his mind without taking him off anywhere.
Sorry to hear that, Tara
My mother is 92, still takes care of herself, including running errands and cooking, and is a voracious reader.