10 mood-boosting foods

 Want to boost your mood and energy? The nutrients in these foods will make you feel a million bucks.

 

 

Tomatoes:

High in lycopene, an antioxidant necessary for optimum mental functioning and resilience.

---

 

Oats:

Traditionally used to soothe nervous exhaustion and fatigue and jam-packed full of nutrients, oats also help reduce cholesterol, improving blood circulation to the brain.

---

Spinach:

Containing folic acid, it helps to protect the brain. Low levels of folic acid can impair concentration.

---

Ginger:

Stimulates circulation and, according to traditional Chinese medicine, keeps the good chi flowing.

---

Avocado:

Rich in potassium, provides the body with stamina. A deficiency of which may cause fatigue and 3-oclock-itis.

---

Eggs:

A convenient and versatile protein source during those lazy winter evenings. Omelette…nom.

---

Cashews:

High in iron for strength, cashews also contain some tryptophan and the other healthy brain fat, omega-9.

---

Beans:

The vegetarian protein of choice, crammed full of nutrients, fibre and complex carbs.

---

Parsley:

Lauded for its flavour, it’s packed with B vitamins that promote better memory and mental alertness.

---

Dark chocolate:

Contains magnesium, tryptophan and anandamide, a chemical that is produced by our brains when we are happy and increases motivation. Hallelujah!

 

5 ways to boost your happiness>>

{nomultithumb}

 

Source : Diet & Nutrition http://ift.tt/1LnZOnU

This Colorblind Man Can’t Believe His Eyes When He Sees Purple for the First Time

The vibrancy and beauty of all the colors we experience day in and day out is something generally taken for granted. For example, the color purple, as pretty as it may be, is just another part of every day life once you’re used to seeing it— in store windows, in advertisements, in flowering rosebushes. But to Ethan Scott, a colorblind student living in Los Angeles, purple was something he’s never seen before, and never thought he’d ever get to see.

That was until his boyfriend James surprised him with a pair of EnChroma CX Lenses for his birthday. These lenses look like regular sunglasses, but they are designed to correct red-green color blindness, also known as “poor color vision.”

Related: Best Sunglasses for Healthy Eyes

Without telling Scott what the glasses were, James filmed his boyfriend’s reaction and the results are equal parts funny and sweet.

Scott warns audiences before the video starts: “Please pardon the profanity, I’m Italian and easily excitable.” At first, he doesn’t know what the glasses are, saying “These are nice!” as anyone opening a gift would. But he quickly realizes these are not normal sunglasses.

“What are these?” he asks.

It’s hard not to feel his emotional reaction at seeing purple for the first time ever, as well as seeing the true vibrancy of green and pink. And that’s before he even gets outside to see the grass!

Related: User’s Manual: Eyes

He explains in the video: “I was honestly just shaking and couldn’t comprehend what I was seeing.”

It’s pretty impossible for people without this particular vision issue to comprehend what life would look like, but if you want to get a more accurate picture of the difference Scott experienced, there’s actually an app for that, called Colorblind Vision ($3, iTunes). According to the creators’ website, it “simulates the most severe deficiencies” when you wave your smartphone camera over something, so that people with normal vision can relate to and help design for people with colorblindness.

RELATED: Here’s What Color and Vision Experts Have to Say About the Blue and Black (or White and Gold?) Dress

from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1ecing1

Poverty May Hinder Kids’ Brain Development, Study Says

By Dennis Thompson
HealthDay Reporter

MONDAY, July 20, 2015 (HealthDay News) — Poverty appears to affect the brain development of children, hampering the growth of gray matter and impairing their academic performance, researchers report.

Poor children tend to have as much as 10 percent less gray matter in several areas of the brain associated with academic skills, according to a study published July 20 in JAMA Pediatrics.

“We used to think of poverty as a ‘social’ issue, but what we are learning now is that it is a biomedical issue that is affecting brain growth,” said senior study author Seth Pollak, a professor of psychology, pediatrics, anthropology and neuroscience at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

The results could have profound implications for the United States, where low-income students now represent the majority of kids in public schools, the study authors said in background information. Fifty-one percent of public school students came from low-income families in 2013.

Previous studies have shown that children living in poverty tend to perform poorly in school, the authors say. They have markedly lower test scores, and do not go as far in school as their well-off peers.

To see whether this is due to some physical effect that poverty might have on a child’s brain, Pollak and his colleagues analyzed MRI scans of 389 typically developing kids aged 4 to 22, assessing the amount of gray matter in the whole brain as well as the frontal lobe, temporal lobe and hippocampus.

“Gray matter contains most of the brain’s neuronal cells,” Pollak said. “In other words, other parts of the brain — like white matter — carry information from one section of the brain to another. But the gray matter is where seeing and hearing, memory, emotions, speech, decision making and self-control occur.”

Children living below 150 percent of the federal poverty level — $36,375 for a family of four — had 3 percent to 4 percent less gray matter in important regions of their brain, compared to the norm, the authors found.

Those in families living below the federal poverty level fared even worse, with 8 percent to 10 percent less gray matter in those same brain regions. The federal poverty level in 2015 is $24,250 for a family of four.

These same kids scored an average of four to seven points lower on standardized tests, the researchers said.

The team estimated that as much as 20 percent of the gap in test scores could be explained by reduced brain development.

A host of poverty-related issues likely contribute to developmental lags in children’s brains, Pollak said.

Low-income kids are less likely to get the type of stimulation from their parents and environment that helps the brain grow, he said. For example, they hear fewer new words, and have fewer opportunities to read or play games.

Their brain development also can be affected by factors related to impoverishment, such as high stress levels, poor sleep, crowding and poor nutrition, Pollak said.

This study serves as a call to action, given what’s already known about the effects of poverty on child development, said Dr. Joan Luby, a professor of child psychiatry at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

“The thing that’s really important about this study in the context of the broader literature is that there really is enough scientific evidence to take public health action at this point,” said Luby, who wrote an editorial accompanying the study.

“Poverty negatively affects brain development, and we also know that early interventions are powerfully effective,” Luby said. “They are more effective than interventions later in life, and they also are cost-effective.”

Communities, charitable groups and government programs can help increase stability in these homes, Pollak and Luby said. All children should have a regular home and a bed, good nutrition, stimulating educational programs and social activities, and parents who are less stressed and can spend more time with them.

“It’s kind of like growing a garden,” Luby said. “If you planted seeds and you failed to water the seeds and didn’t fertilize them, your garden wouldn’t grow very well. Children are the same.”

More information

For more on child development, visit the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

---

from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1GwuHOW

Activity in Genes, Immune Cells Tied to Cancer Survival in Study

By Amy Norton
HealthDay Reporter

MONDAY, July 20, 2015 (HealthDay News) — A cancer patient’s chances of survival seem to depend partly on activity in specific genes and immune system cells, a new study suggests.

Using data from nearly 18,000 people who were treated for cancer, scientists found that particular patterns of gene activity corresponded to patients’ survival odds — across a whole range of cancers, including brain, breast, colon and lung cancers.

What’s more, the particular mix of immune system cells within patients’ tumors also correlated with their prognosis, the investigators found.

The researchers said the findings, published online July 20 in Nature Medicine, could eventually be used to find new targets for cancer therapies — or to help predict patients’ chances of responding to some existing treatments.

The discoveries have been compiled in a database that’s available to other researchers, said senior study author Dr. Ash Alizadeh, an assistant professor at Stanford University’s School of Medicine, in California.

One hope, he said, is that the information can be translated into ways to predict a cancer patient’s outlook and help guide treatment choices.

Eventually, it might also prove useful in zeroing in on patients who are likely to respond to new cancer treatments that target the immune system. Those treatments, known collectively as immunotherapy, aim to boost the body’s innate cancer-fighting potential.

“The most exciting emerging therapies for cancer are immune-based,” Alizadeh said. “But so far, these therapies work well for certain cancers, but not for others. Or they work for a subset of patients, and not for others.”

Researchers are still trying to understand why, Alizadeh said.

At its essence, cancer is the uncontrolled growth and spread of abnormal cells. According to Alizadeh, many of the genes linked to cancer survival are involved in controlling cell growth and division.

One gene, called FOXM1, was associated with a poor prognosis, across a range of cancers, when its activity was high, the study found. In contrast, high activity in a gene called KLRB1 — which influences the immune response to cancer — was connected to better survival odds.

Overall, the researchers said, they were able to pinpoint the top 10 genes tied to a better prognosis, and the 10 most strongly connected to a poor outcome.

To get a better look at the immune cells tied to survival, the researchers “blended up” tumor samples, then took a detailed look at their “ingredients,” Alizadeh explained.

The researchers found some clear patterns: For example, people whose tumors had high levels of immune cells called plasma cells had a better prognosis; plasma cells secrete antibodies to fight foreign invaders.

On the other hand, when tumors had a high concentration of cells called neutrophils, the patient’s outlook tended to be worse.

Dr. Marcus Bosenberg, a researcher who was not involved in the work, said the study’s approach — looking at patterns across different cancers — can “give you insights you wouldn’t have when looking at individual cancers.”

However, it’s not clear yet how the information could be practically useful, according to Bosenberg, a co-leader of the Cancer Genetics and Genomics Program at Yale Cancer Center in New Haven, Conn.

“We don’t know how this would add to existing ways of estimating patients’ prognosis,” Bosenberg said.

The hunt for “prognostic markers” is a hot area in cancer research right now, Bosenberg added.

There are even some tests on the market that analyze certain sets of genes, to determine whether a cancer patient might benefit from a given treatment. An example is the Oncotype DX test, which can help predict whether a woman with early stage breast cancer has a high risk of recurrence: If she does, additional therapy — with chemo or radiation — could be considered.

Bosenberg agreed that immune-based therapies are the “most exciting” approaches in cancer research right now. And it’s possible, he said, that the immune cells that were key in this study could offer some type of “biomarker” that would predict patients’ likelihood of responding to certain immunotherapies.

But much more research is needed first, Bosenberg said.

More information

The American Cancer Society has more on genes and cancer.

---

from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1LnRHYr

Loneliness May Fuel Mental Decline in Old Age

MONDAY, July 20, 2015 (HealthDay News) — Loneliness and depression are linked to an increased risk of mental decline in the elderly, a new study suggests.

Researchers analyzed data from more than 8,300 American adults aged 65 and older who were assessed every two years between 1998 and 2010. Seventeen percent reported loneliness at the beginning of the study, and half of those who were lonely had depression.

Over the course of the study, mental decline was 20 percent faster among the loneliest people than among those who weren’t lonely. People who were depressed at the start of the study also had faster mental decline.

However, lower mental function did not lead to worsening loneliness, according to the study scheduled for presentation Monday at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference in Washington, D.C. Data and conclusions presented at meetings are usually considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.

“Our study suggests that even one or two depressive symptoms — particularly loneliness — is associated with an increased rate of cognitive decline over 12 years,” study author Dr. Nancy Donovan said in an association news release. She is a geriatric psychiatrist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and an instructor in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.

“We found that lonely people decline cognitively at a faster rate than people who report more satisfying social networks and connections. Although loneliness and depression appear closely linked, loneliness may, by itself, have effects on cognitive decline,” she explained.

This is important to know for the development of treatments to enhance mental health and quality of life for older adults, she added.

The new study suggested a link between loneliness, depression and heightened risk of mental decline, but it did not prove cause-and-effect.

More information

The U.S. National Institute on Aging has more about memory and cognitive health.

---

from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1LnRJQ7

Restaurant Food May Be Less Healthy Than Fast Food

Photo: Getty Images

If you eschew fast food but relish restaurants, you might think you’re doing your body a favor. But recent research published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition suggests that in a lot of ways, eating out is even worse than driving-thru.

“People mainly focus on fast food and want to beat this animal to death,” study author Ruopeng An, assistant professor in the department of kinesiology and community health at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign told TIME. As a result, the nutritional details of non-chain restaurants haven’t been as big of a research area.

So An used dietary recall data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey from 2003-2010 to analyze what people were eating and where. In the dataset, almost 19,000 adults provided self-reports of everything they ate for two days.

This study—and many others before it—found that eating at fast-food restaurants and full-service restaurants is worse for you than eating at home. Both types of establishments were associated with a daily increase in calories, fat, saturated fat and sodium. Eating at fast-food restaurants was associated with an extra 190 calories a day, while eating at full-service restaurants was linked to an extra 187 calories per day. Fat was packed on at about the same daily rate: an extra 10 or so grams.

But in an interesting twist, eating at full-service restaurants added evenmore sodium and cholesterol than fast food did. Restaurants were linked to an extra 58 mg of cholesterol each day, while eating fast food only added an extra 10 mg. And while fast food added 297 mg sodium to a person’s daily intake, restaurants shoveled on an additional 412 mg.

The study also found that takeout might be better for you than dining in. When An compared the practice of eating restaurant food at home—as in takeout or delivery—to eating restaurant food on site, he found a rise in calories, fat, saturated fat, cholesterol and sodium for dining in. People ate an additional 200 daily calories when they ate in a restaurant, but that increase was only 121 calories when they ate restaurant food at home. (Nutritionally, it didn’t make a difference where fast food was eaten.)

Why? When people eat out at restaurants, “they have more time, it’s more relaxing, it’s more like a social event, so they’re less cautious about overeating,” An explained.

But An also found some good news for restaurant-philes: eating at restaurants, compared to eating fast food, was associated with an increase in omega-3s, vitamin B6, vitamin E, magnesium, potassium and zinc, plus a reduction in sugar. “From that perspective, consumption in full-service restaurants isn’t all bad,” he said.

An said he hopes the results will encourage more people to cook, but he’s realistic—we’re not going to stop going to restaurants. “You’re not obligated to eat the whole portion served to you,” he reminded restaurant-goers. “You can always bring some of the food home for tomorrow.”

This article originally appeared on Time.com.

from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1HLMkMs

Meet the Mom Who Wants Women to Be Proud of Their Post-Baby Bodies

Photo: Courtesy of MIMI/ The New Mum’s Nutritionist

We live in a world where the “post-baby body” is idealized as a comeback—signaling the weight that women gain and the physical changes that happen to their bodies during pregnancy are to be exercised away. But New Zealand mom and nutritionist, Julie Bhosale, wanted to share her unfiltered post-baby body experience after giving birth to her second child, and encourage fellow moms to embrace their imperfections.

Bhosale told BuzzFeed News that after her first birth, she felt an immense pressure to “bounce back” and struggled with changes to her body. Her confidence was rocked.

“I thought if I feel like this, with my knowledge of nutrition and how the body works, then imagine what other women must feel like?” she told BuzzFeed.

This time around, she’s taking a body positive route. On her blog, she posted photos of her stomach up to 14 weeks postpartum while holding her newborn. They’re beautiful.

Photo: Courtesy of MIMI/ The New Mum’s Nutritionist

“I am a mother. I am tired, broken and sore. I have lumps, bumps, marks and jiggly bits,” she begins the post, where she also discusses the media’s obsession with celebrity moms whose bodies “bounce back” quickly after childbirth, like Kate Middleton’s. She says this is a small minority, and that the process “is scary, it is hard, it can be down right disgusting and upsetting but it is real and normal.”

Bhosale started her blog after feeling inspired by the #TakeBackPostPartum movement, a community of diverse moms who share images of themselves following childbirth. Seeing those unabashed, body-confident mothers helped her squash the negativity she previously felt about her own body.

On her blog, Bhosale documents her thoughts at the different week marks, proudly calling out her “watermelon belly,” stretch marks, and “granny style undies.” We all know granny panties are the best.

“You may not look like the next Victoria’s Secret Underwear model, but focus on how you feel. Be kind to yourself and your body, you will look like how you are meant to when you feel good. It may take some time,” she writes.

What a hero mom.

This story originally appeared on MIMIChatter.com

MIMI Chatter is an endless stream of beauty content. We bring together the must-knows and the how-tos from your favorite sites, beauty influencers, our editors, and YOU.

from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1HESRdS

5 Stretching Myths That Have Got to Go

Photo: Getty Images

To stretch or not to stretch? That is the age old question. You’ve heard it all. Stretch before your workout. Stretch after your workout. Stretch between each set. Don’t stretch at all.

But it’s just not that simple. With all of the confusing recommendations out there, how do you know what’s right or wrong? While it’s not the most exciting topic in the world, it’s extremely important for anyone to know the different types of stretching and when to do each one.

Here’s everything you need to forget about stretching, and everything you should know instead.

RELATED: Stretching: The Secret to Running Better, Faster, and Longer?

Myth: Always stretch before your workout

Fact: Do the right type of stretches before your workout. There are two main forms: static stretching (holding stretches while your body is at rest) and dynamic stretching (stretching while your body is in motion). Prior to a workout, it is ideal to perform dynamic stretches, such as straight-leg swings and arm circles.

While it’s true that you might feel more “stretched” after static stretching, these exercises  actually lower the elasticity of the muscles, making it a poor way to prepare for a big bout of activity. Dynamic stretching, on the other hand, prepares your muscles to work and increases their core temperature, making them the perfect moves to get you ready.

Myth: Static stretching is never good

Fact: There is also the misconception that because it isn’t ideal to perform static stretches before a workout, that this type of stretching is “bad.” On the contrary, static stretches are the perfect way to close out your workout, as these moves help cool your muscles down. Set aside 5 to 10 minutes at the end of your workout to do some static stretches.

RELATED: 3 Yoga Stretches to Relieve Stress and Anxiety

Myth: Stretching before a workout prevents injury

Fact: It’s not that simple. The relationship between stretching and injuries is complicated. Certain types of stretching may be helpful for injury prevention if done before some activities (for example, playing sports like soccer), while in other cases (like during cycling or jogging) stretching may have no impact, according to a 2004 review in the journal Sports Medicine.

Most injuries actually happen due to improper technique or warm-up. This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t worry about stretching at all but that you should do all three: do the appropriate stretches at the right time, practice proper form and technique, and don’t forget to warm-up.

Myth: Stretching prevents sore muscles

Fact: Don’t we all wish this one was true? Unfortunately, while it may feel good, stretching does not reduce delayed-onset muscle soreness. If you’re ramping up intensity of your activity and feeling sore, using a foam roller afterward may work better.

RELATED: 4 Things You Need To Know About Foam Rolling

I’m already flexible, so I don’t need to stretch

Fact: While you may have that flexibility now, over time, that will diminish. Taking the time to do a comprehensive stretch routine 3 to 4 times per week will help you to keep your flexibility. Added perk? This is great for your joints, and may save you from aches and pains later on.

Looking for stretches you can do at work? Check out 5 Stretches for People Who Are Stuck at a Desk All Day.

Jennifer Cohen is a leading fitness authority, TV personality, entrepreneur, and best-selling author of the new book, Strong is the New Skinny. With her signature, straight-talking approach to wellness, Jennifer was the featured trainer on The CW’s Shedding for the Wedding, mentoring the contestants to lose hundreds of pounds before their big day, and she appears regularly on NBC’s Today Show, Extra, The Doctors, and Good Morning America. Connect with Jennifer on Facebook, Twitter, G+ and on Pinterest.

from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1RK8bhh

Will Good Students Be Able to Sidestep Alzheimer’s?

By Steven Reinberg
HealthDay Reporter

MONDAY, July 20, 2015 (HealthDay News) — Kids at the head of the class not only have better college and job prospects, they may also stave off Alzheimer’s disease, two new studies suggest.

People with the best school grades and most complex jobs later on — as managers, teachers or executives, for example — have roughly a 40 to 60 percent reduced risk of developing dementia, according to two teams of Swedish researchers.

But, both Swedish studies only found an association between school grades, later jobs and risks of dementia, and not a proven cause-and-effect link.

“We are just starting to figure out that there is this lifetime risk for developing Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dean Hartley, director of science initiatives at the Alzheimer’s Association, which played no part in either study.

Part of reducing the risk for dementia is to build up what experts call “cognitive reserve,” he said.

Cognitive reserve is established by building many links — called synapses — between brain cells. It seems that the more you use your brain, the more connections are created between brain cells, Hartley said.

A complex job that requires a lot of brain work can preserve those cell links and build even more, Hartley said.

In turn, “having more connections in your brain allows you to maintain more of your thinking and more memory abilities,” he said.

In one of the Swedish studies, a research team led by Serhiy Dekhtyar, from the clinical neuroscience department at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, followed more than 7,500 people 65 and older who took part in the Uppsala Birth Cohort Study for more than 20 years. Data on participants’ childhood mental ability was also collected.

The researchers found that 950 people developed dementia, and risk for mental decline increased 21 percent among those whose grades were in the bottom 20 percent of the overall Swedish population.

But risk for dementia decreased 23 percent among those who had jobs that required complex thinking and work with data and numbers — the managers, teachers and executives, Hartley said.

People who had both high grades in school and a complex job later in life had the highest reductions in the risk for dementia — 39 percent, the researchers found.

“Our findings highlight the importance of early life cognitive performance for the late-life risk of dementia,” Dekhtyar said in a news release. “It appears that baseline cognitive ability — even at age 10 — may provide the foundation for successful cognitive aging much later in life.”

In the other study, a team also from the Karolinska Institute found that dementia risk was increased more than 50 percent in people over 75 who had the lowest 20 percent of school grades, even if they had more formal education or a job requiring complex thinking.

High school graduates had a 28 percent lower risk of dementia compared to those with only an elementary school education, the researchers say.

In addition, women with complex jobs requiring negotiating, instructing and supervising people had a 60 percent lower risk of developing dementia compared with those who had less complex jobs, the researchers found.

The researchers’ conclusions were based on data on 440 men and women 75 and older who were followed for nine years. During that time, 163 study participants developed dementia.

Dr. Andrew Adesman, chief of developmental and behavioral pediatrics at Cohen Children’s Medical Center of New York in New Hyde Park, said the studies’ findings offered little practical application for children.

“It is unrealistic to think that a 9-year-old will apply himself more in school just so that he will have a more fulfilling quality of life 50 or 60 years later,” he said.

Also, “a cynic might argue that there will always be a bottom 25 percent in terms of test performance and grades,” Adesman added.

However, enough other sound reasons exist why students should apply themselves in school, he said.

Dr. Luca Giliberto, an Alzheimer’s investigator at the Feinstein Institute for Medical Research in Manhasset, N.Y., said mental activity is good preventive medicine. “Being mentally and physically active gives you an advantage in reducing the risk of Alzheimer’s and will help you build that cognitive reserve,” Giliberto said.

The results of these studies were scheduled for presentation Monday at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference, in Washington, D.C. Data and conclusions presented at meetings are usually considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.

More information

For more on Alzheimer’s disease, visit the U.S. National Institute on Aging.

---

from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1fYKnW8

As Baby Boomers Age, Alzheimer’s Rates Will Soar

By Dennis Thompson
HealthDay Reporter

MONDAY, July 20, 2015 (HealthDay News) — The number of people with Alzheimer’s disease is set to skyrocket in the United States due to the aging of the baby-boom generation, and the cost of caring for these patients will devour a large chunk of Medicare’s budget, a new study suggests.

More than 28 million baby boomers will develop Alzheimer’s disease during the course of their lifetimes, the researchers estimated.

By 2050, all baby boomers will be older than 85 and half of those still alive will suffer from Alzheimer’s disease, said lead author Lisa Alecxih, senior vice president of The Lewin Group and director of the Lewin Center for Aging and Disability Policy.

That’s up from an estimated 1.2 percent prevalence of Alzheimer’s among boomers in 2020, when most boomers will be in their 60s and early 70s, Alecxih said.

Improvements in medical science are allowing people to live longer, but a long life is the main risk factor for developing Alzheimer’s disease, she said.

“The incidence of the disease increases as you grow older, as does the severity,” Alecxih said.

That means that by 2040, more than twice as many baby boomers will have Alzheimer’s disease (10.3 million) compared with the equivalent age group in 2015 (4.7 million), the researchers said.

The cost of caring for more than 10 million Alzheimer’s patients will consume nearly 25 percent of Medicare spending in 2040, the study predicted.

Findings from the study are scheduled to be presented Monday at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference, in Washington, D.C. Findings presented at meetings are generally viewed as preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.

As baby boomers with Alzheimer’s live longer, they will begin to develop more severe forms of the disease and the cost of caring for them will go through the roof, said Keith Fargo, director of scientific programs and outreach for the Alzheimer’s Association.

“During the time they are living, they continue to degenerate,” Fargo said. “Many people end up in long-term care or nursing homes, and require around-the-clock care for many years. This isn’t like you get a heart attack and you pass away. You get this degenerative disease and it requires that you get care for many years.”

In 2020, the projected Medicare costs of caring for baby boomers with Alzheimer’s in the community will be about 2 percent of total Medicare spending, amounting to nearly $12 billion in 2014 dollars, the researchers estimated.

But by 2040, when the baby-boom generation is between 76 and 94 years old, projected Medicare costs increase to more than 24 percent of total Medicare spending, or about $328 billion in 2014 dollars, the new analysis said.

“I think the crisis that will occur as our population grows and ages is real, and although the numbers look like they possibly couldn’t be true, they are,” said Dr. David Knopman, a Mayo Clinic neurologist and vice-chair of the Alzheimer’s Association Medical and Scientific Advisory Council. “In fact, they’re pretty conservative.”

To stem this tidal wave, more funding for Alzheimer’s research is needed to prepare therapies and preventive measures that will reduce the number of baby boomers needing expensive around-the-clock care, Maria Carrillo, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said in an association news release.

A number of experimental therapies are in the research pipeline that have the potential to delay onset of Alzheimer’s or possibly even prevent the disease, but the level of funding has hampered progress, she said.

“Public funding for this research is extremely limited compared to the magnitude of the problem,” Carillo said. “If we’re going to change the current trajectory of the disease, we need consistent and meaningful investments in research from the federal government to ensure a more robust pipeline.”

According to an Alzheimer’s Association report released earlier this year, a new treatment that delays onset could save $220 billion within the first five years of its introduction. It would also cut the number of people who have the disease in 2050 by 42 percent, from 13.5 million to 7.8 million, the report said.

Baby boomers may be able to help themselves too, Fargo added.

“There is good research now we’re seeing that lifestyle changes may make a difference,” he said. “It’s never too late to stop smoking. It’s never too late to become physically active, or lower your cholesterol, or better control your blood pressure. Although we’re not certain this can prevent or delay Alzheimer’s, it will have a positive effect on preserving your memory and ability to think.”

Baby boomers also can aid scientific efforts by taking part in clinical trials for Alzheimer’s, Fargo said.

“The folks in this baby-boom generation are really the ones we need to step up to the plate and participate in some of the large Alzheimer’s prevention studies that are happening now,” he said. “Even people who don’t yet have any cognitive [mental] decline can help in this fight, by participating in those prevention studies.”

More information

For more on Alzheimer’s disease, visit the U.S. National Institute on Aging.

---

from Health News / Tips & Trends / Celebrity Health http://ift.tt/1JsETdk