Scientists say that encouraging elderly people to talk about the war could be good for their health. It was found that when old people gather in groups and talk about the times when they were young (reminiscence therapy), it helps them limit the effects of dementiaimprove their memory.
Researchers say that such therapy may improve the cognitive recall as well as agility of the mind by about 12 percent in 6 weeks. The current study adds more evidence to earlier researches that found that communication within a social environment is good for health.
People who suffered strokes and heart attacks were found to recover much better if they communicated with their friends and family. In previous studies scientists found that loneliness is as hazardous for human health as obesity and smoking.
During their current study, the team of researchers, led by Professor Catherine Haslam, analyzed 73 study participants aged between 70 and 90. Some of them suffered from dementia. Researchers split people into 3 groups. The team encouraged the first group to come together once a week in sets of five and recall memories from their past. People in the first group were given such discussion topics as childhood, weddings and family holidays. They were also advised to remember some specific objects that could help bring to mind beautiful memories, like for example old-fashioned ink pots and hats.
At the end of a six-week study, researchers estimated the memory of the participants by using standard cognitive tests. They discovered that the memory of people from the first group improved by 12 percent. In addition, people suffering from dementia registered an eight-percent improvement, reports Times Online.
Very little improved has been registered by the other two groups, one of which was persuaded to play skittles and the other to have one on one conversations. According to Prof Haslam, a neuropsychologist, most of elderly people they have talk to enjoyed recalling the war, which proved to be one of the most important things of their lives. You can find more interesting studies here at www.InfoNIAC.com - please check the links at the bottom of the story.
"It doesn't actually reverse dementia but it seems to make the most of their residual abilities,"
he said.
Professor Alex Haslam, her husband, said: "I think talking to a group gives you a reason to live. We have memory so that we can have language so that we can engage in a social life." link....
Recently it was announced that in the next three years the field of medicine will benefit from the latest invention of U.S. researchers - an injectable "biogel" that can cure brain injuries of car crash victims as well as wounded soldiers. In 3 years scientists look forward to test their latest invention on patients.
Biogel represents a mix of synthetic and natural chemicals. It stimulates neural stem cells which afterwards fix damaged nerves. Researchers decided to test the biogel on humans shortly after the studies on rats showed promising results. Scientists presented detailed information of their studies at the Military Research Forum that took place in Kansas City, US, and which has the goal of informing about the latest inventions in medicine that can help military troops.
According to Dr Ning Zhang, the lead researcher in the biogel development team at Clemson University in South Carolina, there has been an increasing number of brain injuries among soldiers and the biogel could help them all of them recover. You can find more inventions (including those from the field of medicine) here at www.InfoNIAC.com - check the links at the bottom of the story. But, biogel can also be used to help patients with head injuries that occurred as a result of car accidents and falls.
The biogel is injected into the patient's wound site in order to direct the reaction of neural stem cells. It is worth mentioning that stem cells are able to produce various types of tissue, thus, in the brain, they can generate nerve cells. Chemicals contained in the biogel make it possible for neural stem cells to restore normal brain tissue in the head wound. The US Defense Department has given a $220,000 grant for the research. link....
Researchers from Oxford University discovered that the consumption of burgers, kebabs, chips and other high-fat food could make a person less intelligent. While carrying out their experiments on rats, scientists found that in about 10 days the high-fat diet managed to damage their short-term memory and had a negative effect on their mental capacity. In addition, the diet reduced the rodents' ability to exercise. Such outcomes were dubbed "high-fat hangover".
A team of biological researchers says the study's results demonstrate that what we eat has a significant influence on the performance of our bodies. According to Andrew Murray, the scientist who co-authored the research, western diets have high levels of fat, which has been linked the development of obesity, diabetes and heart failures in the long-run. Very little attention, however, is paid to high-fat diets in the short-run.
Scientists compared rats that were fed with high-fat junk food, comprising 55 percent of calories as fat, with rodents fed with low-fat diet that featured only 7.5 percent of calories as fat. It was found that rats fed with high-fat diet increased in size and their hearts started working harder. Such outcomes result from the fact that the rodents' muscles could not use oxygen properly in order to produce the energy required for exercise.
In just 9 days on high-fat diet rats were 50 percent slower at completing a maze. Besides, they made a lot of mistakes during the process compared to rodents that were on low-fat diet.
Afterwards scientists analyzed muscle cells to find the cause of these problems. They discovered increased levels of uncoupling protein 3. This protein was the reason why muscle cells used less oxygen.
The results of the study were published by the Federation of the American Societies for Experimental Biology. The study could be useful in helping patients who suffer from metabolic disorders. Currently researchers study the short-term effect of high-fat diet on people. link....
PARIS (AFP) – Heart attack survivors who eat chocolate two or more times per week cut their risk of dying from heart disease about threefold compared to those who never touch the stuff, scientists have reported.
Smaller quantities confer less protection, but are still better than none, according to the study, which appears in the September issue of theJournal of Internal Medicine.
Earlier research had established a strong link between cocoa-based confections and lowered blood pressure or improvement in blood flow.
It had also shown that chocolate cuts the rate of heart-related mortality in healthy older men, along with post-menopausal women.
But the new study, led by Imre Janszky of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, is the first to demonstrate that consuming chocolate can help ward off the grim reaper if one has suffered acute myocardial infarction -- otherwise known as a heart attack.
"It was specific to chocolate -- we found no benefit to sweets in general," said Kenneth Mukamal, a researcher at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and a co-author of the study.
"It seems that antioxidants in cocoa are a likely candidate" for explaining the live-saving properties, he told AFP in an exchange of e-mails.
Antioxidants are compounds that protect against so-called free radicals, molecules which accumulate in the body over time that can damage cells and are thought to play a role in heart disease, cancer and the aging process.
In the study, Janszky and colleagues tracked 1,169 non-diabetic men and women, 45-to-70 years old, in Stockholm County during the early 1990s from the time they were hospitalised with their first-ever heart attack.
The participants were queried before leaving hospital on their food consumption habits over the previous year, including how much chocolate they ate on a regular basis.
They underwent a health examination three months after discharge, and were monitored for eight years after that. The incidence of fatal heart attacks correlated inversely with the amount of chocolate consumed.
"Our findings support increasing evidence that chocolate is a rich source of beneficial bioactive compounds," the researchers concluded.
The results held true for men and women, and across all the age groups included in the study.
Other factors that might have affected the outcome -- alcohol consumption, obesity, smoking -- were also taken into account.
So should we all be loading up on cocoa-rich sweets?
"To be frank, I'm pretty cautious about chocolate because we're working on weight problems with so many individuals," said Mukamal, who is also a practising physician.
"However, I do encourage those who are looking for healthier desserts to consider chocolate in small quantities," he said.
"For individuals with no weight issues who have been able to eat chocolate in moderation and remain slim, I do not limit it," he added.
The researchers caution that clinical trials are needed to back up the findings of their study.
In the meantime, however, a bit of chocolate may not be amiss, they suggest. link....
Researchers speaking at an international psychology conference said there was evidence that people get happier as they age, and that older people are better at controlling their emotions and avoiding things that make them unhappy. This does not include people with dementia or who are trapped in situations of high stress that they cannot escape from, such as caregiving.The researchers were speaking at the 117th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association that took place from 6 to 9 August in Toronto, Canada.Dr Laura Carstensen, a psychology professor at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, USA, and founding director of the Stanford Center on Longevity, said:"Life expectancy changed because people changed the way they lived.""Now that we're here, we have to keep adapting. We are in the middle of a second revolution and it's up to us to make adulthood itself longer and healthier," she added.Carstensen said by 2050 there will be twice as many people over the age of 65 in the world as there are today. And the segment of the population that is growing faster than any other, is the over 85s.Susan Turk Charles, from the Department of Psychology and Social Behavior at the University of California, Irvine, in a separate presentation, talked about several studies on aging and mental health that she had reviewed. Excluding people with dementia and related diseases, the evidence supports the idea that, on the whole, mental health improves with age.Charles referred to a study that followed three groups of people at different life stages for 23 years and found emotional happiness increased as they got older.She said research also shows that older adults are better at controlling their emotions than younger adults, and this helps them avoid negative situations, or at least limit the emotional damage they can cause. One study she reviewed asked younger and older adults to report what they were thinking and feeling just after hearing personal criticisms by other people. The results showed that the younger adults tended to dwell far more on the comments and demanding information about their origins than the older adults whose reports were less negative overall.Charles said that work by Carstensen and others suggests older people are increasingly aware that life is finite and the time they have left is shrinking."They want to make the best of it so they avoid engaging in situations that will make them unhappy. They have also had more time to learn and understand the intentions of others which help them to avoid these stressful situations," she added.But, she emphasized that this did not necessarily apply to older adults who are faced with prolonged, stressful circumstances that they cannot escape:"Older adults may have more difficulty with these situations because distressing events require both psychological and physical resources," said Charles, adding that:"We know that older adults who are dealing with chronic stressors, such as caregiving, report high rates of physical symptoms and emotional distress."Both Carstensen and Charles mentioned the link between social relationships and longer life and how scientists have discovered that the number of relationships people have can influence the way their brains process information and that impacts how their bodies respond to stress which affects health.Carstensen talked about a study that followed over 1,000 people in Sweden that showed those who had strong social networks were 60 per cent less likely to show symptoms of cognitive impairment than those who did not. None of the participants had dementia at the start of the study which assessed their social circumstances, such as whether they were married or single, lived alone, and enjoyed their social life.Also, Dr Meredyth Daneman of the University of Toronto at Mississauga, said that while we may assume that older people's minds are slowing down, research show that may not be the case: several studies comparing cognitive and hearing ability among younger and older adults have found that more often it is hearing and not cognitive decline that gives older adults problems in understanding language.However, being healthy in old age is not just about what happens when we are old, it also starts when we are very young, said Carstensen who referred to a compelling and growing amount of research that shows even small increases in education can make a difference to the quality and length of people's lives."Independent studies agree that even one additional year of education very likely increases life expectancy by more than a year," said Carstensen who had this advice for people who want to prepare for old age now:
Create a vision of how you want your old age to be: imagine enjoying the years ahead, what does it mean for you to be healthy, happy and alive at 100?
Then re-engineer your social, physical, financial and other aspects of your life (your home, what you eat) so that every day you are making it more possible to reach that vision.
Avoid putting all your social investment in your spouse, children or job: diversify your expertise and activities. link....
Scientists have identified a genomic "signature" in circulating blood that reveals exposure to common upper respiratory viruses, like the cold or flu, even before symptoms appear. The tell-tale viral signature reflects a set of subtle but robust changes in genes that are activated as the body responds to infection. The signal from the signature is strong enough in symptomatic individuals to clearly reveal whether their infection is viral or bacterial. It can also discriminate between who has a viral infection and who does not - all from a single tube of blood. "This work is still in a relatively early phase of discovery, but we are optimistic that these findings may lead to a whole new way of diagnosing infectious disease," says Geoffrey Ginsburg, M.D., Ph.D., director of Duke University's Center for Genomic Medicine in the Institute for Genome Sciences & Policy and the senior author of the study appearing in the journal Cell Host & Microbe. Researchers say the discovery could lead to dramatic changes in the way doctors care for the millions of people who develop upper respiratory infections every year. Ginsburg says the symptoms of a cold, the flu or pneumonia can appear similar, but right now, doctors can't tell what the patient really has until laboratory tests are conducted, and that can take days. "Until results are in, treatment is pretty much a best guess. Knowing exactly which pathogen is involved is important because it affects the urgency of response and the type of treatment," says Ginsburg. "This approach could lead to more precise, informed and tailored therapy - essentially, personalized care for infectious disease. That's better for the patient and better for public health, in general." Christopher Woods, M.D., an associate professor of medicine at Duke and the Chief of the Infectious Disease Section at the Durham Veterans Administration Medical Center, says a quick test to determine the real cause of disease has other benefits, too. "It could mean more appropriate use of antibiotics. Overuse of antibiotics can lead to the emergence of drug-resistant pathogens, and no one wants to see more of that." The discovery is based upon the fact that the body's immune system starts responding very quickly and in a highly specific manner when exposed to a viral pathogen as opposed to a bacterial one. "A detailed reading of that response, using gene expression data, reveals what type of pathogen the person is reacting to," says Aimee Zaas, M.D., M.H.S., an infectious diseases physician at Duke and the lead author of the study. Zaas and colleagues recruited 57 healthy volunteers who agreed to be inoculated with either a live cold virus (rhinovirus), the respiratory syncytial virus, or the influenza A virus. Researchers first took detailed baseline measures of genomic profiles in participants' blood, nasal fluid, breath and urine, and then inoculated the volunteers with one of the three viruses. They waited to see who became sick, and noted when symptoms first appeared, measuring markers of biological response at multiple time points after exposure. Volunteers were quarantined during the time they were infectious. The research team studied changes in gene expression patterns in the participants' blood and identified 30 genes - many of which were already known to be active in the body's response to viral infections - whose expression patterns changed only among those who became symptomatic. Investigators tested this "acute respiratory viral signature" in an independently acquired data set of gene expression patterns among people infected with influenza A and found that the signature was able to clearly distinguish with 100 percent accuracy between individuals who were infected and those who were not. "We believe there will be multiple applications for this discovery," says Ginsburg. "This is simply the first step. Right now we are replicating our results in additional studies and also trying to validate these expression patterns in additional studies. We want to be careful and not draw any conclusions too quickly. Even though the signature we identified appears to be an excellent diagnostic, there may be other genes that can make it even better." The researchers say the acute viral response signature may be applicable only to people who have healthy immune systems. "We would need to show that this approach also works in patients with underlying immune deficiencies before we could offer it as a potential diagnostic tool for everyone," says Zaas. Notes: The study was funded by the Predicting Health and Disease Program of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), an agency with the U.S. Department of Defense. Colleagues from Duke contributing to the study include Christopher Woods, Jay Varkey, Tim Veldman, Bradley Nicholson, Christine Oien, Brett Caram, Lawrence Carin, Minhua Chen and Joseph Lucas. Other co-authors are Alfred Hero and Yongsheng Huang, from the University of Michigan; Ronald Turner, from the University of Virginia; Anthony Gilbert and Robert Lambkin-Williams from Retroscreen Virology, Ltd.; and Stephen Kingsmore from the National Center for Genomic Resources. link....
The use of antiviral drugs for the treatment of people presenting with symptoms is unlikely to be the most suitable approach during a seasonal outbreak. This is the conclusion of a study published Online First and in an upcoming edition of The Lancet Infectious Diseases. The review is the work of Dr Jane Burch and Professor Lesley Stewart, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, UK, and collaborators. It reports that the amplification of the vaccination policy could result in a more clinically efficient and cost-effective strategy. But the cost-effectiveness of this is yet to be proven. The authors mention that the findings could have significance for the current H1N1 pandemic, although the review used data for seasonal flu. They worked on a meta-analysis of the efficacy of the antiviral treatments: oseltamivir (tamiflu) and zanamivir (relenza). Healthy adults without known underlying health problems were included in the study. They also assessed individuals at risk of flu related complications, such as people with lung or heart disease, diabetes, or other health problems. In healthy adults, tamiflu reduced the median time to symptom alleviation by 0.55 days and relenza by 0.57 days. For at-risk groups, the corresponding reductions were 0.74 days (tamiflu) and 0.98 days (relenza). These reductions in symptoms are somewhat small in the perspective of the whole length of symptoms for most patients. Also, there was little information available on the occurrence of complications. Instead of treating individuals when they present influenza symptoms, some different strategies might be more clinically efficient and cost effective. These include: • Vaccination. • Post-exposure prophylaxis: treating people with antiviral drugs after they have been in contact with flu. • Expectant treatment: people that have been in contact with influenza are prescribed antiviral drugs to be taken as and when symptoms present. • Making the drugs available over the counter for purchase. • Introduction of rapid testing in the family doctor's consulting room before prescription, in order to allow the treatment only of people who have flu. Each of these options has advantages and disadvantages. However, the authors explain: "Any strategy that increases the availability of the drugs to the general public, consequently increasing the rates of inappropriate use, could increase the chances of viral strains developing resistance." They write in conclusion: "Although the evidence for clinical effectiveness in healthy and at-risk populations is similar, and the data relating to complications is lacking in both groups, it is reasonable to recommend precautionary treatment to people who are at an increased risk of suffering influenza-related complications. Even if active management of seasonal influenza in healthy adults is deemed a public health priority, recommending the use of antiviral drugs for the treatment of people presenting with symptoms is unlikely to be the most appropriate course of action, given the high specificity of zanamivir and oseltamivir to the influenza virus, and the debatable clinical importance of their affect on symptom duration. Extension of the vaccination policy might be a more appropriate choice for healthy adults, and an assessment of cost-effectiveness that includes societal costs of extending the UK vaccination policy to all working-age adults seems desirable." link....
Scientists say that encouraging elderly people to talk about the war could be good for their health. It was found that when old people gather in groups and talk about the times when they were young (reminiscence therapy), it helps them limit the effects of dementiaimprove their memory.
