5 ms·

Note: this was a relatively small sample (40 total, split in half for placebo/not), who were elderly people who already have "mild" memory problems, and given a

Note: this was a relatively small sample (40 total, split in half for placebo/not), who were elderly people who already have "mild" memory problems, and given a concentrated turmeric derivative rather than just sprinkling it over food. In summary: very cool, and I'd offer these curcumin supplements to anyone 50+ but sprinkling turmeric on your breakfast cereal ain't going to do much for high schoolers.

mkempe 9y ago
Actually the age range was 51-84, so middle plus old age, not all "elderly". Normal people flourish and are in their prime around 50. Volunteers had "objective cognitive performance scores and clinical histories consistent with normal aging or MCI (i.e., mild neurocognitive disorder) and inconsistent with dementia (i.e., major neurocognitive disorder)." [emphasis added]
- olympus 9y ago
  "Normal people flourish and are in their prime around 50." This is false. The only advantage people in their fifties have is experience. Your body is past its peak physically and mentally. People flourishing in their fifties are by and large reaping the benefits of things done in their younger decades, not because they are peaking. I'm not saying that someone that is 50 years old is decrepit, but ask nearly any academic and they'll tell you they were better when they were younger. Ask nearly any athlete (ultramarathoners being an exception) and they'll tell you they were better when they were younger.
  - mkempe 9y ago
    So you say you don't call people who are 50 "decrepit" -- but do you call people in their middle age or in their 50s "elderly"?
    - olympus 9y ago
      I didn't make that comment. However, I would say that people in their fifties have started to experience age-related decline in numerous areas (memory included). Showing a memory improvement in people 50-80 should be more accurately described as "restoring" their memory rather than "boosting" it, which implies that they now have supranormal memory.
      - Elrac 9y ago
        Am in my late 50s, can confirm. Memory, concentration, attention, and a bunch of other faculties, both mental and physical, are trending disgustingly downward. I know there are things I could do to fight it, but motivation is another one of those things going down. f--- it, f--- everything.
        glangdale 9y ago
        Pushing 46, can confirm. Literally just got that thing that screams "maybe you need bifocals not contacts" where nothing close quite comes into focus... basic response is "fuck it, fuck everything" like you say.
  - learc83 9y ago
    >but ask nearly any academic and they'll tell you they were better when they were younger. I don't think that's true at all outside of Mathematics. >Ask nearly any athlete (ultramarathoners being an exception) and they'll tell you they were better when they were younger. That's obvious.
    - ebullientocelot 9y ago
      >I don't think that's true at all outside of Mathematics. Quite a few great math papers are written by people over 40, despite the flashy age restriction on the Fields Medal.
- quacker 9y ago
  > Normal people flourish and are in their prime around 50 How do you mean? I don't think most people in their 50s would describe themselves as being "in their prime". For example, ELO ratings of Chess players tend to decline in their 30s[1]. For NBA players, their "prime" is typically the late 20s, with performance declining in their 30s. 1. https://www.chess.com/blog/LionChessLtd/age-vs-elo---your-battle-against-time https://www.chess.com/blog/LionChessLtd/age-vs-elo---your-ba...
  - jimhefferon 9y ago
    > I don't think most people in their 50s would describe themselves as being "in their prime". I are not going to be part of a professional sports franchise. But at my age (59) I know more than I ever did, and I have no serious physical problems.
    - losteric 9y ago
      "no serious physical problems" is far from "in your prime"... and you might know more things, but your ability to learn has significantly declined. That's just the nature of aging.
      - mkempe 9y ago
        The measure of flourishing is not how fast one can dig holes, nor is it how quickly one can study new APIs. Knowing useful and effective ways to act, and acting accordingly; understanding and undertaking long-term, purposeful courses of action; and fully integrating new knowledge with vast, existing knowledge -- are key to flourishing. This doesn't end at or decline with the start of middle age.
        losteric 9y ago
        Being in your prime refers to mental and physical fitness, not happiness. It's easily measured by digging holes or studying books. The context of this thread is fitness - 50 year olds are definitely less fit than their younger selves. It's part of the human condition.
- wcr3 9y ago
  AAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
sigi45 9y ago
40? so nothing relevant? :(
- elchief 9y ago
  You realize that statistics is capable of using very small sample sizes right?
  - sigi45 9y ago
    And you do realize that 40 is just a tremendious small sample size in comparison to a complex system like a human beeing? I mean yeah you need one dog who speaks but apparently, when you read other comments, there are enough papers saying the opposite to this one.
- mlechha 9y ago
  Number of samples depends on the effect size. e.g. You only need n=1 to claim a dog can talk.

mkempe 9y ago

Actually the age range was 51-84, so middle plus old age, not all "elderly". Normal people flourish and are in their prime around 50. Volunteers had "objective cognitive performance scores and clinical histories consistent with normal aging or MCI (i.e., mild neurocognitive disorder) and inconsistent with dementia (i.e., major neurocognitive disorder)." [emphasis added]

olympus 9y ago
"Normal people flourish and are in their prime around 50." This is false. The only advantage people in their fifties have is experience. Your body is past its peak physically and mentally. People flourishing in their fifties are by and large reaping the benefits of things done in their younger decades, not because they are peaking. I'm not saying that someone that is 50 years old is decrepit, but ask nearly any academic and they'll tell you they were better when they were younger. Ask nearly any athlete (ultramarathoners being an exception) and they'll tell you they were better when they were younger.
- mkempe 9y ago
  So you say you don't call people who are 50 "decrepit" -- but do you call people in their middle age or in their 50s "elderly"?
  - olympus 9y ago
    I didn't make that comment. However, I would say that people in their fifties have started to experience age-related decline in numerous areas (memory included). Showing a memory improvement in people 50-80 should be more accurately described as "restoring" their memory rather than "boosting" it, which implies that they now have supranormal memory.
    - Elrac 9y ago
      Am in my late 50s, can confirm. Memory, concentration, attention, and a bunch of other faculties, both mental and physical, are trending disgustingly downward. I know there are things I could do to fight it, but motivation is another one of those things going down. f--- it, f--- everything.
      - glangdale 9y ago
        Pushing 46, can confirm. Literally just got that thing that screams "maybe you need bifocals not contacts" where nothing close quite comes into focus... basic response is "fuck it, fuck everything" like you say.
- learc83 9y ago
  >but ask nearly any academic and they'll tell you they were better when they were younger. I don't think that's true at all outside of Mathematics. >Ask nearly any athlete (ultramarathoners being an exception) and they'll tell you they were better when they were younger. That's obvious.
  - ebullientocelot 9y ago
    >I don't think that's true at all outside of Mathematics. Quite a few great math papers are written by people over 40, despite the flashy age restriction on the Fields Medal.
quacker 9y ago
> Normal people flourish and are in their prime around 50 How do you mean? I don't think most people in their 50s would describe themselves as being "in their prime". For example, ELO ratings of Chess players tend to decline in their 30s[1]. For NBA players, their "prime" is typically the late 20s, with performance declining in their 30s. 1. https://www.chess.com/blog/LionChessLtd/age-vs-elo---your-battle-against-time https://www.chess.com/blog/LionChessLtd/age-vs-elo---your-ba...
- jimhefferon 9y ago
  > I don't think most people in their 50s would describe themselves as being "in their prime". I are not going to be part of a professional sports franchise. But at my age (59) I know more than I ever did, and I have no serious physical problems.
  - losteric 9y ago
    "no serious physical problems" is far from "in your prime"... and you might know more things, but your ability to learn has significantly declined. That's just the nature of aging.
    - mkempe 9y ago
      The measure of flourishing is not how fast one can dig holes, nor is it how quickly one can study new APIs. Knowing useful and effective ways to act, and acting accordingly; understanding and undertaking long-term, purposeful courses of action; and fully integrating new knowledge with vast, existing knowledge -- are key to flourishing. This doesn't end at or decline with the start of middle age.
      - losteric 9y ago
        Being in your prime refers to mental and physical fitness, not happiness. It's easily measured by digging holes or studying books. The context of this thread is fitness - 50 year olds are definitely less fit than their younger selves. It's part of the human condition.
wcr3 9y ago
AAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

sigi45 9y ago

40? so nothing relevant? :(

elchief 9y ago
You realize that statistics is capable of using very small sample sizes right?
- sigi45 9y ago
  And you do realize that 40 is just a tremendious small sample size in comparison to a complex system like a human beeing? I mean yeah you need one dog who speaks but apparently, when you read other comments, there are enough papers saying the opposite to this one.
mlechha 9y ago
Number of samples depends on the effect size. e.g. You only need n=1 to claim a dog can talk.