David M Buss has been writing about older women’s sexual adventures for some time. He notes in “Why Women Have Sex” that women use sex as a defensive tactic against a mate’s infidelity (protection), as a ploy to boost self-confidence (status), as a barter for gifts or household chores (resource acquisition), or as a cure for a migraine headache (medication). Like most of men's evaluation of women’s sexuality, pleasure is not one of the reasons explored.
Using Craigslist to enlist three quarters of their volunteers Buss and his colleagues found that women aged 27 through 45 years of age report having more sexual fantasies, more intensely and engaging in more sexual encounters than their younger cohorts. The impact of marriage and having children was not found to be as important as age . Only age had a strong positive effect on women's reported sexual interest and behavior. Women’s sexual awakening seems to be formidable.
Women’s sexual interest was believed to peak and then fall precipitously after menopause. But this drop might be a misinterpretation by some researchers.
Susan E. Trompeter, and her colleagues from the University of California San Diego looked at women 25 years after their menopause. Half (49.8%) reported sexual activity within the past month with or without a partner. Sexual activity included arousal (64.5%), lubrication (69%), and orgasm (67.1%) at least most of the time. Only a third reported low, very low, or no sexual desire. Although frequency of sexual activity decreased with age, they all reported increased satisfaction when they did have an orgasm.
Having the brain as one of the largest sex organ—together with the skin—determines that emotional closeness is associated with more frequent arousal, lubrication, and orgasm during sex. Overall, two thirds of sexually active women were moderately or very satisfied with their sex life. With such statistics, the idea of peaking only before menopause seems a myth. For some women they keep on going.
Little is written about late life sexual activity except for educational purpose. What has been written is about marriage from public records. In a recent article in an unlikely journal of Review of Economics and Statistics, Hani Mansour and Terra McKinnish from the University of Colorado reported that couples with big age differences are typically less attractive, less educated and make less money than couples of similar ages. The more pronounced the age difference the less positive attributes they had.
Interestingly, they make a class issue (using education as a proxy for class.) More educated people tend to interact more with people their own age while those with lower formal education and who work in low-skill jobs are more likely to socialize with people of a wide range of ages. Poorer people have networks that are more age diverse. But this might be about marriage, a social contract.
Pleasure comes in many forms and sexual gratification is one of them. Marriage is not an indication of pleasure, but age is. Maurice Chevalier’s "never date anyone under half your age plus seven" might be appropriate for most people but it might not apply to some older women. Sexual arousal for older women matches those of younger men.
© USA Copyrighted 2013 Mario D. Garrett
Saturday, November 16, 2013
Children Killing Their Parents
As upsetting as it is, there are numerous blogs on how to kill your parents. Unlike elder abuse, killing younger parents seems to be voyeuristic entertainment. This surprising revelation is worrisome
The animosity children feel towards their parents provides a necessary feeling of detachment, augurs for a healthy separation process from their parents. It is how they differentiate themselves from their primary influences in life in order for them to become whole persons. Such feelings are nothing new. The surprise being websites devoted to killing one’s parents, with instructions. Then the second surprise was the statistics.
For more than two decades, Kathleen Heide from the University of South Florida has been conducting analysis of homicides where children kill their parents. In the USA about five parents a week are killed by their biological children. Matricide—where the mother is murdered--and patricide—where the father is murdered—are both very rare events and constitute about 1 percent of all homicides in the United States—but we have a lot of homicides in the US.
In a 2011 report from the Department of Justice, Alexia Cooper and Erica L. Smith reported a change in trend of family homicide. The most common were homicide by a spouse or ex-spouse, which is declining from 52% of all family homicides in 1980 to 37% in 2008. Children killed by their parents were the second most frequent type of family homicide. This is seeing an increase, from 15% in 1980 to 25% in 2008. But the fastest growing homicide is the last category where parents are killed by one of their children. This type of homicide has been increasing steadily from 9.7% of all family homicides in 1980 to 13% in 2008. Children killing their parents is the fastest growing type of family homicide. In the latest federal statistics both matricide and patricide is committed primarily by sons between 16-19 years and then declines rapidly at older ages.
In 1993 Clifford J. Linedecker wrote a book on “Killer Kids” where he reports that there were over a million assaults in the USA by children on their parents, some were fatal. He documents some of the most horrific cases. Most use their parents’ guns, others use knives, axes and any available weapon. The younger killers are more likely to use their parents’ gun.
Since patricide is most frequent (nearly twice as likely as matricide) and increasing, there might be a number of reasons for this. With increasing breakdown of family structure in the USA--with one in two marriages ending up in divorce--there is a risk of one parent alienating their children against the second parent. Parental alienation is on the increase as are children killing their fathers. Very often the father (rather than the mother) becomes portrayed as the reason for all the negative emotions. Parental alienation does not start or end with divorce. But there are reasons for this behavior. We just need to find that reasoning, however repugnant and irrational.
© USA Copyrighted 2013 Mario D. Garrett
The animosity children feel towards their parents provides a necessary feeling of detachment, augurs for a healthy separation process from their parents. It is how they differentiate themselves from their primary influences in life in order for them to become whole persons. Such feelings are nothing new. The surprise being websites devoted to killing one’s parents, with instructions. Then the second surprise was the statistics.
For more than two decades, Kathleen Heide from the University of South Florida has been conducting analysis of homicides where children kill their parents. In the USA about five parents a week are killed by their biological children. Matricide—where the mother is murdered--and patricide—where the father is murdered—are both very rare events and constitute about 1 percent of all homicides in the United States—but we have a lot of homicides in the US.
In a 2011 report from the Department of Justice, Alexia Cooper and Erica L. Smith reported a change in trend of family homicide. The most common were homicide by a spouse or ex-spouse, which is declining from 52% of all family homicides in 1980 to 37% in 2008. Children killed by their parents were the second most frequent type of family homicide. This is seeing an increase, from 15% in 1980 to 25% in 2008. But the fastest growing homicide is the last category where parents are killed by one of their children. This type of homicide has been increasing steadily from 9.7% of all family homicides in 1980 to 13% in 2008. Children killing their parents is the fastest growing type of family homicide. In the latest federal statistics both matricide and patricide is committed primarily by sons between 16-19 years and then declines rapidly at older ages.
In 1993 Clifford J. Linedecker wrote a book on “Killer Kids” where he reports that there were over a million assaults in the USA by children on their parents, some were fatal. He documents some of the most horrific cases. Most use their parents’ guns, others use knives, axes and any available weapon. The younger killers are more likely to use their parents’ gun.
Since patricide is most frequent (nearly twice as likely as matricide) and increasing, there might be a number of reasons for this. With increasing breakdown of family structure in the USA--with one in two marriages ending up in divorce--there is a risk of one parent alienating their children against the second parent. Parental alienation is on the increase as are children killing their fathers. Very often the father (rather than the mother) becomes portrayed as the reason for all the negative emotions. Parental alienation does not start or end with divorce. But there are reasons for this behavior. We just need to find that reasoning, however repugnant and irrational.
© USA Copyrighted 2013 Mario D. Garrett
Dying to Be Born
Mekayla Storer, and her colleagues in Barcelona, and Daniel Muñoz-Espín, and his colleagues in Madrid, just published interesting findings about death. When a cell dies, it was always assumed that it is in response to age, stress or trauma. In fact, the anti-aging industry is built upon the foundation of stopping cell death with the hope of making us immortal. But these Spanish researchers have shown that cell death is a necessary process for development. That in order for other cells to grow they need some of the cells to die first and create a pattern. What is unique in these studies is that the information comes not from older adults but from studies on the embryo.
For the first time, there is evidence showing that cell death is programmed in order for specific organs to be able to develop. Cell death is not only a part of development but is a required part it. They are like the advance party that charts out a territory and then die, sending out directions for the main party. In the embryo, when a cell dies, its death instructs new tissue growth. The necessity of cell death has been shown to help control normal limb formation, nervous system development, development of kidneys and ear formation.
These studies are showing that cell death is a necessary part of development of normal organs. This is new. Such studies are a death knoll to the anti-aging industry, since such knowledge destroys the concept of eradicating cell death in order to gain immortality. Cell death is a necessary process in order to pave the way for other cells to grow and to enable the growth of different parts of our bodies.
The process is determined by how the dead cells are cleaned by specialized cells that leave behind them a pattern that is followed by the new cells. When cells do not die, then there are problems with development. It is no wonder that birth defects are in parts of the embryos where these dead cells occur. The death of cells and how they are cleaned up is instrumental for the normal growth of cells.
This is important for older adults because dying cells and how they are cleaned up have complementary functions in cancer. We do not know the exact relationship (whether one encourages the other or not) but we know that they are related because we can listen to them communicating. Cells communicate in short distances—known as paracrine—and long distances—through hormones and endocrine system. This language could be what differentiates good dying cells from bad dying cells—cancer. Good dying cells have a different short distance message from cancer cells. Good dying cells might call out to the cleaner cells while cancer cells give short messages that keep the cleaner cells away. How these two different types of dying cells work in aging is still unknown, but we now know that cell death communicate with those living cells. Can you hear me now?
© USA Copyrighted 2013 Mario D. Garrett
Saturday, November 9, 2013
Aging Plastic Surgery: How does invasive cosmetic surgery stand the test of time.
Despite a lengthy economic recession, cosmetic surgery is still
on the increase throughout developed countries. What Roberta Honigman and David
J Castle call the “looks industry” is alive and well. It seems everyone is
doing it. It is a quick fix to a perceived embellishment.
But the fix might be more in the head than on the face. Joshua Zimm, from the University of Toronto
and his colleagues published a study in 2013 showing that facial cosmetic
surgery does not significantly enhance attractiveness and only reduces
perceived age by 3.1 years. So objective improvement is, at best, minimal.
The growth of cosmetic surgery is not a reflection of the
increasing ugliness of people but a reflection of our increasing negative
self-perception. The fact that cosmetic surgery is still increasing in
popularity despite showing little positive outcome—objective measure of
attractiveness or youth—points again to our desire to become perfect.
Body image is closely aligned to self-image and self-esteem.
The sad part of this “looks industry” is that the problem is not how people look,
but how they think they look. Because of this, surgery is often ineffective in
changing this psychology.
The Norwegian researcher Tilmann M Von Soest, from the
University of Oslo, followed 1,500 teenage girls for 13 years where 78 girls had
cosmetic surgery. Those that had cosmetic surgery tended to have a history of
poorer mental health for which cosmetic surgery showed no improvement. If the
issue about our body image is a psychological one, and even when successful—and
most people report that they are happy with the surgery two years on—the
intervention will not change your negative self image. In severe cases of such
negative self-image—body dysmorphic disorder—there is no surgical solution but
psychological.
If you undergo any surgery when you are younger, the effect
might look more unnatural since aging will include loss of skin elasticity and
collagen, along with loss of skin fat across your body. You might have a newly
formed nose but the rest of your face (and body) will be sagging.
In one such example of balance, Teri L. Hernandez and Robert
H. Eckel of the University of Colorado, found that liposuction may slim one
problem area but after a year it will create another problem area. Women who had
fat suctioned from their thighs and lower abdomen ultimately put weight back on
in often less flattering areas like the upper abdomen, back and arms. What we
are learning is that the body controls the number of its fat cells as carefully
as it controls the amount of fat. We need to work with the body to maintain healthy
good looks rather than cutting it up.
There is no data on the number of repeated surgical
procedures. Because the problem is psychological,
it is likely that most people will continue chasing their ideal image through
surgery, until either their money or body gives up. At some point you will have
to address the problem in your head.
© USA Copyrighted 2013 Mario D. Garrett
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Intergenerational Conflict and the Addiction to Money
There is a social contract between generations that we learn to accept.
The contract simply states that we look after you until you grow up and then when you start working, you look after those who helped you. Sounds decent. Except that this social contract, when managed by politicians, translates into conflict for the obvious reason that administrators and politicians are addicted to spending money.
Back to the social intergenerational contract.
If the social generational contract was working why do we have such negative outcomes for children and older adults? In 2010 the 112th Congress Senate introduced bill 294 highlighting that Congress finds the following:
(1) The United States ranks 17th in reading, 31st in mathematics, 23rd in science, and 18th in overall secondary education out of 36 developed nations, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
(2) According to data compiled by the OECD, in 2008 the United States had a child poverty rate of 20.6 percent, which is the 4th highest child poverty rate of the 30 OECD countries that are ranked in this category...
In 2011 we now have a child poverty rate of over 22% with single parents with children having the third highest rate among all OECD countries.We are losing ground.
This is not a successful intergenerational contract. But the litany of woes continues.
Once our children mature and start going to college, there are other pitfalls that do not exist for children in other developed countries. Of the 20 million students that attend college every year in the US, close to 12 million borrow to help cover costs. The August 2013 Federal Reserve Statistics student loans amounted to $1,178 Trillion. Student loans are hovering around $100 Billion a year in new loans per year. Students in the US owe more than the total GDP of over 180 countries and territories (out of 194).
It surprises Europeans to learn that this cost is in addition to state funds that contribute more than $1,060 per student per 3-unit class. An enviable sum for any Country offering free education. All this cost ensures that from infants, to children, to adolescents to adulthood young Americans are enslaved in an economic stranglehold.
From the very young to young adults, between 25%-50% of Americans are destined to remaining in poverty, becoming debt ridden or electing to be uneducated and join the daily cycle of minimum work at $8:50 an hour.
So the social intergenerational contract is not working so well for our children. But at least, for older adults in the USA, there is some benefit to the social intergenerational contract.
Back to the social intergenerational contract.
We need to examine the federal figures more closely for this one.
The most successful social programs in the US has been the introduction of Social Security in 1935. Social Security has been instrumental in lowering poverty levels among older adults. But if we look at the metrics—without denying the comparative improvement of welfare of millions of older adults—the improvement does not translate to economic security in older age.
The 2010 Current Population Survey reported 43.6 million people living in poverty—the largest number in the 51 years for which poverty estimates have been published. Surprisingly, the same report shows that between 2008 and 2009, poverty increased for children under age 18 (from 19.0 to 20.7 percent) and people aged 18 to 64 (from 11.7 to 12.9 percent), but decreased for older adults (from 9.7 to 8.9 percent).
The federal poverty level was defined by Mollie Orshansky between 1963-1964 while she was working for the Social Security Administration. Ms Orshansky used the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s economy food plan for families of three or more persons and multiplied the costs by a factor of three. A sensible enough metrics in 1960s.
How can this happen when the US planned for the aging of the baby boomers? Ronald Reagan established the 1982 Commission to study and make recommendations to Congress on how to solve the Social Security obligations when the baby boomers mature. The venerable Alan Greenspan chaired the Commission. The recommendations, which become law in 1984, was for a major payroll tax hike to generate Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years, in order to build up a large reserve in the trust fund that could be drawn when the boomers become retirees—which is now. This created a massive surplus of $2.7 trillion.
Unlike other countries in the world, the United States is alone in that the surplus is spent, every cent, every year. There is even a law to stop Congress from doing this. The Budget Enforcement Act—Section 13301—made it illegal for Congress to use Social Security funds by excluding Social Security from all budgets including the congressional budget. However the intent of the law is ignored.
The 2013 Social Security Trustees Report states that "Redemption of trust fund bonds, interest paid on those bonds, and transfers from the General Fund provide no new net income to the Treasury, which must finance these payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public." This means that these are no bonds that could be sold. In order to pay this money back the government will have to raise, borrow, or print additional monies to honor them.
The "special issue Treasury Bonds" are not bonds, because they cannot be bought, sold or bartered, but simply IOUs that Congress is NOT obligated to pay back. There are Supreme Court decisions, especially the 1960 Flemming v. Nestor. where the Court denied Nestor's benefits even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. The decision states that there is no obligation for the federal government to honor its commitment to provide social security regardless of your contribution. It is an entitlement as long as we say it is.
The contract simply states that we look after you until you grow up and then when you start working, you look after those who helped you. Sounds decent. Except that this social contract, when managed by politicians, translates into conflict for the obvious reason that administrators and politicians are addicted to spending money.
Back to the social intergenerational contract.
If the social generational contract was working why do we have such negative outcomes for children and older adults? In 2010 the 112th Congress Senate introduced bill 294 highlighting that Congress finds the following:
(1) The United States ranks 17th in reading, 31st in mathematics, 23rd in science, and 18th in overall secondary education out of 36 developed nations, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
(2) According to data compiled by the OECD, in 2008 the United States had a child poverty rate of 20.6 percent, which is the 4th highest child poverty rate of the 30 OECD countries that are ranked in this category...
In 2011 we now have a child poverty rate of over 22% with single parents with children having the third highest rate among all OECD countries.We are losing ground.
This is not a successful intergenerational contract. But the litany of woes continues.
Once our children mature and start going to college, there are other pitfalls that do not exist for children in other developed countries. Of the 20 million students that attend college every year in the US, close to 12 million borrow to help cover costs. The August 2013 Federal Reserve Statistics student loans amounted to $1,178 Trillion. Student loans are hovering around $100 Billion a year in new loans per year. Students in the US owe more than the total GDP of over 180 countries and territories (out of 194).
It surprises Europeans to learn that this cost is in addition to state funds that contribute more than $1,060 per student per 3-unit class. An enviable sum for any Country offering free education. All this cost ensures that from infants, to children, to adolescents to adulthood young Americans are enslaved in an economic stranglehold.
From the very young to young adults, between 25%-50% of Americans are destined to remaining in poverty, becoming debt ridden or electing to be uneducated and join the daily cycle of minimum work at $8:50 an hour.
So the social intergenerational contract is not working so well for our children. But at least, for older adults in the USA, there is some benefit to the social intergenerational contract.
Back to the social intergenerational contract.
We need to examine the federal figures more closely for this one.
The most successful social programs in the US has been the introduction of Social Security in 1935. Social Security has been instrumental in lowering poverty levels among older adults. But if we look at the metrics—without denying the comparative improvement of welfare of millions of older adults—the improvement does not translate to economic security in older age.
The 2010 Current Population Survey reported 43.6 million people living in poverty—the largest number in the 51 years for which poverty estimates have been published. Surprisingly, the same report shows that between 2008 and 2009, poverty increased for children under age 18 (from 19.0 to 20.7 percent) and people aged 18 to 64 (from 11.7 to 12.9 percent), but decreased for older adults (from 9.7 to 8.9 percent).
The federal poverty level was defined by Mollie Orshansky between 1963-1964 while she was working for the Social Security Administration. Ms Orshansky used the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s economy food plan for families of three or more persons and multiplied the costs by a factor of three. A sensible enough metrics in 1960s.
Fast forward to 2013. The US is very different from the US of 1960s. The poverty metrics does not take into account housing costs, differences in living expenses across the country, child care, health care costs, medications and transportation. National Academy of Science developed a new formula to account for these changes. And in January 2011, the federal government officially but reticently acknowledged the need to improve the outdated federal poverty level by releasing a ‘Supplemental Poverty Measure.’
The new index, now known as the Elder Index, was calculated by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research on behalf of the Insight Center for Community Economic Development, and Wider Opportunities for Women. The Elder Index shows that the cost of living for most US older adults far outpaces the Federal Poverty Level. The Elder Index estimates that 18.6 percent of Americans over 65 live below the poverty line, which translates to 6.8 million older adults. This index is more accurate than either the antiquated Federal Poverty Level or the Supplemental Poverty Measure because it takes into account the costs of child care, health care and transportation.
Unlike other countries in the world, the United States is alone in that the surplus is spent, every cent, every year. There is even a law to stop Congress from doing this. The Budget Enforcement Act—Section 13301—made it illegal for Congress to use Social Security funds by excluding Social Security from all budgets including the congressional budget. However the intent of the law is ignored.
The 2013 Social Security Trustees Report states that "Redemption of trust fund bonds, interest paid on those bonds, and transfers from the General Fund provide no new net income to the Treasury, which must finance these payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public." This means that these are no bonds that could be sold. In order to pay this money back the government will have to raise, borrow, or print additional monies to honor them.
The "special issue Treasury Bonds" are not bonds, because they cannot be bought, sold or bartered, but simply IOUs that Congress is NOT obligated to pay back. There are Supreme Court decisions, especially the 1960 Flemming v. Nestor. where the Court denied Nestor's benefits even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. The decision states that there is no obligation for the federal government to honor its commitment to provide social security regardless of your contribution. It is an entitlement as long as we say it is.
Back to the social intergenerational contract.
On the younger generational side there is Infant mortality, child poverty, educational debt encumbered, while on the older adult side we have an increasing number experiencing poverty--despite Social Security--and a Congress that has expropriate--illegally under Section 13301--all of our Social Security Trust Funds. Older adults insurance no longer exists.
Lets look at the social intergenerational contract again.
Intergenerational "conflict" is a product of abuse of funds. It is a creation of politicians and administrators who abuse the implicit agreement we have across generations. When we allow for this to happen--for administrators to expropriate our investment--then we allow for our society, our community, to fend for itself. There are no safety nets. How did we get to this place and what are some of the solutions?
We got to this place because we keep being distracted by peripheral issues that have no significance to our well being. Whenever there is an issue that hits at the core of our being, our civic society, we are distracted by jingoism and national pride or petty politics. The solution is education. Not a radical idea, but one that sounds simpler than it is. Education, not in a formal sense of going to college (which we should if we can afford it or have that inclination) but in terms of being open to discussing everything. To fight for an truly open society. To invest time to understand the issues and not to settle for sound bites. This is hard. Attend a council meeting. Participate. You do not have to say anything, just listen and be aware.
© USA Copyrighted 2013 Mario D. Garrett
We got to this place because we keep being distracted by peripheral issues that have no significance to our well being. Whenever there is an issue that hits at the core of our being, our civic society, we are distracted by jingoism and national pride or petty politics. The solution is education. Not a radical idea, but one that sounds simpler than it is. Education, not in a formal sense of going to college (which we should if we can afford it or have that inclination) but in terms of being open to discussing everything. To fight for an truly open society. To invest time to understand the issues and not to settle for sound bites. This is hard. Attend a council meeting. Participate. You do not have to say anything, just listen and be aware.
© USA Copyrighted 2013 Mario D. Garrett
Epigenetic and Dementia
Epigenetic is a process where so-called "dormant" genes are switched on or off in response to specific chemical triggers. The best example we have in aging is the increasing differentiation of identical twins—twins that developed from a single egg. In the 2005 proceedings at the National Academy of Science where a group of Spanish, Swedish, Danish, English, and American investigators report their study conclusions, it was reported that whereas young identical twin pairs are essentially indistinguishable in their epigenetic markings, older identical twin pairs show substantial variations. Resulting in increasing differences between the pair. This has been termed as “epigenetic drift” which is associated with aging.
Differences in gene expression among older twin pairs were some four times greater than those observed in young twin pairs. And the environment plays a significant role in this differentiation. The more different the twins' upbringing, the greater the difference in their epigenetic makeup and observable differences between the two twins. In some cases there is enough of a difference so that one twin gets dementia and the other does not. Although some genes have been identified for some early-onset forms of Alzheimer's disease, genes only explain 10-5% of diagnosed Alzheimer's disease, the rest remain unexplained and epigenetics might hold the answer.
Paul Coleman, from Sun Health Research Institute, in Arizona, looked at one set of identical twins—one who died of Alzheimer's disease, while the other twin died without Alzheimer’s disease. Coleman and his colleagues found that the twin that died from Alzheimer's disease not only had the characteristic disease in the brain but he also had less epigenetic activity (DNA methylation) indicating that this might be the reason for getting the disease in the first place. The twins attended the same schools and both worked as chemical engineers. However in their adult life, the one that died from Alzheimer's disease at the age of 76 was exposed to extensive pesticides at work, while the healthier twin worked in a different environment and died of prostate cancer at age 79.
Because there are so many factors involved in daily living, there is an issue in saying that the environment switches on/off specific genes that causes changes in the brain. However, emerging new results in dementia, are exposing examples where people with the disease—plaques and tangles throughout the brain—are escaping the expression of dementia. The only feasible answer is the possibility of epigenetic influences.
Epigenetic process has also been shown why certain diseases promote the expression of dementia A study by Jun Wang and her colleagues from New York Mount Sinai Hospital demonstrated that diabetes may bring about epigenetic changes. Having diabetes switches on a disease mechanism in the brain that makes the diabetic patient more prone to dementia. For the first time there is a study that shows why diabetic patients are at an increased risk of developing dementia. This new evidence, that diabetes might be the trigger to dementia, is a more likely cause given that approximately 60 percent of Alzheimer's disease patients have at least one serious medical condition associated with diabetes.
Epigenetics might hold the key in consolidating research findings that we could not explain before, while at the same time provide a theoretical explanation of how environmental and external factors contribute to the expression of dementia.
Differences in gene expression among older twin pairs were some four times greater than those observed in young twin pairs. And the environment plays a significant role in this differentiation. The more different the twins' upbringing, the greater the difference in their epigenetic makeup and observable differences between the two twins. In some cases there is enough of a difference so that one twin gets dementia and the other does not. Although some genes have been identified for some early-onset forms of Alzheimer's disease, genes only explain 10-5% of diagnosed Alzheimer's disease, the rest remain unexplained and epigenetics might hold the answer.
Paul Coleman, from Sun Health Research Institute, in Arizona, looked at one set of identical twins—one who died of Alzheimer's disease, while the other twin died without Alzheimer’s disease. Coleman and his colleagues found that the twin that died from Alzheimer's disease not only had the characteristic disease in the brain but he also had less epigenetic activity (DNA methylation) indicating that this might be the reason for getting the disease in the first place. The twins attended the same schools and both worked as chemical engineers. However in their adult life, the one that died from Alzheimer's disease at the age of 76 was exposed to extensive pesticides at work, while the healthier twin worked in a different environment and died of prostate cancer at age 79.
Because there are so many factors involved in daily living, there is an issue in saying that the environment switches on/off specific genes that causes changes in the brain. However, emerging new results in dementia, are exposing examples where people with the disease—plaques and tangles throughout the brain—are escaping the expression of dementia. The only feasible answer is the possibility of epigenetic influences.
Epigenetic process has also been shown why certain diseases promote the expression of dementia A study by Jun Wang and her colleagues from New York Mount Sinai Hospital demonstrated that diabetes may bring about epigenetic changes. Having diabetes switches on a disease mechanism in the brain that makes the diabetic patient more prone to dementia. For the first time there is a study that shows why diabetic patients are at an increased risk of developing dementia. This new evidence, that diabetes might be the trigger to dementia, is a more likely cause given that approximately 60 percent of Alzheimer's disease patients have at least one serious medical condition associated with diabetes.
Epigenetics might hold the key in consolidating research findings that we could not explain before, while at the same time provide a theoretical explanation of how environmental and external factors contribute to the expression of dementia.
© USA Copyrighted 2013 Mario D. Garrett
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)