Probiotics for Alzheimer's, can they help ?

In the overall landscape of long-term health interventions, gut health is still an often ignored or dismissed subject. This is despite the fact that we have scientific evidence suggesting a direct link between the gut microbiome and digestion, cardiovascular health, immune system, and mental wellbeing. More recently, research had begun to examine the possibility of gut bacteria also having an effect on our cognitive health and the development of neurocognitive conditions like dementia and Alzheimer’s.

The more we learn about the ways our gut influences the brain via the gut-brain axis, the deeper the connection between what we eat and who we are becomes. With all the knowledge we have about the benefits of gut bacteria, one question remains unanswered - how can we effectively translate these findings into actionable health advice? 

 

Among the most promising candidates for improving gut health are probiotics. Some studies are suggesting that taking probiotics or possibly even eating probiotic-rich foods can improve cognition or even slow down the progression of Alzheimer’s disease. A recent meta-analysis reviewed 294 studies from 1984 to 2021 and found that probiotics do, in fact, have a beneficial effect on neurodegenerative diseases. Read on to find out the specifics. 

How taking probiotics can improve gut health 

 

Did you know that more than half of the human body weight consists of microbes? A big percentage of these beneficial microbes - around 5 pounds (2.7 kg) worth of them - live in the intestines, forming the gut microbiome. Every person’s microbiome is different, and researchers are now trying to work out which strains of bacteria are the most beneficial for our overall health and cognition specifically.

 

Probiotics are believed to be beneficial bacteria, and they exist not only in the human body but also in many fermented foods. The photo below lists the common food source of probiotics, and our article titled 7 Probiotics that Boost Your Health, Besides Yogurt, goes through most of these foods in detail. The idea is that eating probiotic-rich foods or taking food supplements that contain probiotics introduces beneficial bacteria into the intestines, strengthens the gut microbiome, and pushes out any harmful bacteria that might have taken up residence in the gut.

What about cognition and dementia specifically? 

 

The intestines are rich in nerves that regulate your digestion through signals to the spine and brain. These nerves are called the enteric nervous system, or the gut-brain. Researchers believe that an irritated and “unhappy” gut can also impact the brain, and they know that this is true because they have observed that things like a diet high in sugar can impair cognitive abilities and cause brain fog. 

 

Some scientists also suppose that a gut microbiome that’s unbalanced or insufficiently diverse, can contribute to neurodegenerative conditions like Alzheimer’s disease. It is also believed to contribute to a condition called mild cognitive impairment (MCI) - a state between dementia and normal cognition in aging adults. Both conditions are characterized by problems with memory, thinking, and language. To test the idea that diversifying the gut can improve these cognitive issues in older adults, researchers have patients take probiotics and examine their cognitive functioning. 

 

The previously-mentioned review article examined a great number of such studies and concluded that “probiotic supplementation considerably improved cognitive function in the participants with MCI, but it only caused a modest cognitive improvement in those with Alzheimer’s disease.” Therefore, taking probiotics can slow down the progression of these neurodegenerative diseases, especially if introduced when cognitive changes only begin to appear.

In addition, the researchers point out that taking probiotics improved the diversity of fecal microbiota in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. It is known that Alzheimer’s patients have a reduced diversity of microbes in fecal matter. Let us remind you that Alzheimer’s disease affects 6 million Americans and is the leading kind of dementia in the US. The causes of this disease are still unknown, so any new information that can get researchers closer to being able to treat or prevent this condition is extremely valuable. 

 

Is there a recommended dose of probiotics? 

 

Since research in probiotics is still relatively new, health organizations around the world don’t list any specific guidelines on how much or how often one should take probiotics. That said, the review study lists that the minimal dose listed in most of the studies they looked at was 1 x 10⁹ CFU (probiotics are measured in Colony-Forming Units (CFU), which refers to the number of viable cells), or about 1 billion per day. 

 

While this can be helpful if you’re taking probiotic supplements, it’s difficult to say how many probiotics you took if you get them through your diet. In this case, your best estimation is how you feel. If drinking too much yogurt or eating too many pickles makes you feel bloated or upset your digestion in any other way, lower the dose. 

 

Lastly, let us point out that you shouldn’t start taking probiotic supplements on your own. Even though probiotics are generally considered safe, older adults who want to take probiotics for cognitive health are more likely to experience gastrointestinal upsets, infections, or skin rashes than others. Therefore, you shouldn’t start taking probiotics without your physician’s supervision.

 

 

This is only for your information, kindly take the advice of your doctor for medicines, exercises and so on.   

https://gscrochetdesigns.blogspot.com. one can see my crochet creations  

https://gseasyrecipes.blogspot.com. feel free to view for easy, simple and healthy recipes    

https://kneereplacement-stickclub.blogspot.com. for info on knee replacement

https://GSiyers home remedies.blogspot.com   is the latest addition to my blogs

 

Dementia rates are declining, New study says

Dementia is a dangerous syndrome that can severely hamper one’s life. What is worrying is that the condition has spread at an alarming rate throughout the world. Today, around 50 million people worldwide have dementia, and there are nearly 10 million new cases every year. Thus, a lot of awareness and understanding of the condition is still badly needed. 

Some of the common symptoms of dementia are now well known - deterioration in cognitive function - a severe effect of the disease on memory, thinking, orientation, comprehension, calculation, learning capacity, language, and judgment. However, we still need to understand the syndrome better as there are plenty of myths related to it. 

Today, we will look at some of the common myths surrounding dementia that need to be dispelled. Let’s separate fact from fiction.

1. Dementia is unavoidable with age

  

This is perhaps the most common myth associated with dementia. We generally tend to assume that dementia is inevitable with age. However, this isn’t true and dementia is not a normal part of aging. According to the latest report by the Alzheimer's Association, Alzheimer’s disease, the most common form of dementia, affects 3% of people aged 65–74 years in the US. 

 

This means that the vast majority do not develop dementia in its most common form. However, this is not to say that dementia should be taken lightly. The point is that we shouldn’t just automatically accept that the condition cannot be avoided with age.

2. Dementia and Alzheimer’s disease are the same thing

Now, this is a myth that really needs to be dispelled. While dementia and Alzheimer’s are very closely related, their names are not interchangeable. Alzheimer’s is a type of dementia that is responsible for almost 60–80% of all dementia cases. Also, not many people are aware that there are other forms of dementia, too - frontotemporal dementia (FTD), vascular dementia, mixed dementia, and Lewy body dementia, being a few of them. 

 

It is important to understand here that dementia is an overall term for a particular group of symptoms. The National Institute on Aging defines dementia as “the loss of cognitive functioning — thinking, remembering, and reasoning — and behavioral abilities to such an extent that it interferes with a person’s daily life and activities.” While dementias share some specific characteristics, each type has a separate fundamental pathology. 

 

3. Dementia is not fatal

Most people see dementia as a sad, tough, and depressing disease but not many of us consider it fatal. Unfortunately, the fact is that dementia can indeed be fatal. A recent study, published in JAMA Neurology, states that “approximately 13.6% of deaths were attributable to dementia over the period 2000–2009.” The authors, after examining 7,342 older adults, concluded that dementia had been significantly underreported as a cause of death, especially in cases where the syndrome should have been registered as the main cause.

4. Dementia affects only old people

Old age is, of course, a risk factor for dementia. However, it would be incorrect to be under the illusion that dementia affects only old people. Dementia does affect younger adults, too, albeit in rare cases. In fact, people as young as 30, have been identified with the condition.

A 2017 study published in the European Journal of Neurology found that between 38 and 260 people per 100,000 individuals experience the onset of dementia between 30 and 64 years of age. Furthermore, in the 55–64 age bracket, this increases to close to 420 people in 100,000. Health experts say that a lot of things that we do in our formative years can play a role in the development of dementia. Further research is needed in this regard. 

Some of the common types of dementia that affect younger adults are Alzheimer's disease, Vascular dementia, Frontotemporal dementia, and Korsakoff's syndrome.

 

5. Dementia is genetic

 Another common myth associated with dementia is that it is genetic. Many believe that if someone in the family has been diagnosed with dementia, the others are guaranteed to develop the condition later in life. This is false.

 

Some forms of dementia do have a genetic element but the majority of cases do not have a strong genetic link. Rather than genetic factors, the most important risk factor for dementia is age. 

 

6. Vitamins and supplements can prevent dementia

 

 

The thought of developing dementia can be a frightening prospect. To prevent or reduce the risk of the condition, many people also take vitamins or mineral supplements. However, there is no evidence to date that vitamins can prevent dementia. A 2018 review conducted by the Cochrane Library aimed to explore this question. The researchers took data from more than 83,000 participants across 28 included studies. 

 

The analysis states that: “We did not find evidence that any vitamin or mineral supplementation strategy for cognitively healthy adults in mid or late life has a meaningful effect on cognitive decline or dementia, although the evidence does not permit definitive conclusions.” 

 

7. Memory loss is always a sign of dementia

 

 

If you know someone who is experiencing memory loss issues, does that mean they have dementia? Not necessarily. While memory loss can be an early symptom of dementia it doesn’t always indicate the beginning of the condition. Memory issues are generally an early sign of Alzheimer’s disease but not for all forms of dementia. Some of the early signs and symptoms of frontotemporal dementia, for instance, are language difficulties, obsessive behavior, and changes in mood and personality. 

 

Also, remember that human memory is unpredictable. All of us tend to forget things from time to time. However, if you, or someone you know, are experiencing regular memory loss, it would be best to consult your doctor. 

 

8. Dementia marks the end of a fulfilling life

One of the biggest fears associated with dementia is that once you get it, you can’t lead a meaningful life. In fact, many assume that once they are diagnosed with dementia, they can’t even go out to walk alone. Health experts, however, say this isn’t true. 

 

"Too many people are in the dark about dementia — many feel that a dementia diagnosis means someone is immediately incapable of living a normal life, while myths and misunderstandings continue to contribute to the stigma and isolation that many people will feel,” explains Jeremy Hughes, former Chief Executive of the Alzheimer’s Society. 

 

Many dementia patients across the world are leading active and purposeful lives. Yes, dementia affects your way of life and you would have to make certain adjustments to it as the condition advances. However, in many cases, people with mild cases of dementia need not make any changes to their life at all. Even when the condition worsens, it doesn’t mean that a person cannot lead a satisfying life. All you will need is proper care and support.

This is only for your information, kindly take the advice of your doctor for medicines, exercises and so on.   

https://gscrochetdesigns.blogspot.com. one can see my crochet creations  
https://gseasyrecipes.blogspot.com. feel free to view for easy, simple and healthy recipes    
https://kneereplacement-stickclub.blogspot.com. for info on knee replacement
https://GSiyers home remedies.blogspot.com   is the latest addition to my blogs

 

The power of slow therapy, revealed in two pioneering memoirs

You’ve probably heard of cognitive behavioural therapy, a form of psychotherapy that lends itself to research trials and is deliverable in a short, efficient, standardised form. Many clinical psychologists today regard this kind of ‘evidence-based psychotherapy’ as the future. Some do so cautiously, some posturing hubristically. Others are sceptical, either for valid reasons or out of closed-mindedness. I’m an agnostic on this matter, more interested in how evidence-based approaches might address their shortcomings and reach their potential.

To this end, an important first step I suggest is to pay closer attention to our therapy clients and find better ways to listen to, and respond to, their feedback. Encouraging our own clients to write freely about their experiences in therapy would help, but I find that there are also rich insights to be gleaned from published memoirs. They can remind us of the value of slower ways of doing therapy that are supposedly passé.

Two extraordinary, trailblazing examples of the genre by Lucy Freeman (1916-2004) stand out. In 1940, Freeman was one of the few women hired at The New York Times, becoming the first person to cover mental health news; indeed, she invented this as a legitimate beat for a reporter. A prolific author of more than 70 books, her two therapy memoirs provide the first detailed, authentic account of experiencing psychoanalysis from the client’s point of view.

The first, Fight Against Fears (1951), sold more than a million copies. The story begins with Freeman’s suffering, which leads her to sign on to psychoanalysis as an adventure, not quite knowing what to expect. Initially, she insists that she did not recall much about her childhood and that it had been happy. She is encouraged to provide more detail by JH (her analyst) and begins to realise that she often felt lonely and had an acrimonious relationship with her mother and an idealising relationship to her father. I imagined that a psychoanalyst would thrill to make an Oedipal interpretation. Instead, JH focuses on the absence of love and nurturing in Freeman’s family of origin, sins of omission more than commission, in his words. This surprised me, and it prompted me to feel a concern that we – many contemporary psychologists and society at large – have become too comfortable accepting a distorted, caricatured image of psychoanalysis.

Freeman responds well to her analyst’s effort to explore the past, realising, for instance, that it was mainly when sick that she received attention at home. Another painful memory comes to light: proudly showing her mother a poem she had written, only to have her mother react by doubting that she was the author. The portrait that emerges is of an invalidating environment, characterised by explosions of hostility. As the analysis deepens over time, Freeman and her therapist dwell on the legacy of fear that haunted Freeman and interfered with her being able to connect with others.

There are also cringeworthy moments in the memoir, such as JH’s apparent sexism (he implies that becoming a journalist occurred at the expense of Freeman’s identity as a wife and mother); some predictable homophobia; and a strange moment of unabashed advocacy of corporal punishment. Freeman never learns much about JH because of his neutral stance, but she does glimpse his lack of enthusiasm about diagnosis and his scepticism about research, which I saw as unfortunate manifestations of psychoanalytic smugness. At this point I found my initial positive impression somewhat eclipsed by troubled, disheartened feelings.

Ultimately, though, Freeman depicts JH as kind, attentive and helpful, and there are potential lessons here for how psychotherapy is practised today, whatever school a therapist comes from. Indeed, JH does not fit the image of a psychoanalyst that I conjure from those heady days of the field: he is not dogmatic or domineering, and he does not engage in or endorse parent-blaming. Rather, he helps Freeman to become less self-indulgent and more empathic in understanding how her parents’ own history played out in the way that they parented her. Moreover, JH makes room for her to take the lead in exploring her own mind. This particularly perked my attention, as it clearly anticipates contemporary psychology’s focus on the quality of the therapist-client relationship as being a key component of effective therapy. This analyst had his faults, but he was no guru and was persistently devoted to his client’s welfare.

How does Freeman characterise the benefits of psychoanalysis? Her sinusitis disappears, and she no longer whispers in a voice that others could not hear. But Freeman regards the analysis as transmutative on a deeper level, helping her to develop the capacity to think about feelings, value the integration of thinking and feeling, and become appropriately vigilant about the boundary between self and other. As a consequence, her siblings play a bigger role in her life, and she becomes closer to them. Freeman concludes her first memoir by affirming a string of ‘c’ words: compassion, control, conviction, calmness, compromise, and courage. In valuing the importance of learning flexible psychological skills over achieving static insights, I found Freeman’s description of her therapy startlingly contemporary. In fact, her understanding of the goals of psychotherapy resembles what we might now regard as improved ‘mentalisation’ or the ability to think about one’s own thinking and feelings.

In Freeman’s second memoir published decades later, The Beloved Prison (1989), she commences a new analysis with a female therapist, picking up the pieces after a disastrous marriage that occurred after her time with JH. She traces the unfolding of a profitable relationship with her new therapist – until the woman’s premature death. Freeman then embarks on a new treatment, but this third analyst behaves badly: she eats dinner in sessions, criticises Freeman’s clothes, and turns flagrantly unempathetic after Freeman goes through an abortion.

Her fourth and final psychoanalysis, with the therapist ‘DA’, turns out better. From the outset, there is what’s known as ‘positive transference’ (the projection of positive feelings from another relationship onto the therapist): DA is described as a young, handsome man who carries himself in a modest way. Over the course of this treatment, Freeman becomes more comfortable with intense emotions, fully experiencing the anger and anxiety that were identified earlier as issues by JH. She describes her evolution to bear rage against DA as well as her parents, which he responds to with enthusiasm. The trust that she accords to DA leads her to trust in and be more comfortable with herself. Freeman is able to escape the ‘beloved prison’ that was her life, but now she faces the challenge of leaving the prison of the couch as well.

Freeman became a passionate advocate for psychoanalysis and she deserves admiration for her valuable contribution to the field, all the more so in our era of evidence-based practice, in which one must strain to hear clients’ voices. Freeman offers us an astute glimpse into the convoluted path that therapy typically takes and she underscores how the relationship to the therapist is crucial to the experience, especially in establishing an environment in which the client can take the lead. Perhaps the most striking indication of her transformation is that she succeeded in writing such creative, self-revealing books.

Although Freeman’s faith in psychoanalysis has the zeal of a convert, she provides compelling testimony that forces us to reckon with why long-term work was necessary. But what do we make of the fact that Freeman’s first successful analysis is followed by a disastrous marriage, and that she continued to seek out multiple analyses to help her deal with her suffering? She addresses this by asserting that her fate would have been worse without all the analysis. She insists that psychoanalysis was ‘the best investment’ and that it bestowed a sense of abiding peace.

While awkward in spots, Freeman’s documentation of her analysis provides a reminder of a time when therapy could be exploratory without pre-established limits. Such an adventure might well be labelled as a luxury of a bygone era, but it is hard to deny the benefit of investing time and effort to gain as much self-understanding as possible. We live in an age where there is a plethora of treatments, and long-term therapy might not be the best choice for everyone. Yet, it is still the option that provides the greatest potential rewards. Let’s not kid ourselves: no serious work of art and no serious thinking support the notion that self-knowledge and character change follow a short, narrow, linear path. Reading Freeman in 2022 serves as a stark reminder about the diminution of expectations for mental health treatment in our own time.

My emotions fluctuated wildly while reading Freeman’s two memoirs, eluding easy identification, modulation or expression. Not only was I often surprised, I found myself quite envious of her opportunity to engage in therapy at a pace that was not at the mercy of practical constraints. Yet I also felt disappointed by my field’s failure to acknowledge her intrepid path. Indeed, it is impossible to read Freeman without recognising how much feminism has transformed the landscape of mental health and our culture at large. I was impressed that the process was so lively and unformulaic. What if we take seriously that setting goals in therapy from the beginning might interfere with the subsequent process of discovery? What if we were to construe false starts and mistaken directions as unavoidable, par for the course, and sometimes illuminating? What if we were determined to aim higher and not rest content with mere symptom relief? Here’s my challenge to the evidence-based crowd: you must take adequate precautions not to provide clients only with what you have to offer, at the expense of what they actually want.

And what about psychoanalysis? Today, it survives in humbler forms than Freeman experienced, but it continues to affirm a commitment to the vast unruliness of the mind, cultivating reflection on emotions in relation to past history, and persevering in the elusive search for well-being, as Freeman proclaimed many years ago. Her work lends strong support to the value of long-term therapy and the need to make room for what clients have to tell us about the work that we do.

 

This is only for your information, kindly take the advice of your doctor for medicines, exercises and so on.   

https://gscrochetdesigns.blogspot.com. one can see my crochet creations  
https://gseasyrecipes.blogspot.com. feel free to view for easy, simple and healthy recipes    
https://kneereplacement-stickclub.blogspot.com. for info on knee replacement