Leisure-time physical activity at midlife and the risk of dementia and Alzheimer's disease.

Aging Research Center, Division of Geriatric Epidemiology, Neurotec, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
The Lancet Neurology (Impact Factor: 21.82). 12/2005; 4(11):705-11. DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(05)70198-8
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Physical activity may help maintain cognitive function and decrease dementia risk, but epidemiological findings remain controversial. The aim of our study was to investigate the association between leisure-time physical activity at midlife and the subsequent development of dementia and Alzheimer's disease (AD).
Participants were randomly selected from the survivors of a population-based cohort previously surveyed in 1972, 1977, 1982, or 1987. 1449 persons (72.5%) age 65-79 years participated in the re-examination in 1998 (mean follow-up, 21 years). 117 persons had dementia and 76 had AD. Multiple logistic regression methods were used to analyse the association between leisure-time physical activity and dementia or AD.
Leisure-time physical activity at midlife at least twice a week was associated with a reduced risk of dementia and AD (odds ratio [OR] 0.48 [95% CI 0.25-0.91] and 0.38 [0.17-0.85], respectively), even after adjustments for age, sex, education, follow-up time, locomotor disorders, APOE genotype, vascular disorders, smoking, and alcohol drinking. The associations were more pronounced among the APOE epsilon4 carriers.
Leisure-time physical activity at midlife is associated with a decreased risk of dementia and AD later in life. Regular physical activity may reduce the risk or delay the onset of dementia and AD, especially among genetically susceptible individuals.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this study; it was aimed to study on the effect of physical activity on the children's learning ability beside making the students gain regular physical activity habit especially from the childhood age for the disabled students having learning difficulties. The working group include forty students having learning difficulty. The physical activity levels were defined by International Physical Activity Questionnaire (UFAA) and the cases (phenomenons) were classified like these; physically nonactive ones, having lower physical activity levels and enough physical activity levels. "Learning Disability Recognition Questionnaire" teachers form was used. Nearly %17 of the students were not found physically active, %71of the students had lower level of physical activity level and only %12 of the students had enough physical activity level. Meaningful difference was found including (p<0.01) between physical activity level and learning abilities. It was found out that when the physical activity levels increased the learning success increased too. It was observed that there was a similarity between the children's physical activity and learning abilities. For that reason, the necessary supportive education to increase the physical activity becomes more important for the children having learning difficulty.
    Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 12/2012; 69:1572-1578. DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.100
  • Source
    Ageing and Old Age as a Task – Health, Activation, Development and Integration., 1 11/2014: chapter Assessment of health situation of senior citizens – based on a study carried out in the region of Silesia: pages 53-62; Wydawnictwo LIBRON – Filip Lohner., ISBN: ISBN 978-83-65148-01-8
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Alzheimer's disease (AD) represents an increasing worldwide healthcare epidemic. Secondary preventive disease-modifying treatments under clinical development are considered most effective when initiated as early as possible in the pathophysiological course and progression of the disease. Major targets are to enhance clearance and to reduce cerebral accumulation of amyloid, decrease hyperphosphorylation of tau and the generation of neurofibrillary tangles, reduce inflammation, and finally progressive neurodegeneration. Comprehensive sets of biological markers are needed to characterize the pathophysiological mechanisms, indicate effects of treatment and to facilitate early characterisation and detection of AD during the prodromal or even at asymptomatic stages. No primary or secondary preventive treatments for AD have been approved. Epidemiological research, however, has provided evidence of specifically modifiable risk and protective factors. Among them are vascular, lifestyle and psychological risk factors that may act both independently and by potentiating each other. These factors may be substantially impacted by single or multi-domain strategies to prevent or postpone the onset of AD-related pathophysiology. Researchers have recently started the European Dementia Prevention Initiative (EDPI), an international consortium to improve strategies for preventing dementia. EDPI, in particular, includes the Finnish Geriatric Intervention Study to Prevent Cognitive Impairment and Disability (FINGER) which aims at optimizing the early identification of subjects at increased risk of late-life cognitive deterioration, and at the evaluation of multi-domain intervention strategies. The ongoing discussion on new diagnostic criteria provided by the International Working Group (IWG), as well as by the recommendations summoned by the National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association (NIA-AA) initiative, has inspired the creation of novel study designs and the definition of earlier target populations for trials in pre- and asymptomatic at-risk and prodromal stages of AD. As a result, a number of promising international prevention trials are currently ongoing. In this review, we critically discuss the main paths to AD prevention through control of modifiable risk factors and lifestyle changes. We will also review the role of biomarkers to identify subgroups of patients who would most likely benefit from secondary prevention strategies, and to evaluate the benefit of treatment in such patients.
    The Journal of Nutrition Health and Aging 01/2015; 19(2):154-63. DOI:10.1007/s12603-014-0515-3 · 2.39 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 29, 2014