Younger generations less likely to have dementia, study suggests

2025-06-0215:42149149www.theguardian.com

Researchers say people born more recently, particularly women, have lower risk at same age as their grandparents

People born more recently are less likely to have dementia at any given age than earlier generations, research suggests, with the trend more pronounced in women.

According to the World Health Organization, in 2021 there were 57 million people worldwide living with dementia, with women disproportionately affected. However, while the risk of dementia increases with age, experts have long stressed it is not not an inevitability of getting older.

“Younger generations are less likely to develop dementia at the same age as their parents or grandparents, and that’s a hopeful sign,” said Dr Sabrina Lenzen, a co-author of the study from the University of Queensland’s Centre for the Business and Economics of Health.

But she added: “The overall burden of dementia will still grow as populations age, and significant inequalities remain – especially by gender, education and geography.”

Writing in the journal Jama Network Open, researchers in Australia report how they analysed data from 62,437 people aged 70 and over, collected from three long-running surveys covering the US, England and parts of Europe.

The team used an algorithm that took into account participants’ responses to a host of different metrics, from the difficulties they had with everyday activities to their scores on cognitive tests, to determine whether they were likely to have dementia.

They then split the participants into eight different cohorts, representing different generations. Participants were also split into six age groups.

As expected, the researchers found the prevalence of dementia increased by age among all birth cohorts, and in each of the three regions: UK, US and Europe. However, at a given age, people in more recent generations were less likely to have dementia compared with those in earlier generations.

“For example, in the US, among people aged 81 to 85, 25.1% of those born between 1890–1913 had dementia, compared to 15.5% of those born between 1939–1943,” said Lenzen, adding similar trends were seen in Europe and England, although less pronounced in the latter.

The team said the trend was more pronounced in women, especially in Europe and England, noting that one reason may be increased access to education for women in the mid-20th century.

However, taking into account changes in GDP, a metric that reflects broader economic shifts, did not substantially alter the findings.

Prof Tara Spires-Jones, the director of the Centre for Discovery Brain Sciences at the University of Edinburgh, described the study as well-conducted. “The number of people living with dementia is still increasing due to our ageing population, but this study adds to the good news that more recent generations have a decreased risk compared to past generations,” she said.

While the study did not investigate the reasons for the decline, Spires-Jones noted a number of factors could be at play. “This is likely due to interventions such as compulsory education, smoking bans, and improvements in medical treatments for conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, and hearing loss, which are associated with dementia risk,” she said.

Spires-Jones added the study had limitations, including that it did not rely on official diagnoses of dementia based on clinical testing.

Prof Tom Dening, of the University of Nottingham, said the study contained good news but it should not be assumed that the trend would continue, given some of the biggest health changes to reduce dementia risk may already have been made.

Prof Eric Brunner, of University College London, said it was important to look closely at recent trends and the impact of policies such as austerity, given other studies – including his own work relating to England and Wales – have suggested dementia incidence, in other words the rate of new cases, may no longer be declining.

David Thomas, the head of policy and public affairs at Alzheimer’s Research UK, said evidence suggested nearly half of dementia cases could be prevented or delayed by addressing 14 key risk factors – from smoking to air quality – although he noted not all were within individuals’ control.

“That’s why Alzheimer’s Research UK is calling on the government to put in place a strategy for preventing ill-health, including addressing dementia risk,” he said.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By gwbas1c 2025-06-0216:563 reply

    A while back I read Silent Spring, and the author made an interesting note: Pesticides used in the 1960s were neurotoxins, and she feared that they could cause neurological disorders. We now use different pesticides.

    • By JumpCrisscross 2025-06-0216:594 reply

      > Pesticides used in the 1960s were neurotoxins, and she feared that they could cause neurological disorders. We now use different pesticides

      The "younger generations" in this study were born between 1944 and 1948. (Older, 1890 to 1913.) Pesticides don't explain why those born in the former have less dementia than those born between 1939 and 1943.

      • By cogman10 2025-06-0217:055 reply

        They do if the effects are cumulative.

        They additionally cite in the article that perhaps it's smoking that's changed, yet that also didn't really significantly change in public until the 90s.

        40 additional years of pesticides/lead/smoking/etc will take their toll.

        • By dragonwriter 2025-06-0217:332 reply

          > They additionally cite in the article that perhaps it's smoking that's changed, yet that also didn't really significantly change in public until the 90s.

          Prevalence of smoking in the US peaked at around 45% in the 1950s, and had dropped to around 25% by the 1990s. (Depending on your own age, this may feel wrong because there was a surge in youth smoking from the 80s peaking in the mid-1990s, so its easy for people in a certainnage range to feel like smoking was very prevalent through the 1990s, and then dropped like a rock.)

          • By JumpCrisscross 2025-06-0217:56

            > Prevalence of smoking in the US peaked at around 45% in the 1950s, and had dropped to around 25% by the 1990s

            Wouldn't you expect to see more variation between the American and European cohorts if smoking were the culprit?

          • By AbstractH24 2025-06-0222:322 reply

            And while smoking has plummeted, nicotine usage is resurgent

            As is smoking of other things

            • By noleary 2025-06-032:591 reply

              Interestingly, there's reasonably good basis to suspect nicotine (though not smoking) can reduce rates of neurodegenerative disease like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.

              • By esperent 2025-06-039:58

                You are correct but you really need to provide a source when making this claim because it sounds so unbelievable:

                https://www.healthline.com/health/alzheimers-dementia/nicoti...

                (Not calling healthline a source, but it has links to publications for those interested).

                It's important to note, of course, that smoking increases the risk of pretty much every bad health related thing that can happen to you, including dementia. However, using nicotine without smoking might have benefits due to its effects on acetylcholine receptors.

            • By daedrdev 2025-06-032:20

              Of course nicotine addiction is one problem and putting ash in your lungs is another

        • By dr_dshiv 2025-06-037:54

          Smoking reduces the risk of dementia because you die first.

        • By adastra22 2025-06-035:19

          I expect the two world wars & a Great Depression might have more to do with it than pesticides or leaded gasoline.

        • By PantaloonFlames 2025-06-031:261 reply

          I would think pesticides in the 1890’s through 1930’s were not as dangerous as what came later.

          Is that a poor assumption?

          • By cogman10 2025-06-032:361 reply

            It is, mainly because the history of pesticide research has basically been looking for the least harmful pesticides to humans.

            Before DDT went into wide use in the 1940s, aersnic based pesticides were common.

            Here's a particularly nasty one that was commonly used up until DDT replaced it.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_hydrogen_arsenate?wprov=s...

            • By thowayaymb 2025-06-032:52

              My great-grandma is the only one in my family who died of cancer and she used to apply farm chemicals by hand

        • By Eric_WVGG 2025-06-034:241 reply

          this is a thousand percent due to lead

          • By userbinator 2025-06-036:021 reply

            The younger generations would've been exposed to much more leaded gasoline per body mass when they were young, whereas the older generations were already at least young adults by the time leaded became commonplace.

            • By cogman10 2025-06-0320:41

              The older generation would have been consuming lead arsenic in the form of pesticides at higher rates than the younger generation.

              IDK if there's a way to measure who got the most poison though.

      • By DrBazza 2025-06-038:123 reply

        I dread to think what diseases the even 'younger generations' are going to get with all the microplastics in just about everything we eat, drink, and in some cases breathe.

        • By lexandstuff 2025-06-038:29

          Microplastics have recently become understood, but humans have lived with a lot of plastic for many, many decades now.

        • By lan321 2025-06-039:341 reply

          Wouldn't it most likely be nothing significant? We love plastic because it's so inert..

          • By marcosdumay 2025-06-0313:41

            The problem with microplastics is that it's forever breaking down in very small amount of very reactive substances.

        • By stavros 2025-06-038:191 reply

          Hell, when chewing gum is made of plastic, I don't think we need to worry about the microplastics in the food.

          • By tremon 2025-06-038:29

            Why is that? Chewing gum is perfectly avoidable, ingesting food not so much.

      • By ReptileMan 2025-06-037:21

        >Pesticides don't explain why those born in the former have less dementia than those born between 1939 and 1943

        If only there was something big in the world happening from 1939 to 1945 ...

      • By exe34 2025-06-0217:101 reply

        Very loose speculation as a non-biologist. Could it have been that most of the healthy males (e.g. good testosterone levels, and whatever else made virile young males) were away at war, and the men left to father children had some sort of deficiency which also correlates with better protection against dementia?

        • By nartho 2025-06-0217:431 reply

          Probably not. you'd have to prove that people who were able bodied in their youth are less likely to have dementia than people with disabilities or bad physical health. To my knowledge there is no such link. Besides, a big part of this sample was from the US who didn't enter the war before the very end of 41 (December 7th so might as well be 1942). Occupied Europe also didn't really have it's men "away at war". Also, men at war, even during WW1, were able to go back home from time to time, so I don't think the argument holds.

          • By JumpCrisscross 2025-06-0217:551 reply

            > a big part of this sample was from the US who didn't enter the war before the very end of 41 (December 7th so might as well be 1942). Occupied Europe also didn't really have it's men "away at war"

            The nail in the coffin for the hypothesis is the lack of significant variation between the US and European cohorts. Europeans were killed indiscriminately. Our men were selectively slaughtered. If there was a selection effect, you'd expect that to present in the American cohorts and not European ones; that is not observed.

            • By happymellon 2025-06-037:21

              Could they prove this, as well?

              > Could it have been that most of the healthy males (e.g. good testosterone levels, and whatever else made virile young males) were away at war

              A lot of healthy males were not away at war, because staying and performing their job was important.

    • By bsder 2025-06-033:191 reply

      More likely vaccines, antibiotics, and public health initiatives/nutrition.

      Diseases (and especially virii) are showing to leave behind WAY more damage than everybody thought. Nutritional stress leaves behind lasting damage as well.

      The early cohort being compared went through the Spanish Flu and the Great Depression. Who knows how much damage those left?

      • By Gibbon1 2025-06-038:461 reply

        My personal experience is your immune system is sharp on both sides. You hope whatever antibodies and immune response gets triggered doesn't cross react with self.

        I have some friends that had Hashimoto's disease. Type 1 diabetes. Friends with lupus. 4-5 friends that had Guillain-Barre syndrome. My mom died of ITP. I have sarcoidosis. I have friends who for unexplained reasons are 'unwell'

        ITP is an interesting one. The antibodies target an enzyme that's needed to keep your blood platelets from binding together in your blood. Thus the idea that you can have autoimmune syndromes that can mess with thousands of different enzymes and proteins. Or stimulate inappropriately. Seriously why not.

        I can totally believe that infection with childhood diseases of yore could lead to dementia later in life.

        • By wyan 2025-06-046:581 reply

          As an anecdote, there seems to be increasing evidence of correlation between infections by virii of the herpes family and dementia.

          • By Gibbon1 2025-06-0419:00

            How much you want to bet that Alzheimer's is like ITP?

    • By colechristensen 2025-06-032:551 reply

      Most pesticides are still neurotoxins, they're just somewhat better targeted towards insects.

      Most flavor compounds in herbs and spices are also neurotoxins, coffee and chocolate contain many neurotoxins, nearly every naturally occurring stimulant or psychoactive substance humans use is a neurotoxins targeting a different creature. We happen to find many of them pleasant or tasty because they evolved to target very distant relatives or we are just weirdos that find mildly poisoning ourselves fun.

      Silent Spring leaned far too much on fear and exaggeration which is a disservice to the much more complicated issues we face with synthetic chemistry and controlling our environment.

      • By gwbas1c 2025-06-0410:36

        The author made it very clear that she believed the problem was indiscriminate use of, and overuse of pesticides. She explained this at the end.

  • By Caelus9 2025-06-037:585 reply

    I’ve been thinking maybe part of it is just how much more we use our brains these days without even noticing. Like, my grandparents had tough lives, sure, but things were pretty routine. They did the same tasks every day, didn’t have to constantly adapt or juggle ten different things at once. Now? We’re switching between apps, replying to emails, figuring out random tech stuff, managing a million small decisions all day long. Even doing something simple like buying groceries online comes with dozens of tiny choices. So maybe it’s not just about avoiding brain damage maybe we’re giving our brains a constant workout without realizing it. Not saying we’re geniuses, but just being mentally active every day might help keep things sharp over time.

    • By nonameiguess 2025-06-0314:431 reply

      I swear I'm not trying to throw a ton of shade here, but it's amusing this is the current top comment when the article says they studied people age 70 and older, which of course they did because those are the people likely enough to have dementia at all that you can do a meaningful comparison.

      > “For example, in the US, among people aged 81 to 85, 25.1% of those born between 1890–1913 had dementia, compared to 15.5% of those born between 1939–1943,” said Lenzen, adding similar trends were seen in Europe and England, although less pronounced in the latter.

      I don't think people born between 1939 and 1943 are less likely to have dementia because of all of the cognitive activity that went into replying to e-mails and choosing groceries online back in the 1970s.

      • By forbiddenvoid 2025-06-0315:31

        Definitely feels like that effect is more likely to be explained by the Great Depression and World War II than anything else.

    • By sigmoid10 2025-06-0311:581 reply

      Bilingualism has been shown in studies to delay cognitive decay [1]. Nearly everyone outside of US/UK in the younger generation speaks at least two languages pretty well, while the older ones often don't.

      [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4052164/

      • By acheong08 2025-06-0312:301 reply

        > Nearly everyone outside of US/UK in the younger generation speaks at least two languages pretty well, while the older ones often don't.

        Interestingly, the opposite seems to have been happening in Malaysia. The older generation tend to be able to speak a ton of languages (Malay, English, Chinese, Cantonese, Hokkien, maybe more), my generation has mostly settled on just English. I have gone out of my way to learn Japanese but even then, I can only understand 4 languages and speak 2 vs the 5 languages my parents/grandparents are essentially native speakers of.

        • By garylkz 2025-06-0316:59

          If you force yourself to communicate in certain language, you more or less will be able to communicate with it sooner or later.

          (Provided that you have basic understanding to the language)

    • By oldpersonintx2 2025-06-039:035 reply

      your grandparents probably read for entertainment instead of tiktok

      your grandparents were more physically active - brain and body are connected

      your grandparents didn't eat ultra processed food because it hadn't been invented yet...once again, brain and body are connected

      • By spacebanana7 2025-06-039:232 reply

        > your grandparents probably read for entertainment instead of tiktok

        It's not trivial to say that our grandparents read more than us. Paper books, newspapers and magazines are less common but we have ebooks, substacks and online newspapers now.

        > your grandparents were more physically active

        Perhaps at work, but my access to exercise during leisure time is much greater.

        > your grandparents didn't eat ultra processed food because it hadn't been invented yet

        I don't have hard data on this, but I think it's fair to say their generation's overall exposure to toxins was much greater. DEET, smoking, leaded petrol, asbestos and coal power stations seem much worse than the occasional McFlurry.

        • By marcosdumay 2025-06-0313:341 reply

          > I don't have hard data on this, but I think it's fair to say their generation's overall exposure to toxins was much greater.

          Just another day my parents were annoyed remembering that the "big, bad government" banned a popular medicine from my grandfather's time. One that people used on cuts all the time.

          Turns out the medicine was lead acetate.

          • By BenjiWiebe 2025-06-0322:521 reply

            Are you sure it wasn't Mercurochrome you're thinking of? It's a mercury compound that was very commonly used to disinfect cuts and scrapes.

            It was prepared from mercuric acetate and sodium dibromofluorescein.

            Goulard's extract, containing lead subacetate, was used on cuts too, but from what I can tell it wasn't nearly as widespread/famous as Mercurochrome.

            • By marcosdumay 2025-06-040:34

              No. Mercury acetate was banned way later (what makes sense because it wasn't the main ingredient on the finished product), that's probably why you know about it.

              It was lead acetate, dissolved on water and a small bit of ethanol.

        • By hiddenfinance 2025-06-0310:13

          >I don't have hard data on this, but I think it's fair to say their generation's overall exposure to toxins was much greater. DEET, smoking, leaded petrol, asbestos and coal power stations seem much worse than the occasional McFlurry.

          Don't forget petro wast such as plastic. It is amazing that we are still a live.

      • By wildrhythms 2025-06-0311:22

        >your grandparents probably read for entertainment instead of tiktok

        This is a reach... Have you met old people? They vegetate in front of the TV channel surfing- their version of TikTok- never questioning the content or researching topics further on their own. And after 40 years of this activity still don't know how to operate the remote.

      • By lan321 2025-06-039:27

        > your grandparents probably read for entertainment instead of tiktok

        We still do? Tiktok/shorts are that on the toilet/in bed activity. I still spend I'd guess on average at least 8 hours a day reading. Not necessarily books but diverse articles, game guides, work stuff..

        > your grandparents were more physically active - brain and body are connected

        More physically active but not more active in skillful tasks. I've seen correlation between less/later dementia and things like playing musical instruments but I've not heard of construction workers being dementia resistant.

        > your grandparents didn't eat ultra processed food because it hadn't been invented yet...once again, brain and body are connected

        Mine ate whatever was available. Many unleavened flour+water flatbreads baked on the woodfire oven used for heating, rice and lots of lye in winter. Lots of fruits and veggies when available.

        Now we mostly eat much better. You have every single fruit/vegetable/meat available 365 days a week, very clean food.. Only gotta stop yourself from overindulging.

        We also have better medicine, better cleaning products, better understanding of what's toxic and bans based on that..

      • By Lovesong 2025-06-0318:04

        >your grandparents probably read for entertainment instead of tiktok

        I strongly disagree. Reading books as activity, maybe. It depends on the person too. But reading itself? In this time and age, we are constantly reading, either in your phone ( even most tiktok videos these days have subs for everything ), browsing the web is a constant reading activity, work/email/essays/whatsapp/telegram, completely outweights the amount of text we read/write now comparing it with our older generation.

      • By nisegami 2025-06-0312:30

        >your grandparents probably read for entertainment instead of tiktok

        I'm not actually sure my grandparents were able to read, let alone for entertainment. Not in the US fwiw.

    • By chatmasta 2025-06-0311:141 reply

      That could easily go the other direction. We’re overloading our brains so much that eventually they’ll just shutdown.

      • By brianmcc 2025-06-0312:35

        It could but you need a body of evidence for it, plus credible pathways to explain it. So far the greater weight seems to be behind "use it or lose it".

    • By poulpy123 2025-06-0314:10

      Lmao doom scrolling and choice paralysis is not using you brain

  • By reverendsteveii 2025-06-0217:155 reply

    https://www.michiganmedicine.org/health-lab/sleep-apnea-cont...

    While we're speculating as to causes obstructive sleep apnea is associated with dementia, estimates are that 30 million people have it, and we only invented CPAPs in 1980.

    • By pedalpete 2025-06-0222:454 reply

      The prevalence of apnea is likely highly over-estimated. ResMed and Philips, who both make billions off of CPAP, push these high figures.

      Measures of OSA (Obstructive sleep apnea) are somewhat poor, more focused on the amount of pauses in breathing, rather than oxygen desaturation, which is the secondary measure. Note, you don't breath 100% of the time when you're awake either.

      I work in sleep and neurotech, and at a large sleep conference last year, a talk was given about better methods to measure apnea. It was clear these measures would have significant challenges in being adopted because it would result in less people being diagnosed as needing CPAP.

      Lastly, the impact of CPAP in improving cognitive function is inconclusive [1]. Not that it doesn't have an affect. It does in some people, but not in others.

      [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13899...

      • By aorloff 2025-06-035:571 reply

        Did anyone report on reductions in sleep apnea due to GLP-1s ? I would imagine that the introduction of effective weight loss meds en masse might change the trajectory of more than a few sleep apnea sufferers

        • By reverendsteveii 2025-06-0314:05

          I have OSA and I haven't taken GLP-1 agonists but I've taken the road they put a person on. 50 pounds ago I was averaging around 15 apnic/hypopnic events per hour, now it's less than 10. My doctor told me that I may as well keep using my CPAP because it seems to help and it's already paid for but that if these were the results of my initial sleep study he wouldn't have prescribed one to me.

      • By Llamamoe 2025-06-0317:341 reply

        Respectfully... how do you work in the field, while being so wrong?

        Oxygen desaturation correlates with long-term metabolic outcomes, but correlates very poorly to day-to-day symptoms.

        The actual primary cause of symptoms in SDB is microarousals resulting from increased respiratory effort, and sleep studies using 3%-or-arousal criteria report MUCH higher OSA rates than the commonly used hypoxia+reduction in flow criteria, while also having a much higher correlation with symptoms(>60% vs ~17% for AHI), and the problem is not over, but under- diagnosis since people with relatively few apneas(e.g. UARS patients) are rarely diagnosed correctly.

        Also, (optimally) healthy people DO breathe 100% of the time during sleep- breathing during sleep is controlled by a different system while awake, and is extremely regular during NREM sleep, with REM merely introducing noise to breath amplitude. Any and all pauses in breathing are caused by sleep disruption.

        The only reason why it seems like apnea-based criteria are oversensitive is because obese, older men often DON'T wake up from airway collapse and may be fine at 5, 10, or even 15 AHI. For everyone else, it's possible to have debilitating symptoms at 4 because the actual Respiratory Disturbance Index is 20+.

        Goddammit man. People like you are why so many go their entire lives unable to find treatment. If you're working in the field, educate yourself about it. Ugh.

        • By reverendsteveii 2025-06-0413:08

          This, precisely. An apneic event is defined as 10 seconds of pause in your breathing (https://www.sleepfoundation.org/sleep-apnea/ahi). Go ahead and hold your breath for a slow count of 10 (set a timer or do the mississippis or alligators or locomotives or whatever other 4 syllable phrase you need to do in order to make it a real, honest 10 seconds. it's long enough to be noticeably uncomfortable). You don't casually do that during the day. Sleep apnea is defined as you doing that 10-15 times per hour, and your sleep study also measures microarousals to correlate (source: I built the damn things for a living a few years back). Also they do monitor o2 sat in children at least, cyanosis is one of the ways they diagnose apnea in children.

          Way too many professionals in the field thinking that they're the first person to think about something when literally millions of people think about this same thing all day every day.

      • By reverendsteveii 2025-06-0314:051 reply

        When I did my sleep study they monitored my o2 saturation. it's true that there's no ongoing monitoring during treatment though.

        • By pedalpete 2025-06-0322:42

          I didn't mean to imply they don't monitor o2 in studies, but the metrics of how apnea is diagnosed relies heavily on hypopnea independent of oxygen desaturation.

      • By teamonkey 2025-06-038:101 reply

        Slightly off-topic, but as someone in the field, what is your opinion of the apnea-detecting functionality of smart watches?

        • By reverendsteveii 2025-06-0413:12

          I'm in the field, I built the software in your cpap machine and home sleep study that we use to test and treat them. It comes down to microarousals, which is where you wake up just enough to disrupt the sleep cycle without actually becoming consciously aware. A smart watch can detect that, and it can also measure o2 saturation in your blood. To my mind that means that a smart watch can determine whether your sleep is interrupted and by how much, and even gather some evidence that apnea could be among potential causes (there are other ways to have low o2 saturation) but I don't think it can actually diagnose.

    • By bhouston 2025-06-0217:381 reply

      Are cpaps that widely used to have that significant of an effect?

      For CPAP to be primarily responsible, we would need a very sizeable portion of the population to be using them, but I think the numbers are less than 3% right?

      From the article as to the effect size:

      “For example, in the US, among people aged 81 to 85, 25.1% of those born between 1890–1913 had dementia, compared to 15.5% of those born between 1939–1943,”

      I'm not saying that CPAPs don't contribute, but they are not likely the main contributors.

      • By alargemoose 2025-06-0222:532 reply

        I think you have this backwards. OP is saying sleep apnea is common, but we’ve only had CPAP machines to compensate for it, since the 80s. I don’t see them trying to implicate CPAP as the cause of an increase in dementia.

        • By Someone 2025-06-035:42

          I think bhouston is arguing (correctly) you can’t have a 10% of the population drop in dementia prevalence by an intervention that only targets 3% of the population, so even if CPAPs contribute, that does not explain most of the drop.

          (If everybody who uses CPAPs would get dementia, and they are 100% effective at preventing that, the drop would still be ‘only’ 3% of the population)

        • By sokoloff 2025-06-030:08

          I read that as saying that 3% CPAP usage couldn’t explain a 10% drop in dementia.

    • By aantix 2025-06-0217:521 reply

      I wonder if sleep apnea diagnoses will decrease with the increasing use of GLP-1s?

      Zepbound is FDA-approved for OSA.

      • By jaggederest 2025-06-035:56

        It 100% will. Interestingly zepbound does more than merely lower weight and thus reduce sleep apnea as a secondary result, it seems to actually help directly from the preliminary studies I've read, much like we're seeing in other domains where GLP-1 drugs actually reduce e.g. fatty liver disease more than the same amount of weight loss alone.

        I wonder if we'll discover that there's actually an endemic deficiency in endogenous GLP-1 production due to some other cause? The usual suspects of environmental contamination or subclinical infection, perhaps.

    • By mike-the-mikado 2025-06-0218:033 reply

      Isn't sleep apnea associated with obesity, which undoubtedly has been increasing?

      • By m-schuetz 2025-06-034:22

        There is also a reverse causality that's often overlooked - People getting obese because they develop sleep apnea. Happened to a relative. Developed allergy-related sleep apnea resulting in significantly reduced sleep quality and quality of life. Was often awake until after midnight due to trouble falling asleep from breathing issues that occured when nose and throat would start to relax. After about two years of this, he let himself go and gain 15kg over the coarse of a single year.

      • By Der_Einzige 2025-06-037:08

        GLP-1 drugs mean that peek obesity is already passed.

      • By reverendsteveii 2025-06-0219:00

        yes, but in one case we're talking about OSA causing dementia and in the other we're talking about obesity causing OSA

    • By jajko 2025-06-0217:37

      Dude, global estimate for OSA is in the range of 1 billion, its a global pandemic

HackerNews