Using food stamps can help slow down brain decline as you age: study
Over 41 million people participated last year in the US Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which helps low-income families purchase nutritious food.
We've long known that healthy foods — especially those rich in omega-3 fatty acids, antioxidants and vitamins — can support brain function, memory and cognitive performance.
A nutritious diet can support brain function, protect against cognitive decline and potentially reduce the risk of neurodegenerative diseases.
Kay Abrahams/peopleimages.com – stock.adobe.com
Now, new research reports that older SNAP recipients have a better chance of staving off cognitive decline than their peers who do not partake in the program.
'Research has shown that food insecurity can negatively impact cognitive function, and this is one of the first long-term studies to show that food assistance programs can positively impact cognition,' said Maria C. Carrillo, chief science officer and medical affairs lead for the Alzheimer's Association.
The study, out of the University of Georgia, tracked 1,100 people 50 and older who were enrolled in SNAP in 2010 and 1,200 older adults who were eligible for SNAP but did not participate.
Researchers interviewed participants every two years between 2010 and 2020 to assess their memory and ability to plan and carry out tasks.
Over 41 million people participated last year in the US Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which helps low-income families purchase nutritious food.
They determined that SNAP participants had a 0.10% slower decline in overall cognitive function, affording them two to three additional years of good brain health in the 10-year study period.
'For someone starting at a healthy cognitive score, this slower decline could delay reaching the threshold for mild cognitive impairment by nearly a decade,' said Linlin Da, lead study author and a Ph.D. candidate in health services research at UGA.
People with mild cognitive impairment face a significantly higher risk of developing dementia, a decline in memory, thinking, language, judgment and behavior that is so severe that it interferes with daily life.
While all SNAP participants seemed to benefit brain-wise, Da's team noticed that white SNAP recipients exhibited even slower cognitive decline than black and Hispanic participants.
The researchers are calling for further exploration into the racial and ethnic disparities in the relationship between SNAP and cognitive health.
Their findings were presented Wednesday at the Alzheimer's Association International Conference in Toronto.
The study results come weeks after President Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' introduced steep cuts to SNAP, making it harder for people to qualify and decreasing benefits for eligible recipients.
SNAP participants averaged about $187 in monthly benefits before the legislation was approved. The program — which dates back to 1939, during the Great Depression — cost about $100 billion in federal funding last year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scientific American
4 hours ago
- Scientific American
Strong Support for NASA and Project Artemis Will Advance the U.S.
During President Trump's first term in office, he signed Space Policy Directive 1, signaling the administration's desire to bring American astronauts back to the moon. This directive, and similar ones, later became Project Artemis, the lunar campaign with broader ambition to get the U.S. on Mars. But will we get to the moon, not to mention Mars? As the space race against China barrels forward, the White House first proposed $6 billion in total cuts to NASA funding, a roughly 24 percent reduction that experts said would be the largest single-year cut to agency funding in history. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. But in the aftermath of President Trump signing the ' One Big Beautiful Bill,' which did reintegrate certain funds for Project Artemis, Congressional appropriations committees have continued to push back against the administration's myriad cuts to NASA, which for the space agency's science unit alone was a 47 percent reduction to approximately $3.9 billion. The Senate committee's bill kept NASA science funding, integral to the support of Artemis and its mission, roughly at their current levels, while the House draft halved the cuts proposed by the White House. The Senate appropriations committee also firmly rejected the president's original proposal to terminate Project Artemis's Space Launch System and Orion Spacecraft after the conclusion of the Artemis III mission. This conflict and dizzying back and forth regarding America's moonshot project suggests a question: Are we committed to Artemis and the broader goal of understanding space? Or to put it another way: Do we want to win this new race to the moon? The current administration owes us an answer. There's more than just a soft-power victory over China's taikonauts at stake. This endeavor is about cementing the U.S. as a technological superpower, a center for understanding space and our solar system, and in due course, setting us up to be the first to live and work on the moon. Americans support this goal. A recent CBS News poll shows broad support for sending astronauts back to the moon. But it will be hard for the administration to reconcile its anti-government spending message with a full-throated support of Artemis and related missions. This isn't the first time the U.S. has faced such a debate. In the winter of 1967, Senator Clinton P. Anderson and his space committee initiated an inquiry into the disastrous Apollo 1 fire that killed three American astronauts. Letters flooded into Congress. Concerned citizens across the country offered their theories about the cause of the conflagration. But others asked a more poignant question that was at the center of national debate: Why are we going to the moon in the first place? 'I want to say here and now that I think the moon project is the most terrible waste of national funds that I can imagine,' wrote James P. Smith of Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y. in a letter housed at the Legislative Archives in Washington D.C. 'Let [the Russians] go to the moon and let us use our money to end the war in Vietnam and raise our standards of living.' Others pressed their representatives to not give up their support of the Apollo program. Julius H. Cooper, Jr., of Delmar, Md., said in his letter to Anderson's committee: 'Should a manned landing by the Soviets occur on the moon first make no mistake about it the political and scientific repercussions will be tremendous.' Today's America, in many ways, is the same. Social discord, financial struggles, and conflicts abroad continue to consume our country's time, energy and resources. But the value of Project Artemis goes beyond the scientific discoveries and technological advancements that await. The success of this new moonshot will at the very least prevent space dominance from adversaries, including Russia and China, which have partnered together on their own International Lunar Research Station. Both countries have declined to sign onto the Artemis Accords, a worrying sign that these nations don't agree with our approach to the 'peaceful' exploration and use of space. To be clear, this Artemis isn't just a jobs program. Although the work created by these missions will bring a positive economic impact, the reality is that humankind's future is among the stars. Our government should be the one to orchestrate the path there while inspiring the next generation to continue exploring the depths of space. But instead of leaning into the benefits of Project Artemis, the administration is creating hurdles for the moon bound mission. To start, NASA has no permanent leadership. The administration withdrew its nomination of tech billionaire and civilian astronaut Jared Isaacman to lead the space agency, so despite the recent appointment of Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy as interim administrator, NASA will continue for months without a leader pushing Project Artemis forward. And despite Duffy's assurance that Artemis is a critical mission, the message runs hollow if word from the Oval Office doesn't match. Again, the president initially called for the end of the program's Space Launch System and Orion crew capsule following the Artemis III mission for more cost-effective commercial systems. Trump's initial budget also called for the termination of the Gateway station, the planned lunar outpost and critical component of Project Artemis's infrastructure. This would effectively kill the program that President Trump championed with his initial space policy directive. Congress did ultimately provide funding for additional Artemis missions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, but it remains to be seen whether that reflects a sustained change in the administration's commitment. The success of Artemis requires extended support, not preemptively phasing out critical mission components or funding for NASA's incredibly valuable science missions. Artemis and NASA's science programs contribute an extraordinary amount toward America's technological might, so funding shouldn't be framed as an 'either/or' proposition. Now is the time to brush away uncertainty and put Artemis on a track forward. As critics have pointed out, it is unclear whether NASA has a tangible plan for getting to the moon and back. The lunar landing system is still in the concept stage. This is a chance for the president to show leadership by stepping in and pushing his government to achieve a monumental task, one that he might compare to the success of Operation Warp Speed during his first term. The administration needs to move fast and nominate a leader for NASA who will prioritize Artemis and its core mission. It needs to walk back plans to slim down government that are causing 2,000 senior officials to leave NASA at a time when leadership matters more than ever before. In short, Project Artemis requires financial certainty. The success of the program will come from the willingness of this administration to fully commit to it. In Air & Space magazine's June/July 1989 issue commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing, author Andy Chaikin opined on why America hadn't yet gone back. 'One of the lessons of Apollo is that the decision to 'go someplace' can't come from anyone in NASA, or from moon advocates, or from the Mars advocates,' he wrote. 'It's got to come from the top.' If President Trump supports this moonshot, Americans deserve a clear justification straight from the Oval Office. Americans need to buy into the message from the top, whether it's one of technological or political superiority, a desire to discover the unknown, or something else. Ultimately, Senator Anderson's 1967 space committee recommended that the Apollo program continue, with the caveat that improvements needed to be made. Today, boxes of letters sent into the Apollo 1 investigatory committee sit in the Center for Legislative Archives in Washington, D.C., serving as a time capsule of one of America's most contentious debates. Inside one of these boxes there's a handwritten letter from a woman named Ruth B. Harkness, of Wataga, Ill., inquiring about the U.S.'s determination to get to the moon. It distills down the very question we're struggling with now. 'May I ask, Why?' she wrote. Tell us, Mr. President.
Newsweek
10 hours ago
- Newsweek
California Removes 900,000 People From Health Care Plan
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Hundreds of thousands have been removed from a health care plan in California over the course of two years, according to data from KFF, a nonprofit health policy research and news organization. About 900,000 Americans were disenrolled from Medicaid in the state as part of the unwinding process happening nationwide after Medicaid coverage was expanded following the COVID-19 pandemic. Newsweek has contacted the California Department of Public Health via email for comment. Why It Matters The unwinding process has resulted in significant drops in Medicaid enrollment across the U.S. There is now growing concern about the rising population of those without health insurance and the wider impacts this could have, such as worsening health outcomes, increasing strain on emergency services and rising medical costs. The worry has been amplified by the recent passing of President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill, in which funding cuts, a focus on "waste, fraud and abuse" and work requirements are in store for Medicaid. Many have voiced concern that the measures will result in millions losing health coverage. File photo: A doctor walks with a young boy through a hospital. File photo: A doctor walks with a young boy through a To Know In California, there were 14,285,643 covered by Medicaid in March 2023, but by March 2025, that number was 13,392,566, KFF data shows. This was because during the pandemic, some states expanded Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), causing nationwide enrollment levels to increase. Federal rules forced states to keep most Medicaid enrollees on the program, even if their eligibility status changed, until March 2023, when they were then allowed to start rolling recipients off the program. This marks a change of about 900,000, a decline that was smaller than other highly populated states like Texas, Florida and New York. In March 2025, the number of people with Medicaid coverage in California was still higher than pre-pandemic levels, by 16 percent. The reason why Medicaid coverage is unwinding at different rates in states is because "states approached the process of reviewing the eligibility of their Medicaid beneficiaries with fundamentally different strategies," Michael Sparer, professor and chair of the Department of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University, told Newsweek. He said that Florida and Texas began the review process "as fast as they could and immediately declared ineligible those beneficiaries who did not promptly respond to review notices." "There is clear evidence that many beneficiaries who were still eligible lost coverage simply because they did not timely navigate the administrative hurdles to recertification," he added. Meanwhile, he said that New York and California "were far more deliberate in how they approached the review process, thus the number who've lost their eligibility via this process is far fewer." What People Are Saying Michael Sparer, professor and chair of the Department of Health Policy and Management at Columbia University, told Newsweek: "Medicaid enrollment surged during the pandemic for several reasons, including increased unemployment combined with a requirement that in exchange for additional federal funding, states could not recertify beneficiary eligibility until the "public health emergency" was declared over. Put simply, millions signed up during the pandemic and their eligibility could only be reviewed beginning in the spring 2023. "There is reason to be quite concerned about how this has played out and also what it suggests may happen when Medicaid work requirements, which create their own set of administrative hurdles, are implemented. First, persons who are eligible for coverage should not lose coverage. Bad health outcomes will follow. Second, persons who are no longer Medicaid eligible should be guided to other options, such as subsidized ACA marketplace coverage. Finally, the variation in how states conduct Medicaid eligibility reviews leads to unfortunate inequities." What Happens Next As the unwinding continues, more reductions in enrollment are expected in California and across the country. With millions already having lost health coverage, concerns remain about access to care for low-income individuals and families.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Three factors will stall dementia and the aging process, according to new U.S. study
By 2050, over 1.7 million Canadians are projected to be living with dementia. This represents an increase of 187 per cent compared to 2020, when approximately 597,300 Canadians were living with dementia, according to the Alzheimer's Society of Canada. Dementia describes the decline of mental ability, while Alzheimer's Disease is the medical term for the brain disease that commonly causes dementia. Researchers are now saying certain lifestyle changes can stave off mental decline. A new U.S. study sets out what Alzheimer's researchers are calling the strongest evidence yet regarding what is involved in slowing the aging process and improving cognition. It comes down to three key factors: a diet heavy on leafy greens, berries and grains, regular moderate exercise and ongoing social interaction. Regular cardiovascular monitoring is also a factor. Jessica Langbaum, senior director of research strategy at the Banner Alzheimer's Institute in Phoenix was not involved directly in the research but she presented the findings at an annual conference of experts in Toronto on Wednesday. The Alzheimer's Association International Conference (AAIC) is the largest international meeting dedicated to advancing dementia science and clinical practice. This year's gathering brought together 8,000 scientists and clinicians from all over the world, with the goal of improving diagnosis, risk reduction and treatment. The study pulled together diet, exercise and socialization in one substantial, structured study of 2,100 people in their 60s and 70s at risk of developing dementia, showing that bad habits 'can really slow down memory and thinking' in adults at risk for cognitive impairment and dementia, Langbaum told the PBS New Hour in an interview on Wednesday evening. The subjects who participated in the study changed their habits, shifting from a sedentary lifestyle to an active one and improving their diet over a two-year period, resulting in cognitive function scores on par with people one or two years younger. That might not sound like much, but Langbaum says the results are significant evidence that change can occur without medication. 'And so, it's showing that we can change the trajectory of aging,' she said. There were two groups in the study. In one, lifestyle changes were structurally prescribed. In the other, the changes were self-directed. The results for the prescribed group were much better, but Langbaum says both groups showed improvement. The biggest challenge that study participants faced was sustaining a new exercise regime. Langbaum recommends people find something that they enjoy doing. 'If (you're) frustrated by it, (you're) just going to give up. But do something that you enjoy. Better yet, do it with somebody else or others around you because socialization is key, and lastly, something that you can adhere to, if you can schedule it. It's something that you can stay committed to.' Regarding nutrition she notes: 'We say what's good for the heart is good for the brain, so a nice balanced … nutritious diet with … those leafy greens, low in saturated fats, all of those things.' The American Alzheimer's Association spent close to US$50 million on the study. The National Institutes of Health spent even more to ensure many of the participants underwent brain scans, blood tests and sleep studies aimed at provide additional information down the road. Meanwhile, Langbaum expresses concern that structured intervention may not be sustainable in most communities. 'I think that's really the next stage of the research is, how do we make this scalable in communities so that people can implement these things into their daily lives?' The American Alzheimer's Association is planning to spend another US$40 million on implementing the lessons of the study. Langbaum says that will come with a change in the mindsets of doctors. They 'should be treating lifestyle interventions as they would a drug,' she told NPR. That would mean prescribing improved exercise and eating regimens and getting insurers to cover those prescriptions, she added. Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
