Defeating Dehydration — Patient Monitoring Is Key
For older adults, dehydration is the most common fluid and electrolyte problem and one that can have devastating long-term effects.
From Defeating Dehydration — Patient Monitoring Is Key
By Maura Keller
Aging Well
Vol. 3 No. 4 P. 24
Friday, 21 January 2011
Wednesday, 27 October 2010
Medical Marijuana raising issues with those "cool with it" in the Nursing Home Communities
Weigh in, what do you think? Here's the article from the New York Times "New Old Age Blog"
http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/27/medical-marijuana-raises-tough-questions-in-nursing-homes/?hp
http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/27/medical-marijuana-raises-tough-questions-in-nursing-homes/?hp
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
2025: A Lot of Old People on the Roads
A Great discussion on mobility and access issues regarding our respected elder citizenry.
What do you think? Click the above to get involved in this discussion being held, worldwide!
What do you think? Click the above to get involved in this discussion being held, worldwide!
Friday, 27 August 2010
A fun site. Find out what was going down during your birth year.
Cleopatra was all the rage during my birthyear. How about yours?
Monday, 23 August 2010
NEW Designer Travel Canes in Wonderful Prints, Patterns and Colours
The Switch Stick is a stylish folding walking stick (cane) that’ll keep you moving and looking good. Tough and durable, made of lightweight aluminium and with adjustable height, the Switch Stick is the perfect fit for the most demanding person!
FEATURES:
Folding, adjustable travel cane
Shaft: 4 piece, lightweight aluminum with internal bungee cord
Handle: Ergonomic wood design in black
Accent ring: Silver
Colour: Black shaft with multi-colour circles and black handle
Adjustable length- 33 to 37 inches in 1 inch increments
Weight: 12 oz (approximately)
Complimentary black Carry Bag: water resistant
Complimentary wrist strap-can be removed
Tip: rubber traction tip with steel insert for durability
Weight capacity: 220 lb
Folding, adjustable travel cane
Shaft: 4 piece, lightweight aluminum with internal bungee cord
Handle: Ergonomic wood design in black
Accent ring: Silver
Colour: Black shaft with multi-colour circles and black handle
Adjustable length- 33 to 37 inches in 1 inch increments
Weight: 12 oz (approximately)
Complimentary black Carry Bag: water resistant
Complimentary wrist strap-can be removed
Tip: rubber traction tip with steel insert for durability
Weight capacity: 220 lb
Wednesday, 14 July 2010
Wonder Software IMPROVES Brain Function and Health!
If you’re over 60; getting the most out of life depends on keeping your mind sharp. Dementia, which affects 1-in-8 people age 65+ and half the population over 85, is the most severe threat to your quality of life.
Medical research has concluded that on-going rigorous cognitive stimulation is associated with 63% reduced risk of dementia.
Start cross-training your brain today with Dakim BrainFitness, the ONLY clinically tested brain fitness software created for people over 60!
Medical research has concluded that on-going rigorous cognitive stimulation is associated with 63% reduced risk of dementia.
Start cross-training your brain today with Dakim BrainFitness, the ONLY clinically tested brain fitness software created for people over 60!
Monday, 28 June 2010
When I'm 164
From the NEW Old Age Blog, New York Times online June 28, 2010, 9:00 am
When I’m 164
By PAULA SPAN
My theory is that the more intensely involved we are with caring for the very old and sick, the less appealing the notion of ever-longer lifespans becomes.
I can practically hear legions of New Old Age readers — hip-deep in elder tasks, in decisions and tussles and exhausting responsibilities — chorusing, “More years of this? Please, no.” A number of older readers have expressed similar sentiments here themselves.
But what if longevity didn’t involve an extended period of managing chronic illnesses and coping with frailty and disability, as so often happens now? What if we were talking about years of health and vigor, decades or even centuries in which we barely felt the impact of age? About not merely (merely!) defeating killers like Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s, but achieving near-immortality?
Such visions, and the emerging science that might make them possible, have intrigued Jonathan Weiner, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author, for years. In his new book, “Long for This World: The Strange Science of Immortality,” he is our tour guide along the gerontological frontier, and our elucidator, talk show host and resident philosopher, too. He introduces us to memorable characters, escorts us around biology labs and ancient Italian basilicas, lets us peer through microscope at single-cell organisms giving birth.
I found “Long for This World” a model of clarity; even those who decided back in junior high that science wasn’t for us can follow what these molecular biologists are up to and what theorists mean when they explain aging as a product of evolution. An excerpt:
[I]f you’re a body and you’ve got to survive long enough to reproduce and you’ve got limited resources, then you’re going to put those resources into the task of reaching reproductive age, finding a mate and passing on those genes. If you divert too many of your limited resources into building a body that will last into old age, then you may not live long enough to pass on your genes. Bodies that follow that losing strategy will get weeded out by natural selection. In this way, evolution selects for decrepitude.
Can we buck that long history? Mr. Weiner, let me disclose, is my colleague at the Columbia University Journalism School, so I trotted down the hall to ask him a few leading questions — like, what is the current state of this “strange science”?
Jonathan WeinerDeborah Heiligman
“There’s ferment as never before,” he replied. “Biologists more and more think we might understand aging” – whose causes, he pointed out, remain hotly debated. Which is why, he added, “If you think they’ll come up with a pill tomorrow to cure aging, dream on.” Mr. Weiner takes the prospect of vastly extended life seriously, though, because we know so much more about how cells and bodies behave than we used to.
Yet it’s hard for any of us, erudite authors included, to quite get our minds around what this might mean. One of the most exuberant scientists he interviewed predicts that when life expectancy reaches multiple centuries, humans may become extraordinarily risk-averse, unwilling to ride in a car or ski because they’ll have too much time ahead, too much to lose.
Maybe people won’t have many children, either. Maybe we won’t need offspring to stoke a sense of immortality when we’re virtually immortal ourselves.
Sometimes the more fascinating question isn’t whether science can accomplish something, even an outlandish-sounding something, but whether it should. Do we want humans to live for centuries? Is that really a happy prospect?
“I’m very conflicted and confused about it,” Mr. Weiner told me. “On the one hand, if you’re curious and enjoy life and you’re healthy, how can you deny the appeal? How can you say, ‘OK, 80 is fine,’ if at 80 you had the health you had at 40?”
And yet, he went on, “You have to think of the health of the next generations, the health of the planet. Human beings already are impoverishing future generations. Wouldn’t this be the ultimate selfishness? What kind of society would we have? What kind of world? You have to consider more than your own love of life.”
To conquer age: Science’s greatest triumph? Or a horrifying scenario? I’m ambivalent myself, and I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.
Paula Span is the author of “When the Time Comes: Families With Aging Parents Share Their Struggles and Solutions.”
When I’m 164
By PAULA SPAN
My theory is that the more intensely involved we are with caring for the very old and sick, the less appealing the notion of ever-longer lifespans becomes.
I can practically hear legions of New Old Age readers — hip-deep in elder tasks, in decisions and tussles and exhausting responsibilities — chorusing, “More years of this? Please, no.” A number of older readers have expressed similar sentiments here themselves.
But what if longevity didn’t involve an extended period of managing chronic illnesses and coping with frailty and disability, as so often happens now? What if we were talking about years of health and vigor, decades or even centuries in which we barely felt the impact of age? About not merely (merely!) defeating killers like Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s, but achieving near-immortality?
Such visions, and the emerging science that might make them possible, have intrigued Jonathan Weiner, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author, for years. In his new book, “Long for This World: The Strange Science of Immortality,” he is our tour guide along the gerontological frontier, and our elucidator, talk show host and resident philosopher, too. He introduces us to memorable characters, escorts us around biology labs and ancient Italian basilicas, lets us peer through microscope at single-cell organisms giving birth.
I found “Long for This World” a model of clarity; even those who decided back in junior high that science wasn’t for us can follow what these molecular biologists are up to and what theorists mean when they explain aging as a product of evolution. An excerpt:
[I]f you’re a body and you’ve got to survive long enough to reproduce and you’ve got limited resources, then you’re going to put those resources into the task of reaching reproductive age, finding a mate and passing on those genes. If you divert too many of your limited resources into building a body that will last into old age, then you may not live long enough to pass on your genes. Bodies that follow that losing strategy will get weeded out by natural selection. In this way, evolution selects for decrepitude.
Can we buck that long history? Mr. Weiner, let me disclose, is my colleague at the Columbia University Journalism School, so I trotted down the hall to ask him a few leading questions — like, what is the current state of this “strange science”?
Jonathan WeinerDeborah Heiligman
“There’s ferment as never before,” he replied. “Biologists more and more think we might understand aging” – whose causes, he pointed out, remain hotly debated. Which is why, he added, “If you think they’ll come up with a pill tomorrow to cure aging, dream on.” Mr. Weiner takes the prospect of vastly extended life seriously, though, because we know so much more about how cells and bodies behave than we used to.
Yet it’s hard for any of us, erudite authors included, to quite get our minds around what this might mean. One of the most exuberant scientists he interviewed predicts that when life expectancy reaches multiple centuries, humans may become extraordinarily risk-averse, unwilling to ride in a car or ski because they’ll have too much time ahead, too much to lose.
Maybe people won’t have many children, either. Maybe we won’t need offspring to stoke a sense of immortality when we’re virtually immortal ourselves.
Sometimes the more fascinating question isn’t whether science can accomplish something, even an outlandish-sounding something, but whether it should. Do we want humans to live for centuries? Is that really a happy prospect?
“I’m very conflicted and confused about it,” Mr. Weiner told me. “On the one hand, if you’re curious and enjoy life and you’re healthy, how can you deny the appeal? How can you say, ‘OK, 80 is fine,’ if at 80 you had the health you had at 40?”
And yet, he went on, “You have to think of the health of the next generations, the health of the planet. Human beings already are impoverishing future generations. Wouldn’t this be the ultimate selfishness? What kind of society would we have? What kind of world? You have to consider more than your own love of life.”
To conquer age: Science’s greatest triumph? Or a horrifying scenario? I’m ambivalent myself, and I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.
Paula Span is the author of “When the Time Comes: Families With Aging Parents Share Their Struggles and Solutions.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)