We've already heard that things like special enzymes and fresh produce may help ward off Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia. According to new research from the University of Eastern Finland, however, you can now add "taking saunas" to that list – and the more often you take them, the better.
The university's Kuopio Ischaemic Heart Disease Risk Factor Study involved over 2,000 healthy men aged between 42 and 60, living in eastern Finland. At the start of the study period, the men were divided into three groups: those taking a sauna once a week, those taking a sauna two to three times a week, and those taking a sauna four to seven times a week.
After approximately 20 years the scientists checked back on them, to see how many test subjects from each group had developed Alzheimer's or other types of dementia. According to the university, "Among those taking a sauna four to seven times a week, the risk of any form of dementia was 66 percent lower and the risk of Alzheimer's disease 65 percent lower than among those taking a sauna just once a week."
Additionally, earlier research within the same study indicated that frequent sauna-use also significantly reduced the risk of sudden cardiac death, the risk of death due to coronary artery disease and other cardiac events, as well as overall mortality.
The precise reasons why saunas are good for both the brain and the heart still aren't fully understood, although study leader Prof. Jari Laukkanen believes that the two are likely connected. "It is known that cardiovascular health affects the brain as well," he says. "The sense of well-being and relaxation experienced during sauna bathing may also play a role."
A paper on the research was recently published in the journal Age and Ageing.
Source: University of Eastern Finland
The better title for this article would be: The same things that might cause you to go to the sauna more frequently might also contribute to a reduction in dementia.
This is not science! This is not proof. This is publishing a postulate. We should not be giving out Doctoral Degrees for Postulates!
Heat is being studied as a tool against diabetes, according to several articles I've read. One might expect heat in a sauna. There may (or may not) be a connection.
One of the fun things about science is that we don't know the answers and are often delighted by the questions we discover; Penicillin, made Fleming ask why a moldy petri dish held less Staphylococcus; a falling apple struck Newton as strange enough to question earlier postulates with gravity.
[A] correlation, on the other hand, is the remarkable relationship between the abundance of exclamation marks in a rant and a smug bigot.
Scientific methodology has made great strides over the past 50 years. Public peer review is one of them. The worldwide web has made this process easier by providing widespread access and increased transparency. Peers? - uh, that means, equals in knowledge and experience; not lazy, loudmouthed, lay critics who seem to think CAPITALIZATION or exclamation! marks validate their ignorant proclamations.
The reason we do not have access to many potentially life-saving treatments today, is the very rigorous long-term testing those treatments must undergo, before they can be approved for use by humans.
That being said, I find these research articles fluff pieces and can draw no valid conclusion from it. As for the scientific method, I believe it is much better today. People like to believe that prior generations had higher moral values than us. Because people like to refer to the past as the 'good old days'. The old days was not that good. As a matter of fact, in almost every respect it was worse than today. People lived short and brutal live. Competition was brutal and resources much scarcer. Information and knowledge even less so. Just go and look at the medical industry and see some of their approaches to healing and cures just 50 or 100 years ago. Peoples moral values were also a lot lower because poverty and lack of opportunity makes people corrupt. They do things they otherwise wouldn't like to do to stay alive. Today there is much less of that. Just compare rich countries to poor countries. Moral fabric in richer countries are typically much higher and stronger than in poor ones. The world today is a much richer place than it was 100 years ago, and consequently also a more moral place in general. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it is by far much better in almost any respect than the past. People look fondly upon the past for two reasons. It was good because they weren't there and like to fantasize about it. And for the recent past that they did experience, they remember it fondly because they were younger and healthier with more excitement in their daily lives. It's all hubris.