Have you ever wondered whether it's worth your while to encourage an older person to start exercising? In 2014, the top-notch journal JAMA published the results of a fantastic research project: a study in which 1635 sedentary older adults (aged 70-89) were assigned to get either a structured exercise program, or a program of "successful aging" health education. The researchers called it the Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders (LIFE) study. (You can read the full study here.) During the LIFE study, the two groups were followed for a little over 2.5 years. And by the end of the study, guess which group of volunteers was more likely to still walk a quarter of a mile (without a walker)? That's right. When it came to avoiding "major mobility disability" which the researchers defined as becoming unable to walk 400 meters or more a structured exercise program was better than a program of healthy aging education. Specifically, the researchers found that 30% of the exercisers experienced a period of major disability, compared to 35.5% of the seniors enrolled in the healthy aging education program. This is a very encouraging finding! That said, it's also a bit sobering to realize that even with exercise, almost 1 in 3 older adults experienced a period of limited mobility, of which half lasted 6 months or more. In this post, I'll share some more details on this study, because the results provide a wonderful wealth of information that can be helpful to older adults, family caregivers, and even geriatricians such as myself. Want to know how often the exercisers experienced "adverse events"? (Hint: often!) Wondering just what the structured exercise program involved? (Hint: more than walking!) Let's dig into the details! At the end of this post, I'll share my list of key take-home points for older adults and family caregivers. Who were the study volunteers? Whenever you read about a research study, it's important to understand how the study volunteers compare to the older adults in *your* life. One of... Question: What is probably true about the sedentary people? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- They have a higher likelihood of taking part in research.
- They have a higher likelihood of dying.
- They have a higher likelihood of become a caregiver.
- not enough information
They have a higher likelihood of dying.

This is part two of a four part series on Inner Wisdom Eating (IWE) The 4 steps of Inner Wisdom Eating (or eating like a thin person) are exactly the same as those promoted by Intuitive Eating. Eat when you're hungry Eat what you want Eat consciously Stop when you are full The difference lies in the approach and the detail. I will discuss each step in this four part series. EAT WHAT YOU WANT DOES YOUR FOOD SING TO YOU? Have a look in your fridge and cupboards. Does the food in there sing to you, does it call your name, and are you looking forward to eating it? Do you eat it because you enjoy it or because you think you should? By choosing only to eat what sings to me, I have discovered (again!) that I am not a big fan of meat and would rather eat a predominantly vegetarian diet. Occasionally I'll eat chicken leg and I love bacon but beyond that I'm not fussed. FOOD DOES NOT HAVE A VALUE There are no good and bad foods. There are no trigger foods or forbidden foods. There is nosuch thing as junk. There is a place in your diet for your favourite indulgences in moderation. Believe me that when you let yourself eat cheesecake, chocolate and hot chips, the novelty soon wears off. I mostly eat unprocessed food, not because it's "good" but because I love the taste and prefer how it makes me feel. YOU CAN STILL EAT DIET FOOD Low fat ice-cream, Diet Coke and protein powder are still in my diet but I eat them because I prefer the taste over their 'real' counterparts. I can still ask for dressing on the side and no butter on my sandwich not because I'm counting calories but because I can't see the point in eating food I don't actually want. Question: What would the author think is a good meal? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- unprocessed food
- cheesecake
- not enough information
- meat

Answer: unprocessed food

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis promised Thursday the Pentagon will "notify" Congress before any possible military action in Syria, where the U.S. is considering responding to a suspected chemical weapons attack. "There will be notification to leadership, of course, prior to the attack," Mattis said in his testimony at the House Armed Services Committee. "We will report to Congress. We will keep open lines of communication." But notably, Mattis did not indicate the Trump administration would seek congressional approval before the strike, which presumably would target the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Trump says the U.S. will soon launch "nice and new and smart" missiles in response to last week's suspected poison gas attack, which left scores dead in a rebel-held area. Trump blames Assad for the attack. A U.S. attack is likely to upset a small but growing number of U.S. lawmakers who demand President Donald Trump first ask Congress to authorize any hostilities, citing the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a federal law intended to check the president's ability to wage war. U.S. presidents, both Republican and Democrat, have long argued they have legal authority to order airstrikes and other short-term military campaigns if those engagements fall short of the "hostilities" mentioned in the War Powers Resolution. Additionally, U.S. presidents have cited a pair of authorizations by Congress following the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks as justification for the near-constant U.S. strikes on Islamic militants around the world. The Trump administration has used those authorizations as justification for its current war in Syria. The U.S. has 2,000 troops in Syria, and helps lead an international coalition against Islamic State in Syria and neighboring Iraq. The overwhelming majority of U.S. lawmakers have not publicly objected to the administration's legal rationale for those missions. But as Trump considers expanding the U.S. war to include attacks on Syrian government targets, some in Congress are... Question: How long has the Congress been concerned about the Sept 11, 2001 attacks? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- only for a few months
- only for a few days
- not enough information
- since 2001 and continuing today
since 2001 and continuing today