Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Obama, the Protagonist

News Feed
Tuesday, March 26, 2024

Like so many others, I first watched him speak on the night of the 2004 Democratic convention, the year John Kerry became the nominee. He was still a state senator then, his face unlined, his head full of dark-brown hair. He humbly told the audience that his presence there was “pretty unlikely.” His Kenyan father had grown up herding goats; his paternal grandfather cooked for a British soldier. In a Baptist cadence, he quoted from the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson’s words are stirring on their own, but when a certain kind of orator gets hold of them, the effect can feel like thunder, or the Spirit. The country had tumbled into a new century after a contested election and the start of a war in Iraq. Barack Obama spun a convincing vision of the nation as “one people,” in which our ethnic, religious, and ideological differences mattered little.When I think about what Obama meant to me at the time, my eyes pool with water. I was fresh out of college, taken by the force of his intellect and the way his ideas seemed to cohere and hum. His ear for language was evident in his oratory and in his prose. Dreams From My Father, his first memoir, drew from a humanist tradition of American autobiography laid down by Frederick Douglass, Harriet Jacobs, Malcolm X, and James Baldwin. Toni Morrison’s eulogy of Baldwin in 1987 seemed to foreshadow what many would feel about Obama in 2008: “You made American English honest … You exposed its secrets and reshaped it until it was truly modern dialogic, representative, humane.”And yet, it wasn’t enough; the reverie wouldn’t, couldn’t last. In Great Expectations, Vinson Cunningham’s debut novel, the New Yorker writer and critic assesses the hope and disillusionment of the Obama years in a thinly veiled political satire-cum-bildungsroman featuring an Obama-like junior senator as “the candidate,” as well as a multifarious cast of supporting characters who employ their savvy, money, and connections to get him elected as president. Cunningham takes the reader back to a time when many thought Obama had an answer for every American ailment: He would usher the country into a post-race era, offering white people grace and absolution while assuring Black people that they would hereafter get a fair shake.The novel is a keen look back at the failed promise of those early years, during which the country’s lofty expectations left little room for the candidate’s human fallibility—and obscured the reality of American politics. In this country, progress has usually happened in complicated, nonlinear ways: Hard-won advances are generally followed by forceful backlash and heartbreaking setbacks. Advances in civil rights, economic equality, health-care access, or environmental policy have often triggered reactionary codas; since at least the end of Reconstruction, momentum toward multiracial democracy has inflamed particularly vitriolic responses. Ultimately, Cunningham’s novel reminds the reader that simple solutions—the passage of one just law, the election of a single great leader—are seldom a match for American problems.[Read: The political novel gets very, very specific]The narrator—based on the author himself, who worked on Obama’s 2008 campaign and in his White House—is David Hammond, a 22-year-old single father from uptown Manhattan. Floundering after dropping out of college, he joins the campaign as a fundraising assistant on the recommendation of the well-heeled mother of a teen boy he tutors. As the novel roves from Manhattan to Manchester, New Hampshire; from Los Angeles to Chicago, David, whose true ambition is to be a writer, uses his new role to sharpen his ear and eye. He’s middling at the minutiae of the job but great at interacting with people. He makes friends with his co-workers and stumbles into a tender love affair with another staffer named Regina. Along the way, he loses slivers of his innocence as he sees what lies beneath the campaign’s shimmering exterior: the candidate’s aloofness when he is offstage, the financial improprieties of a few wealthy patrons. Eventually, the blind allegiance of the candidate’s supporters—their belief that the campaign is a “move of God”—begins to feel foreboding.David often invokes the ecstatic mysticism of religious devotion as a metaphor for the candidate’s hold on his supporters. The senator “reminded me of my pastor,” David says early on, his regal posture bringing to mind a “talismanic maneuver meant to send forth subliminal messages about confidence and power.” One night, on the trail in New Hampshire, David tells Regina about a magic trick he’d witnessed as a teenager: While waiting outside of church with his friends, he’d watched as a magician performed a standard sleight of hand, then levitated a few inches off the city pavement. “Everybody screamed. It was mayhem,” David remembers. “Black people love magic,” Regina rejoins, through laughter. It is a detour in a novel of detours and roundabouts, and also a parable that smartly explains how the candidate’s fervent admirers could be so awed by his charisma that they missed the signs of trouble to come.Sometimes David allows himself to get carried away like everyone else. He thinks about how the candidate and his family had begun to embody some kind of national fantasy of a Black Camelot. “Maybe there was the hope that black, that portentous designation, could finally be subsumed into the mainstream in the way that Kennedy had helped Irish to be. That some long passage of travel was almost done,” he thinks at one point. In that same stream of thought, David suggests that the public’s belief in the candidate’s ability to dismantle the racial hierarchy is largely thanks to his symbolic appeal: It was, he observes, “mostly the look” of the candidate and his glamorous family—an elegant wife and two small daughters—that made supporters believe he could overcome racism. Who wouldn’t want to accept them?[Read: Our new postracial myth]Privy to the campaign’s disappointments and its weaknesses, David is clear-eyed where others are credulous. With the benefit of hindsight, the reader knows his skepticism would eventually be validated. In the years since Obama’s election, America has seen the birtherism movement, the rise of the Tea Party, Trump’s presidency, and the dismantling of cornerstone civil-rights victories, including key portions of the Voting Rights Act. Then, of course, there were Obama’s own shortcomings during his presidency, namely his capitulation to forces opposed to his most idealistic visions. He would pass a new health-care bill, but fall short of the goal of universal coverage he campaigned on. He would withdraw troops from Afghanistan but begin a series of what the political scientist Michael J. Boyle called “shadow wars,” which were “fought by Special Forces, proxy armies, drones, and other covert means.” According to the Council on Foreign Relations, drone strikes authorized by President Obama led to the deaths of nearly 4,000 people in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia; more than 300 of them were civilians.When Cunningham’s novel closes on that fateful night in November, the night of the candidate’s victory, it’s an ending for David, a graduation, even. The book implies that he will go on to work for the new president, but unlike everyone else in that ecstatic moment, he looks to the coming years soberly, acknowledging that the campaign had spoken “a language of signs,” wherein the symbolism of the moment overwhelmed all else. Already, he seems to know that the country will see no grand, lasting transformation. For many Americans, who felt on a similar, actual night, that the world seemed on the precipice of change, the lessons would take much longer to learn.

Vinson Cunningham’s new novel takes the reader back to a time when many thought the nation’s first Black president had an answer for every American ailment.

Like so many others, I first watched him speak on the night of the 2004 Democratic convention, the year John Kerry became the nominee. He was still a state senator then, his face unlined, his head full of dark-brown hair. He humbly told the audience that his presence there was “pretty unlikely.” His Kenyan father had grown up herding goats; his paternal grandfather cooked for a British soldier. In a Baptist cadence, he quoted from the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson’s words are stirring on their own, but when a certain kind of orator gets hold of them, the effect can feel like thunder, or the Spirit. The country had tumbled into a new century after a contested election and the start of a war in Iraq. Barack Obama spun a convincing vision of the nation as “one people,” in which our ethnic, religious, and ideological differences mattered little.

When I think about what Obama meant to me at the time, my eyes pool with water. I was fresh out of college, taken by the force of his intellect and the way his ideas seemed to cohere and hum. His ear for language was evident in his oratory and in his prose. Dreams From My Father, his first memoir, drew from a humanist tradition of American autobiography laid down by Frederick Douglass, Harriet Jacobs, Malcolm X, and James Baldwin. Toni Morrison’s eulogy of Baldwin in 1987 seemed to foreshadow what many would feel about Obama in 2008: “You made American English honest … You exposed its secrets and reshaped it until it was truly modern dialogic, representative, humane.”

And yet, it wasn’t enough; the reverie wouldn’t, couldn’t last. In Great Expectations, Vinson Cunningham’s debut novel, the New Yorker writer and critic assesses the hope and disillusionment of the Obama years in a thinly veiled political satire-cum-bildungsroman featuring an Obama-like junior senator as “the candidate,” as well as a multifarious cast of supporting characters who employ their savvy, money, and connections to get him elected as president. Cunningham takes the reader back to a time when many thought Obama had an answer for every American ailment: He would usher the country into a post-race era, offering white people grace and absolution while assuring Black people that they would hereafter get a fair shake.

The novel is a keen look back at the failed promise of those early years, during which the country’s lofty expectations left little room for the candidate’s human fallibility—and obscured the reality of American politics. In this country, progress has usually happened in complicated, nonlinear ways: Hard-won advances are generally followed by forceful backlash and heartbreaking setbacks. Advances in civil rights, economic equality, health-care access, or environmental policy have often triggered reactionary codas; since at least the end of Reconstruction, momentum toward multiracial democracy has inflamed particularly vitriolic responses. Ultimately, Cunningham’s novel reminds the reader that simple solutions—the passage of one just law, the election of a single great leader—are seldom a match for American problems.

[Read: The political novel gets very, very specific]

The narrator—based on the author himself, who worked on Obama’s 2008 campaign and in his White House—is David Hammond, a 22-year-old single father from uptown Manhattan. Floundering after dropping out of college, he joins the campaign as a fundraising assistant on the recommendation of the well-heeled mother of a teen boy he tutors. As the novel roves from Manhattan to Manchester, New Hampshire; from Los Angeles to Chicago, David, whose true ambition is to be a writer, uses his new role to sharpen his ear and eye. He’s middling at the minutiae of the job but great at interacting with people. He makes friends with his co-workers and stumbles into a tender love affair with another staffer named Regina. Along the way, he loses slivers of his innocence as he sees what lies beneath the campaign’s shimmering exterior: the candidate’s aloofness when he is offstage, the financial improprieties of a few wealthy patrons. Eventually, the blind allegiance of the candidate’s supporters—their belief that the campaign is a “move of God”—begins to feel foreboding.

David often invokes the ecstatic mysticism of religious devotion as a metaphor for the candidate’s hold on his supporters. The senator “reminded me of my pastor,” David says early on, his regal posture bringing to mind a “talismanic maneuver meant to send forth subliminal messages about confidence and power.” One night, on the trail in New Hampshire, David tells Regina about a magic trick he’d witnessed as a teenager: While waiting outside of church with his friends, he’d watched as a magician performed a standard sleight of hand, then levitated a few inches off the city pavement. “Everybody screamed. It was mayhem,” David remembers. “Black people love magic,” Regina rejoins, through laughter. It is a detour in a novel of detours and roundabouts, and also a parable that smartly explains how the candidate’s fervent admirers could be so awed by his charisma that they missed the signs of trouble to come.

Sometimes David allows himself to get carried away like everyone else. He thinks about how the candidate and his family had begun to embody some kind of national fantasy of a Black Camelot. “Maybe there was the hope that black, that portentous designation, could finally be subsumed into the mainstream in the way that Kennedy had helped Irish to be. That some long passage of travel was almost done,” he thinks at one point. In that same stream of thought, David suggests that the public’s belief in the candidate’s ability to dismantle the racial hierarchy is largely thanks to his symbolic appeal: It was, he observes, “mostly the look” of the candidate and his glamorous family—an elegant wife and two small daughters—that made supporters believe he could overcome racism. Who wouldn’t want to accept them?

[Read: Our new postracial myth]

Privy to the campaign’s disappointments and its weaknesses, David is clear-eyed where others are credulous. With the benefit of hindsight, the reader knows his skepticism would eventually be validated. In the years since Obama’s election, America has seen the birtherism movement, the rise of the Tea Party, Trump’s presidency, and the dismantling of cornerstone civil-rights victories, including key portions of the Voting Rights Act. Then, of course, there were Obama’s own shortcomings during his presidency, namely his capitulation to forces opposed to his most idealistic visions. He would pass a new health-care bill, but fall short of the goal of universal coverage he campaigned on. He would withdraw troops from Afghanistan but begin a series of what the political scientist Michael J. Boyle called “shadow wars,” which were “fought by Special Forces, proxy armies, drones, and other covert means.” According to the Council on Foreign Relations, drone strikes authorized by President Obama led to the deaths of nearly 4,000 people in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia; more than 300 of them were civilians.

When Cunningham’s novel closes on that fateful night in November, the night of the candidate’s victory, it’s an ending for David, a graduation, even. The book implies that he will go on to work for the new president, but unlike everyone else in that ecstatic moment, he looks to the coming years soberly, acknowledging that the campaign had spoken “a language of signs,” wherein the symbolism of the moment overwhelmed all else. Already, he seems to know that the country will see no grand, lasting transformation. For many Americans, who felt on a similar, actual night, that the world seemed on the precipice of change, the lessons would take much longer to learn.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

The Case for Growth

For the past few years, American politics have been organized around a simple, unnerving feeling: Life is getting too expensive, and no one seems to know what to do about it. Rent and home prices feel out of reach. Child care feels like it costs as much as a second mortgage. Groceries, utilities, and health […]

For the past few years, American politics have been organized around a simple, unnerving feeling: Life is getting too expensive, and no one seems to know what to do about it. Rent and home prices feel out of reach. Child care feels like it costs as much as a second mortgage. Groceries, utilities, and health care have all climbed faster than people’s paychecks. Politicians have reached for familiar tools — blaming corporate “greedflation,” flirting with price controls and tariffs, promising to “take on” whoever is convenient in an election year — but none of that gets to the deeper question: How do we make it genuinely easier to build, to work, and to live well in America? For most of this country’s history, we thought we knew the answer: growth. That means a bigger economy, higher productivity, cheaper and cleaner energy, new technology, and more people able to participate in all of the above. Growth was the background assumption — not a panacea, but the thing that made every other problem a little easier to solve.  Then, beginning in the 1970s, that consensus started to break. Economic growth slowed. Concerns about inequality, consumerism, and environmental damage mounted. A certain anti-growth mentality took root on both the left and the right, and “more” became something to be eyed with suspicion rather than embraced and steered. There were real reasons people were wary of a political project organized around “more” — the environmental damage of fossil fuels, the experience of being left out of past booms, the sense that consumerism had filled our lives with stuff instead of meaning. But, in overcorrecting for the very real mistakes of the past, the US inadvertently locked itself into a low-growth, high-friction status quo that has only made our hardest problems harder. That’s why we need to take sustainable growth seriously again, to move from zero-sum fights over who gets what slice of a fixed pie to a world where the pie is actually bigger. Not growth at all costs, but growth the smart way. That is the animating idea behind this project, The Case for Growth. Over the coming weeks, in explainers, features, and podcast episodes, we’ll look at why our most productive cities have been effectively locking out families and what it would take to open them up. We’ll imagine what an era of clean energy abundance could unlock, from vertical farming to sci-fi climate solutions. We’ll explore how advances in artificial intelligence might finally shake us out of a prolonged productivity slump and how our addiction to cars and meat is choking off more sustainable growth. We’ll talk to experts who make the case that growth can run side by side with policies that prevent the worst of global warming.  In an era when so much of our politics has been reduced to zero-sum arguments over who loses so someone else can win, we want to reopen the possibility of positive-sum progress — of building more; inventing more; and including more people in that story, while taking care of the planet. Growth won’t solve everything, but without it, almost nothing gets solved at scale. The Case for Growth is our attempt to put that idea back into conservation as part of a serious effort to make life more affordable, more sustainable, and more abundant in the US and far beyond. This series was supported by a grant from Arnold Ventures. Vox had full discretion over the content of this reporting. Cities made a bet on millennials — but forgot one key thing We can have growth while fighting climate change The long, fun list of things we could do with unlimited clean energy Why owning a house is overrated The massive stakes of the big federal housing bill, explained

Mapping the Exposome: Science Broadens Focus to Environmental Disease Triggers

By Deanna Neff HealthDay ReporterSATURDAY, Nov. 29, 2025 (HealthDay News) — After decades of intense focus on genetics, the biomedical research...

By Deanna Neff HealthDay ReporterSATURDAY, Nov. 29, 2025 (HealthDay News) — After decades of intense focus on genetics, the biomedical research community is undergoing a major shift, focusing on a new framework called "exposomics."Similar to the way scientists work to map the human genome, this emerging field aims to map the chemical, physical, social and biological elements a person encounters throughout their life.Experts estimate that genetic mutations account for only about 10% of diseases like Parkinson’s for example. The remaining 90% are thought to be caused by environmental factors, prompting scientists to look beyond genes, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) reported.Some examples of exposomic data include light and temperature, biomarkers in the blood or other body fluids, dietary intake, environmental chemicals, physical activity, income and education.The ultimate goal? To turn this big bucket of individual knowledge points into practical, personalized health solutions.Researchers envision a future where a person's "exposomic profile" is included in their electronic medical records, according to the AAMC.Gary Miller, vice dean for research strategy and innovation at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health in New York City, who helped coin the term two decades ago, says the field is now gaining momentum.Exposomics is an enormous undertaking because it requires researchers from various disciplines — including genetics, environmental science and data science — to work together.The goal is to move beyond simply identifying a single cause of disease and instead capture the entire picture of a person’s unique lifetime of exposures.Driving this surge are new technologies that can handle the sheer volume of data involved to map all of the possible exposures.Geospatial data: Satellite images and social determinants of health data help to measure location-specific exposures like air pollution and water quality. Mass spectrometry: Advanced chemical analysis helps to detect thousands of markers in biological samples like blood and urine. Wearable devices: Devices, such as the "exposometer" developed at Stanford Medicine in California, can collect chemical and biological samples directly from the wearer. Chirag Patel, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School and co-leader of NEXUS, explained that his lab uses computational models and artifical intelligence to systematically sort through huge amounts of data.“We’re moving away from looking at causes for disease in a targeted fashion... and moving toward what are non-targeted mass spectrometry approaches,” Patel told AAMC.Rima Habre, also co-leader of NEXUS and associate professor of environmental health and spatial sciences at the University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, believes exposomics can help physicians move beyond educated guesswork.She says it's more "discovery-based." It allows researchers to scan everything and follow it up with hypothesis testing.As Miller notes, this new health assessment paradigm requires both sides of the coin: “The genomics and exposomics. They complement each other.”SOURCE: Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), Nov. 12, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Some Suicide Victims Show No Typical Warning Signs, Study Finds

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Nov. 26, 2025 (HealthDay News) — For many families who lose someone to suicide, the same question comes...

WEDNESDAY, Nov. 26, 2025 (HealthDay News) — For many families who lose someone to suicide, the same question comes up again and again: “How did we not see this coming?”A new study suggests that for some people, there truly weren’t clear warning signs to see.Researchers at the University of Utah found that people who die by suicide without showing prior warning signs, such as suicidal thoughts or past attempts, may have different underlying risk factors than those who express suicidal behavior.About half of people who die by suicide have no known history of suicidal thoughts or behaviors. Many also don't have diagnosed mental health conditions like depression.To better understand these people, researchers analyzed anonymized genetic data from more than 2,700 people who died by suicide.They found that people with no prior signs of suicide had:"There are a lot of people out there who may be at risk of suicide where it’s not just that you’ve missed that they’re depressed, it’s likely that they’re in fact actually not depressed," lead study author Hilary Coon, a psychiatry professor at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, said in a news release."That is important in widening our view of who may be at risk," she added. "We need to start to think about aspects leading to risk in different ways."The study also found that this group wasn't any more likely than the general population to show traits like chronic low mood or neuroticism.Suicide prevention has long focused on identifying and treating depression and related mental health disorders. But this research suggests that approach may not reach everyone who's at risk."A tenet in suicide prevention has been that we just need to screen people better for associated conditions like depression," Coon explained."And if people had the same sort of underlying vulnerabilities, then additional efforts in screening might be very helpful. But for those who actually have different underlying vulnerabilities, then increasing that screening might not help for them."In other words: If someone isn’t depressed or showing typical symptoms, current screening tools may miss them.Coon and her team are now looking into other factors that might raise suicide risk in this hidden group, including chronic pain, inflammation and respiratory diseases.They are also studying traits that may protect against suicide to better understand why some people remain resilient even in difficult situations.She emphasized that there is no single suicide "gene."Her goal? To help doctors spot high-risk individuals earlier, even when they do not express suicidal thoughts."If people have a certain type of clinical diagnosis that makes them particularly vulnerable within particular environmental contexts, they still may not ever say they’re suicidal," Coon said. "We hope our work may help reveal traits and contexts associated with high risk so that doctors can deliver care more effectively and specifically."The 988 Lifeline is available for anyone facing mental health struggles, emotional distress, alcohol or drug use concerns or who just needs someone to talk to.SOURCE: University of Utah Health, news release, Nov. 24, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Switch to Vegan Diet Could Cut Your Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Half

By Ernie Mundell HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Nov. 26, 2025 (HealthDay News) — The equivalent of a 4.3-mile trip in a gas-powered car: That’s the...

By Ernie Mundell HealthDay ReporterWEDNESDAY, Nov. 26, 2025 (HealthDay News) — The equivalent of a 4.3-mile trip in a gas-powered car: That’s the amount of greenhouse gas emissions the average person spares the planet each day when they switch to a healthy, low-fat vegan diet, new research shows.The group describes itself as “a nonprofit organization that promotes preventive medicine.” It has long advocated for plant-based diets as being healthier for people and the planet. The new data comes out of prior Physicians Committee research that found that low-fat plant-based diets are effective in helping people shed excess pounds and help control blood sugar, as compared to fattier diets containing meat.  Kahleova’s new analysis looked at the environmental impact of switching to a vegan diet. They linked data from two datasets — the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Commodity Intake Database and the Database of Food Impacts on the Environment for Linking to Diets.The analysis found a 51% daily reduction in personal greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) once a person made the switch — the daily equivalent of preventing carbon dioxide emissions from a more than 4-mile gas engine car trip. As well, switching to the vegan diet spurred a 51% decline in what’s known as cumulative energy demand (CED) — the amount of energy used up in harvesting the raw materials consumed in a diet, as well as their processing, transport and disposal.Much of these reductions were linked to folks forgoing meat, dairy products and eggs, the research showed.According to Kahleova, plant-based diets are gaining popularity in the United States, with a recent survey showing that almost half of Americans take environmental concerns into account when thinking about switching away from meat.“As awareness of its environmental impact grows, swapping plant foods for animal products will be as ubiquitous as reduce, reuse and recycle,” she said. “Prior research has shown that red meat, in particular, has an outsized impact on energy use compared to grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables,” Kahleova added. “Our randomized study shows just how much a low-fat vegan diet is associated with a substantial reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and energy use, significant drivers of climate change.”SOURCE: Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, news release, Nov. 17, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

These 5-Second Hand Exercises For Dementia Are Going Viral. Here's What Neurologists Think.

Is boosting your brain health really this simple?

Social media is full of health hacks for better sleep, clear skin, a functioning gut, you name it. Lately, a tip for aging and cognitive function is gaining traction. Videos showing hand and finger exercises have racked up millions of views on TikTok and Instagram, with users suggesting these movements can help prevent dementia or Alzheimer’s disease.The exercises include things like alternated clapping, tapping, arm circles and pointing your fingers in different directions. And although they might look easy enough, exasperated folks in the comments sections highlight that some of these motions are a lot harder than they appear. But does failing at intricate finger movements and hand coordination exercises mean you’re cognitively doomed? And can these exercises really ― as the captions claim ― prevent dementia or Alzheimer’s? HuffPost asked a neurologist to weigh in. “While there are a few studies showing that aspects of mild cognitive impairment might be improved with these types of hand exercises, I would put forward that there is nothing magical about these movements,” said neurologist Dr. Chris Winter.Hand exercises are a way to practice motor skills, which can be beneficial for maintaining cognitive abilities as we age. But it might be a stretch to suggest that specific movements are going to remove your risk of developing dementia or Alzheimer’s disease. Can simple hand exercises really prevent dementia?Winter explained that hand and finger coordination can be beneficial as part of a larger pattern of mental and physical activity, but it’s not the hand gestures themselves that matter ― it’s the engagement and concentration involved.“Learning to play the piano or other activities that force concentration and the practice of improved hand/eye coordination are potentially just as useful,” Winter said. “I recommend that people stay active and engage in appropriately challenging activities. Learn a new language, pick up a guitar or a used set of drums, play pickleball. If you have the capacity to do these things, get off of TikTok and go do these things instead.”Brain function is less about hand gestures and more about movement and mental engagement that challenge your mind and body overall. “While no single exercise can prevent Alzheimer’s disease, regularly engaging your brain in complex, novel activities helps build what we call ‘brain reserve.’ A higher brain reserve can delay the onset of dementia symptoms or reduce their severity later in life,” said Dr. Majid Fotuhi, a neurologist and author of “The Invincible Brain: The Clinically Proven Plan to Age-Proof Your Brain and Stay Sharp for Life.”Board-certified neurologist Dr. Luke K. Barr emphasized that TikTok viewers shouldn’t mistake their inability to do some of these hand exercises as a red flag for cognitive decline. If you have trouble alternating pointing your thumbs and pinkies, that doesn’t mean you’re “already developing dementia,” as some commenters fear. “These are complex exercises that are difficult, especially at first, and require a lot of concentration and practice,” Barr said. “Just because someone is not able to do it easily right away, does not necessarily mean that they have dementia.”As with most anything complicated, practice makes perfect. “I think there are a variety of reasons why one could not do these gestures ― or rub their stomach while patting their head,” Winter added. “While someone with significant dementia is probably not likely to be able to do these activities, the fact that someone struggles with coordination does not indicate dementia or progression in this direction. Ability to pat your hands together is not a diagnostic test for cognitive decline.”So while those quick coordination challenges might be fun or stimulating, experts say, your best bet for brain health still lies in the basics: regular exercise, quality sleep, a balanced diet and staying mentally and socially active.“Factors such as poor diet, sedentary lifestyle, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, sleep problems, chronic stress and excessive alcohol can contribute to shrinkage in the brain,” Fotuhi said. “Along with genetic and environmental factors, these lifestyle and medical factors can damage small blood vessels, reduce rinsing mechanisms in the brain, cause ‘leaky brain’ and increase brain inflammation ― which over time lead to cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s disease. So rather than worrying about one task, it’s better to focus on overall brain health habits.”Ultimately, what exercise and mental stimulation mean can vary based on individuals’ abilities. “If you only have the capacity to practice hand gestures, then that’s OK too,” Winter said. But just remember that the real “hack” for keeping your brain sharp isn’t a social media exercise ― it’s a holistic approach to living a healthy, mindful and engaged life.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.