Is regular sex good for your brain as you get older?
The journal Age and Ageing published some research in 2016
on the effects of sex on the brains of older people called Sex on the brain! Associations between sexual activity and cognitivefunction in older age.
The Journal of Gerontology has just published Frequent Sexual Activity Predicts Specific Cognitive Abilities in Older Adults, which says it ‘replicates and extends the
findings’ of the first study.
Any article purporting to be about the science of sex makes
for good headlines, but is the science any good? (Spoiler: No).
First, the Sex on the Brain research. Let’s set aside the
dreadful title. Has anyone done research into the tendency of academic studies
to make themselves sound like tabloid articles?
For the purposes
of this study, ‘sexual activity could include intercourse, masturbation,
petting or fondling’. I’m not sure what counts as petting and fondling
except that there used to be signs at swimming pools saying: ‘No petting’.
The aim of the study is to explore ‘the relationship between
cognition and sexual activity in healthy older adults’ (aged 50-89). The tests
used were number sequencing and word
recall. The findings were that ‘there were significant associations between
sexual activity and number sequencing and recall in men. However, in
women there was a significant association between sexual activity and recall,
but not number sequencing’.
The word to keep
in mind here is ‘association’. We’ll come to that.
People in the
study were asked about sexual activity in the last 12 months. The findings were
that ‘sexually active men and women to have significantly higher scores on the
number sequencing and recall tests than sexually inactive men and women (all P <
0.001)’.
This is where the
alarm bells start to go off.
As all good
skeptics know, correlation does not imply causation – or ‘association’ as the
study calls it. That’s at the core of the problem with this research. Both
studies admit this: ‘we can only speculate as to a causal relationship at this
time’ and ‘we cannot infer a causal relationship between SA and cognitive
function’. So all the studies are really saying is that people who say they have
more sex when they are older do better on certain tests.
It’s important to
have a control group when researching: people who did not receive the treatment
or got a placebo or who didn’t do something to others did, for example. You
need something to compare your results with.
The control group
here is people not having regular sex. This might work if there were no other
variables and confounding factors. But that’s not the case. It would be a much
better indicator if the people who did score higher had no sex for 12 months
and were then retested. Did their abilities change?
Another problem
is that the average age of people having sex was 64.4 years and those not having
sex was 72.9 years. That’s quite a big difference in terms of ageing; changes
to the body over those 8.5 years are not considered. Women at the lower end of
the age range were not asked if they had been through menopause, which can
affect sexual activity and interest.
There was no
indication of whether the participants were straight or LGBT, trans or cis.
The sample size
is good, 3,060 men and 3,773 women, enough to produce significant
results. But there were 2349 men who were having regular sex and only 711 who
weren’t, which could skew the results.
A further problem
with the research is that ‘sexually active men and women were more likely to
have a higher level of education, be younger, wealthier, more physically
active, not depressed, less lonely and have a better quality of life’.
This is where
another klaxon goes off.
People with more
money and a better education scored higher. They were also more likely to be
living with a partner and so have easier access to sex. The study could just as
well be called ‘Educated, wealthy old couples have more sex!’ (Not quite so
catchy as titles go)
It could also
have been called ‘People with depression, illness and loneliness have less sex!’
These conditions don’t just affect older people but everyone and can reduce
sexual desire or activity.
Masturbation was
included as sexual activity but not split into solo or mutual groups. So it
could be that DIY is just as effective as sex with someone else – there’s no
way of knowing from this study.
Both studies
speculate that the cause could be the ‘potential cognitive enhancing effects of
dopamine’ and ‘enhanced oxytocin release’. These two have been
shown to improve cognitive functioning but levels were not measured in
participants.
There’s also the
problem of self-reporting. How honest were the answers?
The participants
were not asked if they were having good quality sex or how their sexual
activity had changed over time.
The second study replicated
the findings of the first and tested for a wider range of cognitive functions.
But there were only 73 participants (aged 50-83), not enough to be statistically
significant. One of the tests was to list as many words beginning with F as
possible. Don’t tempt me.
How are the media
reporting these findings? One guess.
The Express says ‘University
boffins have discovered older people can boost their brain power - by having
more sex’ and thoughtfully includes a badly-drawn diagram on a sex position for
people with arthritis. Props for using the word ‘boffins’ though, that always
makes me laugh, especially in an article about sex.
The Evening Standard
goes with ‘Over-50s can boost their brain power by having more sex, new
research has found’. That’s an interesting but not unexpected use of ‘found’.
The Daily Mail
says ‘Sex is the key to staying sharp in old age!’ What are we to infer from
the exclamation mark? That it’s a surprise? That old people are having sex? Or
just that it’s about SEX!
So yes, the expected
uncritical response because it’s SEX. And we all like to read about SEX. Or
SEX! to be more accurate.
What do we take
away from this research?
That some people
do better on some cognitive tests than others and that they are likely to be
better educated, wealthier and healthier. They also have more sex.
There’s no
consideration for people who either can’t have sex or don’t want to and how
articles like this might make them feel. The research is carefully neutral but
the media coverage implies that people should
be having sex to preserve cognitive faculties. It’s up to you, shag or go
senile. No pressure.
As a positive
takeaway, if you’re not having sex, your brain is not doomed to shrivel up.
Dopamine levels can be increased through exercise, getting enough sleep,
achieving goals (even small ones) and eating bananas. Oxytocin levels can be
increased by holding hands, stroking pets, laughing, exercise and even looking
at pictures of cute things. So go eat a
banana and look at some kittens.
Appendage: The picture at the top is only vaguely linked to the subject but all the words I could think of to put into an image search would have taken me somewhere I may not have wanted to go.
Appendage: The picture at the top is only vaguely linked to the subject but all the words I could think of to put into an image search would have taken me somewhere I may not have wanted to go.
Or... "Live, laugh, love = better chance of joy and happiness"
ReplyDeleteNot much of a headline and sounds a bit like a naff wall poster in an office
Great blog :-)
I like the challenges posed, the words used and the idea that no all tests are true; and yes, sex does make it in the headlines.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the exhilaration of sex or almost having it is what helps, you know... but I agree the title is an eye catcher and the content well put.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you message!
ReplyDeletehttp://estates.uonbi.ac.ke/