In partnership with
The Best Marketing Angle You’ve Never Tried
Everyone wants a marketing hack that makes growing their business easier.
But according to business guru @MarketingMax (9 figures in attributable revenue delivered to clients), one of the best no-cost marketing hacks is finding the one angle that makes people foam at the mouth wanting what you sell.
Lucky for you @MarketingMax put together a quick 2-page Google Doc breaking down how to find yours in 10 minutes, with 20+ real examples you can steal from.
LONGEVITY LATEST ISSUE 33 · 21 OCTOBER 2026
LONGEVITY LATEST · DEEP DIVE
Listening Is Hard Work
Four reasons hearing and the ageing brain might be linked, what each predicts for hearing aids, and how to read the next headline.
By Christian Thomsen · Companion to Issue 33 · 21 October 2026 · ~6-minute read
In the Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging, 126 people had a brain scan every year for up to a decade. Those who started with hearing loss lost more than a cubic centimetre of extra brain tissue a year compared with those who heard normally, much of it in the temporal lobe regions that process sound and speech. Some of those regions also matter for memory.
One small, observational study. But it frames the right question. Hearing and thinking are clearly linked; what matters is why, because the why decides whether a hearing aid can do anything about it. This piece takes the four main explanations in turn, then reads the latest trials through them.
Four reasons ears and brains might travel together
In 2020, Tim Griffiths and colleagues at Newcastle set out the main ways hearing loss and dementia could be connected. Each makes a different prediction about treatment, which is what makes them useful.
A common cause: the same underlying process, vascular damage or ageing itself, wears down the ear and the brain in parallel. Hearing loss would be a marker rather than a driver, and fixing the ears would do nothing for the brain.
Cognitive load: decoding a muffled signal takes effort that would otherwise go on understanding and remembering. If you’ve ever felt wiped out after a noisy dinner, that’s the idea in miniature. Clean up the signal and some of that capacity should come back fairly quickly.
Deprivation: less sound reaching the brain means less work for the regions that process it, and possibly faster shrinkage, as in the Baltimore scans. Any benefit from aids would be slow, and would depend on years of consistent wear.
Withdrawal: people who can’t follow conversation gradually stop joining it, and social isolation is a dementia risk factor in its own right, put at 5% by the 2024 Lancet Commission. Here aids would work through social life first and the brain second.
Griffiths’s team add a more specific idea. The medial temporal lobe, home to memory, also holds and manipulates what we hear from moment to moment, and hearing loss may change its activity in ways that interact with the proteins of Alzheimer’s disease. A hypothesis, not a finding.
Explanation | If it’s right, hearing aids should… | What fits so far |
Common cause | Do little or nothing for cognition. | Can’t be ruled out, and it would help explain why cohorts often look better than trials. |
Cognitive load | Help within months, most in listening-heavy skills such as language. | ACHIEVE’s higher-risk group improved most in language, the skill closest to listening. |
Deprivation | Help slowly, after years of consistent use. | Untested: no trial has yet run long enough. |
Withdrawal | Help social life first, cognition later. | ACHIEVE kept about one more person in each social network; Cochrane finds loneliness may not change. |
My reading: none of the four is ruled out, and they aren’t mutually exclusive. Load and withdrawal are the ones current trials could plausibly detect. Deprivation would need a trial nobody has yet run.
If the link is a common cause, aids can’t help. If it’s load, deprivation or withdrawal, they might, on very different timetables.
Griffiths et al. Neuron (2020) · Lin et al. ACHIEVE. Lancet (2023) · Reed et al. JAMA Intern Med (2025) · Livingston et al. Lancet (2024) · Cochrane (2026)
Reading the trials through that lens
ACHIEVE found no effect on cognitive decline across all 977 participants, but 48% slower decline among the 238 recruited from the ARIC heart study, who were older, carried more risk factors and declined faster without treatment. There are at least three readings. The healthier volunteers may not have declined enough in three years for any intervention to show. The subgroup result may be chance, as subgroup results often are. Or the benefit may genuinely be confined to people already losing ground. A 2025 reanalysis that ranked everyone by predicted risk found the largest effect in the top quarter, which fits the third reading without proving it.
CHOICE went looking for exactly those people, enrolling only adults with mild cognitive impairment. Its main outcome, progression to dementia-level impairment, wasn’t significantly reduced over two years, and fewer people progressed than planned, which left the trial short of statistical power. Its secondary result, far more people returning to a normal dementia rating with hearing aids, came from assessors who didn’t know who had been fitted. That counts for something. Its clearest gain was in memory, which none of the four explanations predicts especially neatly, and it is still a prespecified exploratory outcome in a single trial.
The long-term cohorts point consistently towards benefit and are consistently hard to read. In the Framingham Heart Study, people under 70 with hearing loss who used hearing aids had 61% lower dementia risk over up to 20 years than those whose loss went untreated. In Australia’s ASPREE study of 2,777 people over 70 with moderate loss, those prescribed aids had a third lower dementia risk over seven years, but no better scores on cognitive tests. People who get hearing aids and wear them tend to be healthier, wealthier and better connected, and ASPREE’s authors say residual confounding may explain their result.
None of this contradicts itself. It just hasn’t converged.
Pike et al. Alzheimers Dement (2025) · Chen et al. CHOICE. JAMA Neurol (2026) · Francis et al. JAMA Neurol (2025) · Cribb et al. Neurology (2026)
The balance connection
The most surprising result in this field is about falls, not memory. In ACHIEVE, people given hearing aids reported 27% fewer falls over three years than those given health education. The route from ear to balance is less obvious than the route from ear to memory, but the observational link goes back years: in US survey data on 2,017 adults aged 40 to 69, each extra 10 dB of hearing loss went with 1.4 times the odds of having fallen in the past year.
Three routes are plausible. Sound tells you where you are in space, the way a room’s echo or approaching footsteps do. Listening effort competes with the attention balance needs, especially when you walk and talk at once. And the inner ear houses both the hearing and balance organs, so damage to one may travel with damage to the other. All three are hypotheses; ACHIEVE counted falls, not mechanisms.
ACHIEVE’s year-by-year pattern adds detail the headline figure hides. The gap was widest in the first year (odds ratio 0.57), shrank in a second year disrupted by covid, and partly reopened in the third. The control group’s health education also included a falls-prevention module about 18 months in, which may have narrowed the difference. Falls were exploratory and self-reported. Nobody fits hearing aids to prevent falls. Yet.
How to read the next headline
There will be more “hearing aids cut dementia risk” stories. Three questions sort them quickly.
Trial or cohort? A cohort compares people who chose hearing aids with people who didn’t. A trial decides who gets them. Only the second rules out the healthy-user effect.
Decline or dementia? Slower decline on cognitive tests and fewer dementia diagnoses are different outcomes, measured over different timescales. ASPREE found one without the other.
Fitted, or worn? Owning hearing aids isn’t the dose. In the 33-country pooled analysis, only people whose aids genuinely improved their hearing showed a clear reduction in dementia risk.
If you do one thing after reading this, take a free three-minute online hearing check, such as RNID’s, with headphones somewhere quiet. If it flags a problem, ask for an NHS hearing assessment through your GP; sudden hearing loss in one or both ears needs an urgent appointment or NHS 111. Then treat any loss for the reasons already proven: hearing, conversation and everyday life. If it also protects your balance and your memory, that’s a bonus you’ll already be collecting.
Treat the hearing now. Let the trials settle the brain.
Cribb et al. Neurology (2026) · HKUMed. Cell Rep Med pooled analysis (2026) · RNID. Online hearing check · NHS. Hearing loss
Longevity Latest grades the evidence on interventions like this every Wednesday: what works, what’s premature, and what’s just marketing. The weekly issue carries the full grades and the practical plan.
Sources and further reading
Evidence reviewed through 16 October 2026. The brain-volume data come from a 126-person observational study, and the four mechanisms are hypotheses. ACHIEVE’s falls, social and risk-model findings are secondary or exploratory. CHOICE was open-label with blinded cognitive assessors; its improvement result is an exploratory secondary outcome. Framingham, ASPREE and the pooled analysis are observational. Educational content only; sudden hearing loss in one or both ears needs an urgent GP appointment or NHS 111.
© 2026 FrontWave Media Ltd · Longevity Latest