Recently, a debate has arisen regarding how effective it actually is to prevent cognitive decline and dementia. Although more than 70 countries are following the findings of the so-called FINGER study, some researchers have questioned whether these lifestyle-based programs have truly been proven to prevent cognitive decline and dementia.
To many, this may sound contradictory—and cause concern.
But in reality, this is about something else entirely—how we interpret research.
So what's the situation, and why has this discussion come up?
FINGER is based on a simple yet powerful idea:
Brain health is influenced by a combination of factors, such as:
– physical activity
– diet
– cognitive training
– social activity
– management of risk factors (e.g., blood pressure)
The FINGER study tested a combination of several measures implemented simultaneously, rather than individual interventions.
The FINGER study followed older adults at increased risk of cognitive decline.
The results showed that the group that participated in the program demonstrated statistically significant improvements in cognitive development compared to the control group.
Simply put:
their memory and cognitive abilities declined at a slower rate according to the measurement methods used.
The criticism is not that the study was poorly conducted—but rather about how the results should be interpreted.
Three key objections have been highlighted:
1. The study did not show whether dementia is prevented
The FINGER study measured cognitive decline—not how many people actually developed dementia.
This means that, based on the 2-year results, it cannot be concluded that the model prevents dementia.
2. The follow-up period was short (2 years)
Since the follow-up period was short and both cognitive impairment and dementia often develop over a longer period of time, there is limited opportunity to truly observe the effects of what the study claims to have investigated.
3. The tests used to measure cognitive development had a potential inherent learning effect
The measurement of cognitive development in the study does not account for the possibility that a learning component may influence the results, so it is not possible to say with certainty what the improved effect in the study would have looked like if the risk of a learning effect from the cognitive tests had been successfully avoided.
The critics' conclusion is therefore:
It cannot be said that FINGER has “proven” that dementia can be prevented.
No—that’s too simplistic an interpretation.
There are several factors that clearly indicate the effect is real:
1. Consistent direction.
Both the FINGER study and follow-up studies based on FINGER have shown improvements across multiple domains -> this argues AGAINST the idea that it’s a coincidence.
2. Dose-response-like signal
The better the participants adhered to the FINGER method, the greater the effect they experienced. This correlation strengthens the so-called causality, meaning that the FINGER model does in fact influence brain health and cognitive ability.
3. Biological plausibility
The intervention affects
- blood pressure
- physical activity
- metabolism
-> All of these are directly linked to brain health
4. Replication in other studies
Other studies that have followed up have, to varying degrees, pointed in the same direction—that interventions have the potential to influence brain health and cognitive function.
-> Not an isolated finding
The FINGER study has not definitively proven that dementia can be prevented.
But it has demonstrated something important:
That brain development can be influenced—and in the right direction.
And that is a crucial insight in an area where we still lack simple solutions.
It is always important to approach studies with a critical eye, but it is equally important not to ignore the effects and benefits that they actually demonstrate.
We now know that lifestyle factors affect brain health,
We know that the FINGER model has demonstrated that risk factors for cognitive decline and dementia can be influenced
and we know that the FINGER model is one of the most thoroughly developed models available today.
/Simon Körösi, Medical Director, April 20, 2026