For decades, the discussion around organic farming has centered on important tenets of sustainability, environmental health, animal welfare, and a vision for food that heals rather than harms. But in Americas fields today, a different conversation is taking root and is grounded in profits. With new economic data and over 40 years of side-by-side comparisons between organic and conventional systems, we can now confidently say that organic is no longer just a values-driven choice; its the most profitable model available to U.S. farmers.
At Rodale Institute, the latest Economics of Organic report examines farm-level data across crops, regions, and production systems. The findings show diversified, certified organic farms consistently outperform conventional operations on net income, even when organic yields are modestly lower. In a sector squeezed by volatile input prices and climate risk, organic offers what farmers rarely get: predictable premiums and stronger long-term margins.
How is this possible? Organic corn, wheat, and soybeans earn price premiums ranging from roughly 145% to 250% over conventional counterparts, according to FINBIN data gathered between 2016 and 2020. Even after accounting for higher labor and management costs, organic producers net significantly more income per bushel. In many cases, conventional production results in a net economic loss, while organic systems remain profitable.
ROOTED IN RESEARCH
This is grounded in more than 40 years of side-by-side research from Rodale Institutes Farming Systems Trial, the longest-running comparison of organic and conventional agriculture in North America. Over time, organic systems yield results comparable to those of traditional systems for crops like corn and wheat, while reducing exposure to increasingly volatile fertilizer and chemical input costs. That cost stability matters when synthetic inputs swing dramatically in price, as they have in recent years.
The market now exceeds $70 billion annually in U.S. organic food sales and continues to grow faster than the overall food market, bolstering the business case for organic practices. Organic production generates nearly 3% of total U.S. farm revenue on just 1% of all farmland. More than half of organic food is sold through mainstream retailers like Walmart and Target, providing clear evidence that organic is no longer a niche category, but a core segment of the modern food economy.
In my new book, The Farm is Here, I explore what is driving this surge. A key aspect of this growth is the exploding demand for products with trusted certifications. In the past year, sales of Regenerative Organic Certified (ROC) products rose 22%, according to SPINS CEO Jay Margolis, and other sustainability certifications are outpacing the rest of the market. For todays shoppers, certifications are symbols of trust that guide decisions in an increasingly crowded marketplace.
Consumer demand is only part of the story. Capital is following returns. Impact investors, farmland real estate investment trusts, specialty lenders, and conservation finance groups have deployed hundreds of millions of dollars into organic and regenerative operations. These investors arent solely driven by ideology; but theyre responding to a business model that delivers durable margins, diversified revenue streams, and growing demand. Together, these numbers point to a simple conclusion: organic has crossed the threshold from specialty category to economically material market.
THE NEXT GENERATION OF FARMERS
Equally important is who is choosing to farm this way. USDA census data shows a 7% increase in farmers under 45, many of whom are rejecting the subsidy-dependent industrial model in favor of smaller, diversified, organic operations. An analysis of the USDA census data shows that 2,000 U.S. farms are currently transitioning to organic. For the next generation, organic is not a lifestyle choice, but a strategy for avoiding high-input debt, reducing exposure to price volatility, and building viable operations at smaller scales.
That doesnt mean the transition is effortless. The three-year certification period, when farmers adopt organic practices before earning full price premiums, can strain cash flow. But risk-mitigation tools are expanding. USDA cost-share programs, conservation incentives, organic-specific crop insurance, and emerging transitional labels are reducing financial exposure. When these tools are aligned, the economic risk of transition drops significantly.
The broader takeaway is that organic agriculture offers a viable economic pathway for rebuilding resilience in American farming. It reduces dependence on volatile inputs, aligns production with consumer demand, and opens the door for new farmers without locking them into unsustainable debt structures.
At a moment when policymakers are searching for ways to strengthen rural economies, investors are looking for climate-resilient assets, and consumers are voting with their dollars, organic agriculture sits at the intersection of profitability and purpose.
The question is no longer whether organic farming can scale economically. The data shows it already has. The real question is whether we will invest, finance, and design agricultural systems that will allow more farmers to succeed.
Jeff Tkach is CEO of Rodale Institute.
U.S. consumer confidence declined sharply in January, hitting the lowest level since 2014 as Americans grow increasingly concerned about their financial prospects.
The Conference Board said Tuesday that its consumer confidence index cratered 9.7 points to 84.5 in January, falling below even the lowest readings during the COVID-19 pandemic.
A measure of Americans short-term expectations for their income, business conditions and the job market tumbled 9.5 points to 65.1, well below 80, the marker that can signal a recession ahead. Its the 12th consecutive month that reading has come in under 80.
Consumers assessments of their current economic situation slid by 9.9 points to 113.7.
Confidence collapsed in January, as consumer concerns about both the present situation and expectations for the future deepened, said Dana Peterson, the Conference Boards chief economist. All five components of the index deteriorated, driving the overall index to its lowest level since May 2014 surpassing its COVID19 pandemic depths.
Respondents references to inflation, including gas and grocery prices, remained elevated. Mentions of tariffs and trade, politics, and the labor market also rose in January as did comments about health insurance and war.
Perceptions of the job market also declined this month.
The conference boards survey reported that 23.9% of consumers said jobs were plentiful, down from 27.5% in December. Also, 20.8% of consumers said jobs were hard to get, up from 19.1% the month previous.
The countrys labor market has been stuck in a low hire, low fire state, economists say, as businesses stand pat due to uncertainty over Trumps tariffs and the lingering effects of elevated interest rates.
Earlier this month, the government reported that employers added just 50,000 jobs in December, nearly unchanged from 56,000 in November. The unemployment rate is 4.4%.
Job gains have been subdued all year, particularly after Aprils liberation day tariff announcement by Trump. The economy gained just 584,000 jobs in 2025, sharply lower than that more than 2 million added in 2024.
The dramatic drop on confidence is a direct result of the hiring recession, said Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union. The fact that 2025 was the weakest year for job gains outside of a recession since 2003 is not going over well with the middle class.
This is a warning sign to policymakers that they need to focus on affordability and reviving hiring in 2026, Long added.
The softening job market comes even as the U.S. economy keeps growing, often beyond projections.
Powered by strong consumer spending, the U.S. economy grew at the fastest pace in two years from July through September, according to the governments latest estimate.
Matt Ott, AP business writer
Amazon will double down on the Whole Foods brand, killing two of its own physical retail experiments in the process.
The online retail giant said Tuesday that it will close all of its Amazon Go convenience stores and Amazon Fresh brick-and-mortar grocery stores. In total, around 70 locations across the two sub-brands will close starting at the beginning of February, with some to later reopen under the Whole Foods brand.
Amazon Fresh stores served as a physical counterpart to Amazons online grocery delivery service by the same name while Amazon Go stores offered convenience store staples with a high-tech checkout twist.
After a careful evaluation of the business and how we can best serve customers, weve made the difficult decision to close our Amazon Go and Amazon Fresh physical stores, converting various locations into Whole Foods Market stores, Amazon wrote in a blog update, adding that it gathered valuable insights during their operation.
The Amazon brand might take a back seat in its brick-and-mortar strategy, but the retail giants IRL ambitions remain. Amazon also announced plans to open more than 100 new Whole Foods stores over the next few years. When the latest Go and Fresh store closures are wrapped up, Amazons network of Whole Foods stores will serve as the companys only physical retail footprint at least for now.
With the closures, Amazon is backing off of its long experiment with Fresh and Go physical retail stores, which tested emerging retail technology and pushed its brand into new shopping categories.
Amazon Go was known for allowing shoppers to pick up what they wanted and Just Walk Out instead of individually scanning items in a traditional checkout counter. That system, which relied on sensors and overhead cameras to track what shoppers purchased and linking it to their accounts digitally.
While Amazon once held an ambitious roadmap for a vast network of physical stores centered around its Just Walk Out technology, the company has scaled back consistently in recent years. In 2018, Amazon was reportedly planning to open up to 3,000 cashierless stores running the technology over the next three years. By early 2026, Amazon Go was down to just 14 stores.
The high cost of outfitting stores with a sophisticated array of sensors eventually dimmed those ambitions, with the company backtracking to a system that lets customers scan items to smart carts as they shop. Amazon now licenses the Just Walk Out technology out to third parties, including a number of merch, food and beverage locations in Lumen Field, home of the Seattle Seahawks.
Amazon is still tinkering around with ways to bring its digital storefront into the physical shopping realm. Even as it rolls back some smaller-scale retail plans, Amazon clearly still wants to take a bite out of the everyday shopping and grocery success that brands like Walmart and Costco enjoy.
As soon as next year, Amazon plans to open its first massive, big box-style store stocked with home goods, groceries and prepared food in the Chicago area. Its purpose-built for what we see retail customers demand today, an Amazon lawyer told local officials, who went on to greenlight the project last week.
Downloads of UpScrolled, a new short-form video app, are surging after TikTok’s recent change to U.S. ownership.
Developed by Palestinian-Australian Issam Hijazi, the social media app currently ranks #2 in the U.S. in the Apple store among free apps, following ChatGPT, and markets itself as a place “where every voice gets equal power.”
“No shadowbans . . . No pay-to-play favoritism. Just authentic connection where your content reaches the people who matter most,” reads UpScrolled’s website.
Last week, Chinese-owned TikTok closed a $14 billion deal, brokered by the Trump administration, to avoid a ban in the U.S., creating an American subsidiary with new ownership going to a joint venture that includes Trump allies Oracle founder Larry Ellison and Dell Technologies’ Michael Dell.
The surge in downloads is also happening amid allegations that TikTok censored videos of ICE agents in Minnesota and other anti-Trump content.
What is UpScrolled?
UpScrolled is a platform for sharing photos, videos, and text. It says its mission is to “always remain impartial to political agendas, conflicts, and unjust views.” It brands itself as a “no-censorship” platform with a focus on free speech. It’s available on iOS and Android.
UpScrolled says it was developed as an alternative to popular Big Tech-run social media platforms such as Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta and Instagram, Elon Musk’s X, and, of course, TikTok.
“UpScrolled exists because we were tired of waiting for Big Tech to do the right thing,” its website states. “We needed a place where people could speak freely without playing algorithm games or being punished for telling the truth.”
Other TikTok alternatives are also seeing a surge
UpScrolled is not the only TikTok alternative seeing a surge after the U.S. deal.
Skylight Social, or Skylight, also saw an uptick to over 380,000 users, per TechCrunch. Backed by Mark Cuban and built on open source tech, has over 42 million users.
President Donald Trumps crackdown on immigration contributed to a year-to-year drop in the nation’s growth rate as the U.S. population reached nearly 342 million people in 2025, according to population estimates released Tuesday by the U.S. Census Bureau.
The 0.5% growth rate for 2025 was a sharp drop from 2024’s almost 1% growth rate, which was the highest in two decades and was fueled by immigration. The 2024 estimates put the U.S. population at 340 million people.
Immigration increased by almost 1.3 million people last year, compared with 2024’s increase of 2.8 million people. If trends continue, the gain from immigrants in mid-2026 will drop to only 321,000 people, according to the Census Bureau, whose estimates do not distinguish between legal and illegal immigration.
In the past 125 years, the lowest growth rate was in 2021, during the height of the coronavirus pandemic, when the U.S. population grew by just 0.16%, or 522,000 people and immigration increased by just 376,000 people because of travel restrictions into the U.S. Before that, the lowest growth rate was just under 0.5% in 1919 at the height of the Spanish flu.
Births outnumbered deaths last year by 519,000 people. While higher than the pandemic-era low at the beginning of the decade, the natural increase was dramatically smaller than in the 2000s, when it ranged between 1.6 million and 1.9 million people.
Lower immigration stunts growth in many states
The immigration drop dented growth in several states that traditionally have been immigrant magnets.
California had a net population loss of 9,500 people in 2025, a stark change from the previous year, when it gained 232,000 residents, even though roughly the same number of Californians already living in the state moved out in both years. The difference was immigration since the number of net immigrants who moved into the state dropped from 361,000 people in 2024 to 109,000 in 2025.
Florida had year-to-year drops in both immigrants and people moving in from other states. The Sunshine State, which has become more expensive in recent years from surging property values and higher home insurance costs, had only 22,000 domestic migrants in 2025, compared with 64,000 people in 2024, and the net number of immigrants dropped from more than 411,000 people to 178,000 people.
New York added only 1,008 people in 2025, mostly because the state’s net migration from immigrants dropped from 207,000 people to 95,600 people.
South Carolina, Idaho and North Carolina had the highest year-over-year growth rates, ranging from 1.3% to 1.5%. Texas, Florida and North Carolina added the most people in pure numbers. California, Hawaii, New Mexico, Vermont and West Virginia had population declines.
The South, which has been the powerhouse of growth in the 2020s, continued to add more people than any other region, but the numbers dropped from 1.7 million people in 2025 to 1.1 million in 2025.
Many of these states are going to show even smaller growth when we get to next year, Brookings demographer William Frey said Tuesday.
The effects of Trump’s immigration crackdown
Tuesday’s data release comes as researchers have been trying to determine the effects of the second Trump administration’s immigration crackdown after the Republican president returned to the White House in January 2025. Trump made a surge of migrants at the southern border a central issue in his winning 2024 presidential campaign.
The numbers made public Tuesday reflect change from July 2024 to July 2025, covering the end of President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration and the first half of Trump’s first year back in office.
The figures capture a period that reflects the beginning of enforcement surges in Los Angeles and Portland, Oregon, but do not capture the impact on immigration after the Trump administration’s crackdowns began in Chicago; New Orleans; Memphis, Tennessee; and Minneapolis, Minnesota.
The 2025 numbers were a jarring divergence from 2024, when net international migration accounted for 84% of the nations 3.3 million-person increase from the year before. The jump in immigration two years ago was partly because of a new method of counting that added people who were admitted for humanitarian reasons.
They do reflect recent trends we have seen in out-migration, where the numbers of people coming in is down and the numbers going out is up, Eric Jensen, a senior research scientist at the Census Bureau, said last week.
How the population estimates are calculated
Unlike the once-a-decade census, which determines how many congressional seats and Electoral College votes each state gets, as well as the distribution of $2.8 trillion in annual government funding, the population estimates are calculated from government records and internal Census Bureau data.
The release of the 2025 population estimates was delayed by the federal government shutdown last fall and comes at a challenging time for the Census Bureau and other U.S. statistical agencies. The bureau, which is the largest statistical agency in the U.S., lost about 15% of its workforce last year due to buyouts and layoffs that were part of cost-cutting efforts by the White House and its Department of Government Efficiency.
Other recent actions by the Trump administration, such as the firing of Erika McEntarfer as Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner, have raised concerns about political meddling at U.S. statistical agencies. But Frey said the bureau’s staffers appear to have been doing this work as usual without interference.
So I have no reason to doubt the numbers that come out, Frey said.
By Mike Schneider, Associated Press
Prize-winning composer Philip Glass has called off a scheduled world premiere at the Kennedy Center of a symphony about Abraham Lincoln, the latest in a wave of cancellations since President Donald Trump ousted the previous leadership.
Glass’ Symphony No. 15, Lincoln, was to have been led by Grammy-winning conductor Karen Kamensek for performances on June 12 and June 13.
Symphony No. 15 is a portrait of Abraham Lincoln, and the values of the Kennedy Center today are in direct conflict with the message of the Symphony, Glass said in a statement released Tuesday by his publicist. Therefore, I feel an obligation to withdraw this Symphony premiere from the Kennedy Center under its current leadership.
A spokesperson for the Kennedy Center did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Glass, who turns 89 on Saturday, was a Kennedy Center honoree in 2018.
Over the past year, artists withdrawing from planned performances have ranged from Renée Fleming to Bela Fleck. Trump, whose handpicked board of trustees have said they are renaming the center the Trump Kennedy Center, has placed the venue at the heart of his campaign against what he calls woke culture.”
Trump’s name already hangs on the outside of the venue, in addition to Kennedy’s, despite such a change requiring an act of Congress.
Hillel Italie, AP national writer
ICEs occupation in Minnesota has lasted weeks, and until a couple of days ago, the states major corporations, quick to issue statements in wake of George Floyds shooting in 2020, had been largely silent. When Fast Company reached out to several heavy hitters in mid-January, including Target and Best Buy, there was no response.
Finally, on Sunday, 60 of the states major business leaders put out a response calling for “de-escalation.” But the statement has been criticized on social media and beyond, with some calling it spineless. It came over two weeks since federal agents fatally shot U.S. citizen Renee Good, and a day after federal agents also fatally shot U.S. citizen Alex Pretti.
For weeks, the Twin Cities have been awash in chaos and fear as ICE raids streets, shops, and schools, profoundly disrupting daily life, as well as economic activity. Roughly 80% of immigrant-owned businesses along main streets have closed, while restaurants and health care centers in some of the surrounding suburbs have had to cut hours because employees are afraid to come to work. Last Friday, there was an economic blackout as hundreds of businesses closed and over 75,000 protesters marched.
Given the loss of life and constant turmoil, it’s puzzling why Minnesotas business leaders were quiet for so long. For insight, Fast Company talked to Bill George, lecturer at Harvard Business School and former CEO of Medtronic, one of the worlds biggest medical tech companies, whose operations are based in Minneapolis.
This interview was conducted over two days and has been edited for length and clarity.
Fast Company: What do you think of the statement that businesses finally released?
Well, I think the statement itself is very significant. If you worked in a large company, you can’t believe how difficult it is to get not just one but 60 CEOs from a wide range of businesses to [do the same thing]. These people are very cautious about signing on anyone else’s statements. There are those that thought it didn’t go far enough.
But as Marshall McLuhan once said “the medium is the message.” I dont see CEOs or companies that were left off. So I think having all of them sign on may have taken a while, but it’s significant.
And I’d go further. Let me just say: I hope this will be the tipping point, and the businesses are sending a powerful signal to the White House that they are being harmed by this. No doubt it’s causing a loss of productivity and lots of issues. I hope this will be the turning point that will cause the White House to move on.
We did hear a huge outpouring of support after George Floyds death. What was different this time around?
They want to stay out of the news, and many of them feel they can work behind the scenes to get what they want. You see some of the deals that have been cut with Nvidia and Intel and Apple and others. But I think most companies don’t have that kind of access.
Its a different time than it was with George Floyd. And I think there is a very strong point of view that we should work behind the scenes and not do anything to provoke anyone in the governmentnot just the president, but any of the members of [Trumps] administrative team. The companies have to let ICE do their job, whether they like it or notbut I think that their employees need to know they have their support.
The public letter from the business leaders has gotten criticism on social media for not going far enough.
Well, the governor and the attorney general, who I’ve spoken with, are being investigated. So I don’t think any of these CEOs want to get between their interests and ICE or the federal government.
These CEOs are not very political. None of them are extreme left or extreme right. You might say that they’re slightly to the right center, but they’re quite independent in how they vote. Their primary concern is to run their business and stay out of politics.
How did Alex Prettis death trigger the timing of the statement?
This didn’t just get thrown together. These things don’t happen easily, sure; particularly when a lot of other companies are involved. Its hard enough to get a statement out of one company, much less 60. But I think these things are all having an impact: the protests in Minneapolis, [Prettis] death, the concern to people’s business, the fact that Minnesota companies are highly dependent upon being able to recruit people from all around the United States and all around the world.
What if the statement is not enough to get the administration to move on?
I’m not sure. I think it’s continuing discussions behind the scenes.
And what kind of leverage do the companies have behind the scenes?
I don’t think a lot. These are not companies that are making big promises that you’ve seen very publicly for the last year that I’m aware of, but people care about these businesses. The president himself is a businessman, and will recognize that.
One other thought is: what is the goal here? We have very few illegal immigrants in Minnesota. I can assure you, the companies on that list do not hire illegal immigrants. They hire immigrants. For example, at the Mayo Clinic, several of the physicians, including a CEO, were born outside the U.S. Thats great. Its great for the Mayo Clinic. Its great for Minnesota. If you were really looking for illegal immigrants, why wouldn’t you go to Florida, Arizona, or Texas?
What do the companies want?
They want to restore calm, and I’m sure they would like to see this all get settled. They’re hoping to get a peaceful situation and not provoke greater confrontation. They certainly don’t want to have the United States military sent in. They certainly don’t want to see martial law declared for Minnesota.
Whats the long-term impact of this corporate silence going to be on employees?
Employees are going to feel very disappointed, and they may feel a lack of loyalty to the company.
As a CEO, you have to keep innovation going. And to do that, youve got to attract people from all over the country and all over the world to come to Minnesota. From a longer term perspective, this could scare off people from coming. As a CEO, Id want to make sure people know we’ve got their backs, and we will provide the support they need.
If you have ever lifted a weight, you know the routine: challenge the muscle, give it rest, feed it, and repeat. Over time, it grows stronger.
Of course, muscles only grow when the challenge increases over time. Continually lifting the same weight the same way stops working.
It might come as a surprise to learn that the brain responds to training in much the same way as our muscles, even though most of us never think about it that way. Clear thinking, focus, creativity, and good judgment are built through challenge, when the brain is asked to stretch beyond routine rather than run on autopilot. That slight mental discomfort is often the sign that the brain is actually being trained, a lot like that good workout burn in your muscles.
Think about walking the same loop through a local park every day. At first, your senses are alert. You notice the hills, the trees, the changing light. But after a few loops, your brain checks out. You start planning dinner, replaying emails, or running through your to-do list. The walk still feels good, but your brain is no longer being challenged.
Routine feels comfortable, but comfort and familiarity alone do not build new brain connections.
As a neurologist who studies brain activity, I use electroencephalograms, or EEGs, to record the brains electrical patterns.
Research in humans shows that these rhythms are remarkably dynamic. When someone learns a new skill, EEG rhythms often become more organized and coordinated. This reflects the brains attempt to strengthen pathways needed for that skill.
Your brain trains in zones too
For decades, scientists believed that the brains ability to grow and reorganize, called neuroplasticity, was largely limited to childhood. Once the brain matured, its wiring was thought to be largely fixed.
But that idea has been overturned. Decades of research show that adult brains can form new connections and reorganize existing networks, under the right conditions, throughout life.
Some of the most influential work in this field comes from enriched environment studies in animals. Rats housed in stimulating environments filled with toys, running wheels, and social interaction developed larger, more complex brains than rats kept in standard cages. Their brains adapted because they were regularly exposed to novelty and challenge.
Human studies find similar results. Adults who take on genuinely new challenges, such as learning a language, dancing, or practicing a musical instrument, show measurable increases in brain volume and connectivity on MRI scans.
The takeaway is simple: Repetition keeps the brain running, but novelty pushes the brain to adapt, forcing it to pay attention, learn, and problem-solve in new ways. Neuroplasticity thrives when the brain is nudged just beyond its comfort zone.
The reality of neural fatigue
Just like muscles, the brain has limits. It does not get stronger from endless strain. Real growth comes from the right balance of challenge and recovery.
When the brain is pushed for too long without a breakwhether that means long work hours, staying locked onto the same task, or making nonstop decisions under pressureperformance starts to slip. Focus fades. Mistakes increase. To keep you going, the brain shifts how different regions work together, asking some areas to carry more of the load. But that extra effort can still make the whole network run less smoothly.
Neural fatigue is more than feeling tired. Brain imaging studies show that during prolonged mental work, the networks responsible for attention and decision-making begin to slow down, while regions that promote rest and reward-seeking take over. This shift helps explain why mental exhaustion often comes with stronger cravings for quick rewards, like sugary snacks, comfort foods, or mindless scrolling. The result is familiar: slower thinking, more mistakes, irritability, and mental fog.
This is where the muscle analogy becomes especially useful. You wouldnt do squats for six hours straight, because your leg muscles would eventually give out. As they work, they build up byproducts that make each contraction a little less effective until you finally have to stop. Your brain behaves in a similar way.
Likewise, in the brain, when the same cognitive circuits are overused, chemical signals build up, communication slows, and learning stalls.
But rest allows those strained circuits to reset and function more smoothly over time. And taking breaks from a taxing activity does not interrupt learning. In fact, breaks are critical for efficient learning.
The crucial importance of rest
Among all forms of rest, sleep is the most powerful.
Sleep is the brains night shift. While you rest, the brain takes out the trash through a special cleanup system called the glymphatic system that clears away waste and harmful proteins. Sleep also restores glycogen, a critical fuel source for brain cells.
And importantly, sleep is when essential repair work happens. Growth hormone surges during deep sleep, supporting tissue repair. Immune cells regroup and strengthen their activity.
During REM sleep, the stage of sleep linked to dreaming, the brain replays patterns from the day to consolidate memories. This process is critical not only for cognitive skills like learning an instrument but also for physical skills like mastering a move in sports.
On the other hand, chronic sleep deprivation impairs attention, disrupts decision-making and alters the hormones that regulate appetite and metabolism. This is why fatigue drives sugar cravings and late-night snacking.
Sleep is not an optional wellness practice. It is a biological requirement for brain performance.
Exercise feeds the brain too
Exercise strengthens the brain as well as the body.
Physical activity increases levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor, or BDNF, a protein that acts like fertilizer for neurons. It promotes the growth of new connections, increases blood flow, reduces inflammation, and helps the brain remain adaptable across ones lifespan.
This is why exercise is one of the strongest lifestyle tools for protecting cognitive health.
Train, recover, repeat
The most important lesson from this science is simple. Your brain is not passively wearing down with age. It is constantly remodeling itself in response to how you use it. Every new challenge and skill you try, every real break, every good night of sleep sends a signal that growth is still expected.
You do not need expensive brain training programs or radical lifestyle changes. Small, consistent habits matter more. Try something unfamiliar. Vary your routines. Take breaks before exhaustion sets in. Move your body. Treat sleep as nonnegotiable.
So the next time you lace up your shoes for a familiar walk, consider taking a different path. The scenery may change only slightly, but your brain will notice. That small detour is often all it takes to turn routine into training.
The brain stays adaptable throughout life. Cognitive resilience is not fixed at birth or locked in early adulthood. It is something you can shape.
If you want a sharper, more creative, more resilient brain, you do not need to wait for a breakthrough drug or a perfect moment. You can start now, with choices that tell your brain that growth is still the plan.
Joanna Fong-Isariyawongse is an associate professor of neurology at the University of Pittsburgh.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The oil tycoon J. Paul Getty was rumoured to have said that his three rules for how to become rich were: Rise early. Work hard. Strike oil. Its one of those eminently quotable remarks because it captures something we all know to be true, that luck and chance have as much to do with success as anything else.
Yet we dont value people for their luck. We dont exalt those who win the lottery or walk away from a roulette table flush with cash. Instead, we praise talent, skill, and dedication. And that creates tension, because although luck plays a big role in outcomes, it is only the effort we put into developing our abilities that we can control.
That is the nature of what the French writer Albert Camus called existential rebellion. It is through our own efforts and actions that we find meaning in an indifferent universe, even if the rewards for those efforts have a significant random element. Believing in luck, then, is itself an act of defiance. To work, to strive, to build skill in such a world is not naveté but rebellion.
How Einstein became an icon
Although we remember him as an icon today, for a long time, Albert Einstein wasnt very popular, or even well liked, in the early twentieth century. He was German in the wake of World War I, Jewish in an age of heightened anti-Semitism, and so seemingly aloof and full of himself that he claimed that only a handful of people on earth could understand his strange theories.
That abruptly changed when Einstein first arrived in America on April 3rd, 1921 and a handful of journalists dutifully went to meet him. When they arrived at New York Harbor, they were amazed to find a crowd of thousands waiting for him, screaming with adulation and waving handkerchiefs. Surprised at his popularity, and charmed by his genial, off-kilter personality, the story of Einsteins arrival made the front page in major newspapers.
It was all a bit of a mistake. The people in the crowd werent there to see Einstein, but Chaim Weizmann, the popular Zionist leader that Einstein was traveling with to raise funds for Hebrew University (and who the WASPy science reporters didnt recognize). Nevertheless, thats how Einstein gained his iconic status, which would overshadow the other great lights, such as Bohr, Heisenberg and Schrödinger, in the golden age of physics.
From there, the Matthew effect (or what network scientists call preferential attachment) took over. Because Einstein was now so well-known, newspapers wanted to report about him and ask him about the other scientific breakthroughs of the day. Just as the rich get richer, the popular get more popular. Einstein became more than a scientist, but a cultural touchstone.
Yet Einstein didnt study physics for fame. In fact, it was his failure to follow convention that mired his early career in misery, unemployment, and poverty. And, although his groundbreaking work was behind him when he entered New York Harbor, he continued to work on physics until his death in 1955, long after he had become, as Robert J Oppenheimer put it, a landmark, not a beacon.
The Wunderkind almost lost to history
On a January morning in 1913, the eminent mathematician G.H. Hardy opened his mail to find a letter written in an almost indecipherable scrawl. It began inauspiciously:
I beg to introduce myself to you as a clerk in the Accounts Department of the Port Trust Office at Madras on a salary of 20 per annum. I am now about 23 years of age. I have had no university education but I have undergone the ordinary school. I have been employing the spare time at my disposal to work at Mathematics.
Inside, he found what looked like mathematical nonsense, using strange notation and purporting theories that scarcely seemed possible. Much of it was incomprehensible, except for one small section that directly refuted a conjecture Hardy himself had made just months earlier. Assuming it was some sort of elaborate prank, he threw the letter in the trash.
Throughout the day, however, Hardy found the ideas gnawing at him and he retrieved the letter. That night, he took it over to his longtime collaborator, J.E. Littlewood. By midnight, they realized that they had just stumbled upon one of the greatest mathematical talents the world had ever seen: a destitute young man in India named Srinivasa Ramanujan.
Living in extreme poverty and largely self-taught, Ramanujan had come across an advanced text as a teenager, devoured it, and began filling notebooks with theorems and proofs. He showed his work to local mathematicians, but no one quite knew what to make of it. With the help of friends, Ramanujan sent letters to three prominent professors at Cambridge. The first two ignored him. Hardy was the third.
It is doubtful that Ramanujan was the first aspiring mathematician to send his work to famous professors. Most, like his first two letters, were lost to history. But Ramanujan gave it a shot, got a little lucky, and were all better off for it. Even now, more than a century later, his notebooks continue to be widely studied by mathematicians looking to glean new insights.
Hardy, a genius by any measure, was one of the most important mathematicians of his time. But when asked to name his greatest discovery he replied, without hesitation, Ramanujan.
The miracle cure we almost missed
In 1891, Dr. William Coley had an unusual idea. Inspired by an obscure case in which a man who had contracted a severe infection was cured of cancer, he deliberately infected a tumor on his patients neck with a heavy dose of bacteria. Miraculously, the tumor vanished, and the patient remained cancer-free even five years later.
Looking to repeat his success, he created a special brew of toxins designed to jump-start the immune system. Unfortunately, he was never able to replicate his initial results consistently. His idea was met with skepticism by the medical community ad, when radiation therapy was developed in the early twentieth century, Coleys research was largely forgotten.
Dr. William Coley was unlucky.
Yet his daughter, Helen Coley Nauts, refused to let the idea die. With a $2,000 grant from Nelson Rockefeller, she founded the Cancer Research Institute in 1953 to study immunological approaches to cancer. While mostly dismissed by the medical community, it did inspire a small cadre of devotees to keep looking, albeit mostly in vain.
A little luck came in 1996, when a researcher named Jim Allison, following a hunch, published a landmark paper suggesting that there may be some merit to Coleys idea after all. Using a novel approach, he was able to show amazing results in mice. The tumors just melted away, Jim would later tell me.
Excited, he rushed to pharmaceutical companies, hoping to secure funding. Instead, he was turned away. Drugmakers had already investedand lostbillions on similar ideas. Hundreds of trials had failed. It was depressing, Jim recalled. I knew this discovery could make a difference, but nobody wanted to invest in it.
Nonetheless, he persevered. He collected more data, pounded the pavement, and made his case. It took him three years, but eventually he found a small biotech company, Medarex, that agreed to back him and his work. The drug that resulted would open the floodgates and make cancer immunotherapy a viable treatment. Jim would win the Nobel Prize in 2018.
Becoming an existential rebel
Camus believed our existence was absurd. He compared the human condition to Sisyphus, the mythical Greek king condemned to roll a boulder uphill, only to watch it roll back down again, for eternity. Incredibly, Camus imagines Sisyphus, returning to his labors at the foot of the mountain, as happy, having found meaning in his task.
That is the nature of existential rebellion: to create meaning for yourself in a universe that provides none. In two decades researching innovation, transformation, and change, one constant I have found is that you cant control your luck. Anything can happen. Sure things often fail while low-probability events occur all the time.
We can easily imagine a world in which Einstein remained a clerk in a patent office, doing physics in his spare time; Ramanujan died an anonymous pauper, his genius never recognized; and William Coleys vision of a revolutionary cancer cure remained a pipe dream. But each persevered against an indifferent universe, and were all better off for it.
We cant control our luck, but we can decide for ourselves how we seek meaning. Einstein spent the final decades of his life in Princeton, NJ, working on theories that would never pan out. On his deathbed, Ramanujan defined a new class of mathematical function and the number that bears his name. Dr. Coley, now recognized as the father of cancer immunotherapy, died surrounded by his loving family who were dedicated to his legacy.
And, like Sisyphus, we can imagine each of them happy, and maybe hoping for a little luck.
President Donald Trump has strong-armed many of Americas biggest trading partners into pledging trillions of dollars of investment in the United States. But a study out Tuesday raises doubts about whether the money will actually materialize and questions how it would be spent if it did.
How realistic are these commitments? write Gregory Auclair and Adnan Mazarei of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a nonpartisan think tank that supports free trade. The short answer is that they are clouded with uncertainty.
They looked at more than $5 trillion in investment commitments made last year by the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Switzerland, Liechtenstein and the Persian Gulf states of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates.
Trump used the threat of punitive tariffsimport taxesto pry concessions out of those trading partners, including the investment pledges.
The White House has published an even higher investment figure – $9.6 trillionthat includes public and private investment commitments from other countries. Trump himself, never one to undersell his achievements, has put the number far higher$17 trillion or $18 trillionthough Auclair and Mazarei note that the basis for his claim is not clear.
All the numbers are huge. Total private investment in the United States was most recently running at a $5.4 trillion annual pace. In 2024, the last year for which figures are available, total foreign direct investment in the United States amounted to $151 billion. Direct investment includes money sunk into such things as factories and offices but not financial investments like stocks and bonds.
The pledged amounts are large, Auclair and Mazarei write, but their time horizon varies, and the metrics for measuring and thus verifying the pledges are generally unclear. They note, for example, that the European Unions pledge to invest $600 billion in the United States carries no legally binding commitment.
The report also finds that some countries would strain to meet their pledges. For the Gulf countries, the commitments are large relative to their financial resources, the researchers write.
Saudi Arabia appears capable of meeting its targets, with some difficulty. The United Arab Emirates and Qatar would find it even harder and might have to finance the investments by borrowing. In all three cases, the commitments are nonbinding, and investments from these countries could fall well below headline numbers, they write.
Moreover, these agreements have been reached under duress, Mazarei, a former deputy director of the International Monetary Fund, said in an interview. Its not necessarily being done willingly.
So trading partners could look for ways to escape their commitmentsespecially if the Supreme Court strikes down the tariffs Trump used to negotiate the one-sided agreements. A ruling is expected as early as February. Other countries may find a way to wiggle out, Mazarei said.
Still, the Trump administration can turn to alternative tariffs if the justices rule the current tariffs illegal.
President Trump agreed to lower tariffs on countries we have trade deals with in exchange for investment commitments and other concessions,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said. The president reserves the right to revisit tariff rates if other countries renege on their commitments, and anyone who doubts President Trumps willingness to put his money where his mouth is should ask Nicolas Maduro and Iran for their thoughts.
U.S. troops overthrew and arrested Venezuelan President Maduro early this month, and Trump ordered the United States to join Israel in bombing Iran last year.
Auclair and Mazarei agree that the investment Trump lands could end up creating jobs, spurring economic growth, and making supply chains more secure by bringing production to America.
Trump, they note, is in some ways taking a similar approach to Biden, using government industrial policy” to encourage more manufacturing in the United States.
But Biden tapped taxpayer dollars to finance infrastructure projects and incentives for companies to invest in green technology and semiconductors. Trump is using the tariff threat to get foreign countriesand their companiesto pick up the tab. And he has dropped the push to encourage clean energy, focusing instead on promoting fossil fuels.
In their report, the Peterson researchers worry about how the investment decisions would get made and whether they would reflect sound economics. This approach may yield real investments and jobs, they write, but it raises familiar industrial policy concerns: opaque projection selection, weak accountability, and the risk that political criteria crowd out economic efficiency.
Paul Wiseman, AP economics writer
