Hmmm... busted telomeres. I sensed something was wrong :)
Posted on 12/12/2004 9:15:46 PM PST by upchuck
Everyone knows that stress can make you age before your time - but everyone knows is folk wisdom, not science. What science has established so far is that people under chronic stress tend to have weak immune systems and run an elevated risk of cardiovascular disease. But that doesn't necessarily prove that stressed-out people are actually aging prematurely, even if they look older than their years.
But an important new study shows that folk wisdom and subjective judgment may, in this case, be right. Writing in last week's Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a team of scientists reported that long-term, unrelenting stress on mothers can damage the DNA of their immune-system cells in a way that may speed up the aging process. "It's an immensely exciting result," says Robert Sapolsky, a Stanford University cell biologist who wrote a commentary accompanying the report.
The study began when Elissa Epel, a psychologist at the University of California, San Francisco, asked her colleague Elizabeth Blackburn, a biochemist, whether anyone really knew why people under stress look haggard and old. "I told her, 'Nobody has any idea,'" recalls Blackburn. "And then I said, 'Let's have a look.'" They gathered a team of psychologists and biologists and recruited 58 women ranging in age from 20 to 50. Thirty-nine of the women were the primary caregivers for a child chronically ill with cerebral palsy, autism or some other serious disorder; the rest had healthy kids. The researchers gave all the mothers a standard test that measured how stressed out they had been feeling during the previous month. Then they drew blood and examined peripheral blood mononuclear cells, part of the body's immune system.
Even after the scientists corrected for factors such as age and body-mass index, those crucial cells looked different - in three important ways - in the women who reported the highest stress levels. First, the cells had shorter telomeres - bits of DNA that cap the ends of chromosomes. In lab experiments, scientists have shown that telomeres get a bit smaller every time a cell divides, and that when telomeres are worn out, cells can't divide anymore and ultimately die. In humans, older people tend to have shorter telomeres - and by this measure, the most stressed women in the study had cells that looked 10 years older than their chronological age. It's not an open-and-shut case that telomere shortening is the key to aging, says Sapolsky, "but it's the best candidate we have. It may be one of many factors, but it may well be the most important."
The most stressed women also had lower levels of telomerase, an enzyme that repairs damaged telomeres. Again, reduced telomerase isn't necessarily the key to premature aging, but people with a rare genetic condition that reduces their telomerase production tend to show outward signs of premature aging and often die young of heart disease and weakened infection resistance.
Finally, the stressed women's cells had higher levels of free radicals, a type of highly reactive molecule that can damage DNA. One might argue that women whose children were born with those disorders already had something wrong with their DNA and that stress wasn't the cause. But that wouldn't explain another crucial fact: the degree of cellular damage was highest in women who had been caring for a disabled child the longest. "We tried our hardest to make the result go away," says Blackburn, "because we wanted to make sure we weren't fooling ourselves. But we couldn't."
The experiment will have to be replicated before it's fully accepted, and the prospect of some sort of antiaging medicine to protect cells is distant at best. Still, the study seems to tie together a lot of interesting threads. "What will really be interesting," says Sapolsky, "will be to trace the pathways - how you go from the level of people getting no sleep down to the cellular level. It will be amazing once we understand that."
Hmmm... busted telomeres. I sensed something was wrong :)
I think training in stress management would be cheaper and perhaps more effective.
This would explain the '80's and '90's ;-}
If they continue to find stress harmful, the government will have to ban itself.
The author of this article seems to imply that there are only two valid ways of "knowing" -- one is the conventional wisdom of a widely spread belief, and the other is a scientifically "proven" observation under laboratory conditions, while ignoring the by far more prevalent knowing of self-evident truth. That is, I can sense the ravages of stress by looking into a mirror and assessing how I feel momentarily. The human body itself is designed to convey this information to the brain by direct, immediate experience. It does not need a university of experts to tell it so -- that it is tired, hungry, in need of further information, etc.
So that is what I find particularly disturbing about such articles as these. As a friend of mine majoring in sociology wrily admitted during the '70s when all these pseudo-sciences were taking hold in popularity, "Sociology is a fancy word for common knowledge." (Wink, wink.)
One avoids stress if he can; if he doesn't, he probably has a self-destructive streak. The key to managing stress is the much ignored concept of recovery time and ability. Even champion athletes learn to understand this: They may be able to break the world's record two or three times a year if they have that potential (genius) for doing so, but if they try to set a new world's record every day without fail, they will be exhausted, frustrated and ailing very shortly and it will not desist until they learn the proper relationship and management of stress and recovery. That latter is the great unexplored of phenomena.
In this society, "rest" is regarded as a four letter word. Take it easy.
Stress Management. Not elimating it, that's impossible. There are some extremely effective ways of dealing with life's inevitable stress.
understand what it does to your insides so you can combat it with what nature has provided. For example sugar… coffee…
Good points all. Diet, sleep, hydration, exercise, relaxation/stress management.
These are all necessary for maximum health and longevity. I would also add the spiritual and relational aspects transcending the more psychological part of stress management.
My main point initially was that stress management - and now the other practices above - costs less than pre-packaged diet foods and supplements; and, IMHO, get the same or better results than a diet "system" alone.
Thanks very much for your reply. Good points.
I'm a green tea fan too. I also bought some White Tea. Have you heard of it?
Ok, you've sold me. I'll get the book.
As long as I don't have to spend $300/month in supplements.
{^_^}
I don't know --- I think stress can be a good thing --- some people retire too early, never take chances, stay in the same job far too long to avoid stress and they don't always do well. I think it can be better living on the edge a little, trying new things, changing jobs and careers but all that can be stressful.
[now if i could just get the "early to bed; early to rise part…]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.