This thing is something people observed for a long time and its totally contextual - In "How to make stress your friend" TED talk, Kelly McGonigal showed that people who believe that stress is damaging will actually get it that way and vice versa.
I wonder how much of it actually boils down to chronically high cortisol levels. People that perceive stress as harmfull are more prone to its damage and we know that positive thoughts and meditation can negate that effect to some degree or even produce benefits.
Knowing that effect exists is one thing, but how do we protect ourselves ?
In chronic making of cortisol adrenal gland becomes deficient in Vitamin C which is used in the process [1]. This has direct effect on immunity (all animals produce more vitmin C in stresfull times to protect from it). Chronic insufficiency will not lead to scurvy (you only need tiny amount of C to prevent that) but will produce ill health particularly combined with smoking and bad eating habits which is typical for lower socioeconomic class (talking about it, blacks, the most affected, are regularly deficient in vitamin D too, another potent immunity booster).
The effect is multifactorial from that point - for example Vitamin C insufficiency changes cholesterol transformation to bile acids which leads to high cholesterol levels [2] which can provide some explanation for cardiovascular events.
Insufficiency is the level that will not result in terminal disease but in suboptimal health and shorter lifespan (i.e. RDA sux) because body will start to utilize triage [3].
Hence, I suggest everybody to forget about 60mg bullshit and use couple of grams of Vitamin C as few daily doses to protect from John Henryism effect. Afterall, that is what our closest relatives who have the same disfunctinal GULO gene - primates - do: they eat grams of C in the wild.
> ‘They started asking people, “how much stress have you experienced in the last year?”’ The doctors also probed whether participants believed that stress was bad for their health – and then looked at the records to see who died. ‘People who experienced a lot of stress in the previous year had a 43 per cent increased risk of dying. But,’ McGonigal continues, ‘that was ONLY true for the people who also believed stress was also harmful for your health. People who experienced a lot of stress but did not view stress as harmful were no more likely to die – in fact, they had the lowest risk of dying of anyone in the study, including people who had very little stress.’
I'm not sure the causation goes in that direction. Couldn't it also be that those who take damage from stress feel that stress is bad for them, and those who aren't affected by stress negatively feel that it's good for them? To throw a silly example... Vampires believe that sun is harmful, humans believe a bit of sun is good for them. But believing won't make a difference for the vampire.
And now CRISPR technologies are being developed I trust that in addition to eliminating Huntington's disease, Tay-Sachs, Fragile X, and what have you, we will fix the GULO gene so that our bodies can recommence Vitamin C production.
While you didn't suggest where you source your Vitamin C, it may be helpful to point out that the "grams of C in the wild" that are generally eaten by primates are probably from natural sources. You may find this article interesting to read, as there are questions as to have safe and effective certain vitamins and supplements are: <a href="http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161208-why-vitamin-supplem... vitamin pills don't work, and may be bad for you</a>.
TLDR (or at least what I took from it): Too much adversity produces stress that is bad for the body in that it ages your immune system much faster than it should.
It is slightly more than adversity, as anyone can lose someone important or their job, suffer from brain trauma, etc. Upward mobility implies understanding and navigating through different sets of social rules and this can be extremely stressful and implies what sociologists call anomie.
The sociological explanation of this phenomenon is almost a hundred years old. You can read it here: Merton, Robert K. (October 1938). "Social Structure and Anomie". American Sociological Review. 3 (5): 672–682.
Sorry for the paywall, but you "hackers" know how to circumvent it, right?
Isn't it just that people who are 'more diligent and [tend] to strive for success' tax their bodies more by working harder? Whereas 'lazier' people tend to give their bodies more time to recuperate? Adversity isn't the cause; it's working to overcome adversity. Similarly, being rich doesn't make one healther; being rich gives one more access to healthcare and the means to take time off of work. I think the distinction is important.
> The focus on black adolescents is significant. In much of this research, white Americans appeared somehow to be immune to the negative health effects that accompany relentless striving. As Dr. Brody put it when telling me about the Pittsburgh study, “We found this for black persons from disadvantaged backgrounds, but not white persons.”
When I was in a course on health disparities, we referred to this phenomenon as the "John Henry effect"
"The term was first used by Gary Saretsky (1972) to describe the behavior of John Henry, a legendary American steel driver in the 1870s who, when he heard his output was being compared with that of a steam drill, worked so hard to outperform the machine he died in the process"
I wonder if they confused the cause for the symptom.
Is reality that people who succeed against the odds are more likely to get sick, or that people who get sick frequently are more likely to fight against the odds?
"The focus on black adolescents is significant. In much of this research, white Americans appeared somehow to be immune to the negative health effects that accompany relentless striving."
Poverty in youth, is a predictor of future poor health outcomes. This is the conclusion of so many Dunedin study papers. [0] An unexpected finding, the effects of poverty are ^not^ reversed by future wealth. I can't find the specific study for this, however another report displays another unexpected find, "The high-need/high-cost group of adults could be identified as young as age 3years on the basis of their ‘brain health,’". [1]
While poverty is the root cause, race determines poverty, the health outcomes are lifelong.
Light. pRGCs. Remember that other research shows that conscientiousness clearly leads to longer life. So diligence turns out to be opposite to conscientiousness; I suspect because it leads to extended hours. If you blow your biological clock, your whole daily hormonal cycle goes with it.
The Trump administration could do much more to damage Americans’ health than just repeal the Affordable Care Act and leave people without access to hospitals and medications.
I don't see anything new here. Stress is hard on people. Those who strive to succeed against the odds are subjecting themselves to higher stress levels. The article seems to be trying to imply a causation that is unfounded.
You know what also makes you sick? A lack of professional accomplishment, missing respect from your peers, and a general sense of purposelessness. It's easy to look at the costs of ambition and ignore its benefits.
The qualities you are listing affect your emotional health. The article focuses on the physical health of the body. One does affect the other but that's not the point of the article.
Dr. James expects John Henryism can now be seen across Western democracies, wherever people are inculcated with a Protestant sense of personal responsibility and belief in self-reliance.
This is garbage. What actually is the source of all this unneeded suffering is when people choose to believe the all-pervasive Western media, movie, and music refrain that success is measured by material wealth and prosperity. The Protestant work ethic has nothing to do with an ego-fueled, greedy striving for material wealth at all costs.
The Protestant work ethic is centered on the notion that work is a holy vocation, ordained by God. This belief stems back to when God placed man in the garden of Eden to work the garden (Genesis 2:15). The Protestant work ethic is working simply for the sake of enjoying the gift of labor, which was deemed very good at the beginning. Further, the Protestant work ethic also makes room for a Sabbath day of rest, something often foreign to American successaholics.
Lastly, both Jesus (Mark 4:18-20) and Paul (1 Timothy 6:8-10) and Solomon (Proverbs 23:4) make it abundantly clear the sacrifices involved with worshiping wealth and material prosperity (i.e. the standard-issue "American Dream")
> The Protestant work ethic is centered on the notion that work is a holy vocation
The Protestant work ethic emerged from the Calvinist doctrine of predestination (who is saved and damned is decided by God in advance) and the belief that accumulating material wealth was a sign of having been chosen by God for salvation.
> when people choose to believe the all-pervasive Western media, movie, and music refrain that success is measured by material wealth
And yet the US is one of the least materialistic countries in the developed world:
Thanks for pointing out a common misconception of the Protestant ethics. In fact, there has been many books written about the incompatibility between "American Dream" and Protestant faith. Here's one for start: https://www.amazon.com/Radical-Taking-Faith-American-Dream/d...
I strongly agree with everything you are saying here. But that said, I do think its prevailing thinking among protestants in the US; who are generally right leaning welfare hating lovers of Christ.
Further, real Christians (who live by the God given principles of honest hard work as you describe it above) are few and far between.
Just for fun I'll go ahead and translate how this article reads in my mind- since thankfully I don't naively believe that I am of a singular race or ascribe my personality to some form of nationalism which has only existed for a little over 200 years (here is how we seriously talk in my house). Monoracials continuing to divide themselves into imaginary compartments have discovered that thinking too hard about a society of pro-inbreeding (we don't use the word 'racist' just 'pro-inbreeding') can cause auto-immune disorders. The antiquated pagan-but-not-pagan work ethic is what typifies the monoracial experience as most of their life is based on overt simplifications. Just for fun we will bring up the current political climate where most Americans have chosen a single race for the outgoing president and have applied it's meaning into somehow being contrary to the one born with a silver spoon in his mouth- who happens to be very pro-inbreeding. When we look at things like pure-bred dogs which are born with a gamut of mental problems and physical deficiencies- its easy for any group of monoracials to say 'That's how I want to be like a crazy pure-bred dog that's me!'. The 'Blacks' (the author doesn't specify here if black means African, West Indian, Hispanic, Moorish, etc..) as this expert points out are the only people worth mentioning because if you are not of a singular race (in your head of course no one is of a singular race) than you don't exist and nobody cares about your troubles.
[+] [-] majkinetor|9 years ago|reply
I wonder how much of it actually boils down to chronically high cortisol levels. People that perceive stress as harmfull are more prone to its damage and we know that positive thoughts and meditation can negate that effect to some degree or even produce benefits.
Knowing that effect exists is one thing, but how do we protect ourselves ?
In chronic making of cortisol adrenal gland becomes deficient in Vitamin C which is used in the process [1]. This has direct effect on immunity (all animals produce more vitmin C in stresfull times to protect from it). Chronic insufficiency will not lead to scurvy (you only need tiny amount of C to prevent that) but will produce ill health particularly combined with smoking and bad eating habits which is typical for lower socioeconomic class (talking about it, blacks, the most affected, are regularly deficient in vitamin D too, another potent immunity booster).
The effect is multifactorial from that point - for example Vitamin C insufficiency changes cholesterol transformation to bile acids which leads to high cholesterol levels [2] which can provide some explanation for cardiovascular events.
Insufficiency is the level that will not result in terminal disease but in suboptimal health and shorter lifespan (i.e. RDA sux) because body will start to utilize triage [3].
Hence, I suggest everybody to forget about 60mg bullshit and use couple of grams of Vitamin C as few daily doses to protect from John Henryism effect. Afterall, that is what our closest relatives who have the same disfunctinal GULO gene - primates - do: they eat grams of C in the wild.
[1] http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/1/145.long
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4685043
[3] http://www.bruceames.org/Triage.pdf
[+] [-] chillacy|9 years ago|reply
I'm not sure the causation goes in that direction. Couldn't it also be that those who take damage from stress feel that stress is bad for them, and those who aren't affected by stress negatively feel that it's good for them? To throw a silly example... Vampires believe that sun is harmful, humans believe a bit of sun is good for them. But believing won't make a difference for the vampire.
[+] [-] umberway|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SnappyT|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] divbit|9 years ago|reply
Sounds plausible.
[+] [-] treyfitty|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 131012|9 years ago|reply
The sociological explanation of this phenomenon is almost a hundred years old. You can read it here: Merton, Robert K. (October 1938). "Social Structure and Anomie". American Sociological Review. 3 (5): 672–682.
Sorry for the paywall, but you "hackers" know how to circumvent it, right?
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] venomsnake|9 years ago|reply
And generally speaking successful politicians live long. Castro, Mugabe... And they did had a lot of adversaries. And won against the odds.
[+] [-] renlo|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trustfundbaby|9 years ago|reply
> The focus on black adolescents is significant. In much of this research, white Americans appeared somehow to be immune to the negative health effects that accompany relentless striving. As Dr. Brody put it when telling me about the Pittsburgh study, “We found this for black persons from disadvantaged backgrounds, but not white persons.”
[+] [-] epmaybe|9 years ago|reply
"The term was first used by Gary Saretsky (1972) to describe the behavior of John Henry, a legendary American steel driver in the 1870s who, when he heard his output was being compared with that of a steam drill, worked so hard to outperform the machine he died in the process"
[+] [-] ysavir|9 years ago|reply
Is reality that people who succeed against the odds are more likely to get sick, or that people who get sick frequently are more likely to fight against the odds?
[+] [-] bootload|9 years ago|reply
Poverty in youth, is a predictor of future poor health outcomes. This is the conclusion of so many Dunedin study papers. [0] An unexpected finding, the effects of poverty are ^not^ reversed by future wealth. I can't find the specific study for this, however another report displays another unexpected find, "The high-need/high-cost group of adults could be identified as young as age 3years on the basis of their ‘brain health,’". [1]
While poverty is the root cause, race determines poverty, the health outcomes are lifelong.
Reference
[0] http://dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz/publications
[1] http://dunedinstudy.otago.ac.nz/news-and-events/article/53
[+] [-] Nomentatus|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] automatwon|9 years ago|reply
And somehow they manage to tie it back to Trump
[+] [-] FrancoDiaz|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] phkahler|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fdsfsaa|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gicadin|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dstaten|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kirse|9 years ago|reply
This is garbage. What actually is the source of all this unneeded suffering is when people choose to believe the all-pervasive Western media, movie, and music refrain that success is measured by material wealth and prosperity. The Protestant work ethic has nothing to do with an ego-fueled, greedy striving for material wealth at all costs.
The Protestant work ethic is centered on the notion that work is a holy vocation, ordained by God. This belief stems back to when God placed man in the garden of Eden to work the garden (Genesis 2:15). The Protestant work ethic is working simply for the sake of enjoying the gift of labor, which was deemed very good at the beginning. Further, the Protestant work ethic also makes room for a Sabbath day of rest, something often foreign to American successaholics.
Lastly, both Jesus (Mark 4:18-20) and Paul (1 Timothy 6:8-10) and Solomon (Proverbs 23:4) make it abundantly clear the sacrifices involved with worshiping wealth and material prosperity (i.e. the standard-issue "American Dream")
[+] [-] mrxd|9 years ago|reply
The Protestant work ethic emerged from the Calvinist doctrine of predestination (who is saved and damned is decided by God in advance) and the belief that accumulating material wealth was a sign of having been chosen by God for salvation.
> when people choose to believe the all-pervasive Western media, movie, and music refrain that success is measured by material wealth
And yet the US is one of the least materialistic countries in the developed world:
https://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=635...
[+] [-] hcho3|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] j2bax|9 years ago|reply
Further, real Christians (who live by the God given principles of honest hard work as you describe it above) are few and far between.
[+] [-] dstaten|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] morugin|9 years ago|reply
God blesses the chosen with wealth, therefore you work hard to have wealth (because you want to be a chosen one).
Max Weber, right?
[+] [-] stupidcar|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wolfspider|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] RangerScience|9 years ago|reply
In your view, how granular is that? That is - if someone is half Italian and half Swedish - are they monoracial?