Howard Friedman - The Longevity Project

The Terman participants had the ability to understand medical advice and they had places to exercise. They had routine health care, and they shared many other characteristics with bright, middle-class Americans. This means that we can focus on their activity patterns, personalities, and social relations without worrying about effects of extreme poverty, ignorance, or malnutrition. But the Terman subjects, like the male veterans given aspirin, are not directly representative of the U.S. population as a whole. So we address this issue in a number of scientific ways.

First, before using scales and measures that are decades old, we carry out comparison studies using valid contemporary measures from contemporary samples of people—using metabolic equivalents (METs) to standardize activity, and modern personality scales to validate the old scales. These new comparison efforts are time-consuming but the best way to be sure that measures derived from the Terman archives are properly created and interpreted. Relatedly, and perhaps most important, we always examine our findings in the context of findings from other studies, until we are convinced that our results make sense in terms of what is more generally known.

We also use state-of-the-art statistical tests and corrections specially developed to deal with these issues. For example, we examine whether the fact that Terman limited his study to bright individuals will have an impact on the relationships among physical activity and other characteristics measured in the study. When we apply these tests and corrections, we find little or no distortion on health matters.

Even more than everyone else, we wonder about whether the lives and activities of the Terman participants are relevant to today’s world. But rather than speculating, we address these issues in all of our studies and have been constantly reassured that our findings are indeed relevant.

A half century ago, Ancel Keys said Americans should eat less and be more active. National campaigns were launched to promote physical fitness. Today almost everyone knows that fit, active people are healthier. Yet today the average American eats much more and is much less active than the average American of fifty years ago and than the average Terman subject born one hundred years ago. Advice to spend thirty minutes, at least four times per week, expending energy at the rate of 6-8 METs is good, up-to-date medical advice, but poor practical advice.

Before you take on a New Year’s or birthday resolution that you are unlikely to keep, take a close look at your own past history. Our findings show that patterns of activity tend to persist over time. Look at your trajectory and at the times when you were becoming more or less active. Taking these patterns into account can help you select activities that will fit well with your preferences and lifestyle. In turn, this will make it much more likely that you’ll stick with them for the long term.

If you don’t like jogging, don’t jog. Instead, begin doing things that you really enjoy and can keep up. It could be a long walk at lunchtime or in the evening with your friend or spouse or dog; umpiring at the local children’s ball games; tending to your garden; or bowling with buddies (but not bowling alone). You don’t have to do the same thing all the time, and you definitely don’t have to do something that irritates or bores you.

Some say choose activities that will benefit your body and your soul. Others say choose something with a steady partner, for mutual support. Still others recommend team sports so that you will be pulled in by the camaraderie of the team. We recommend any or all of these and will never say “force yourself to get out there and exercise thirty minutes a day.” Instead we say follow the successes of the active, healthy Terman participants: develop those patterns, whatever they are, that get you up and out of your chair.

In June 1940, James reported that he was happily married. He told Dr. Terman that he was very certain that no other spouse would have been as good for him. He relished his love life; and his wife, Irene, independently reported to Dr. Terman that she, too, was highly satisfied with their marriage.

About 70 percent of the Terman participants had married by this point, but one in ten of those had divorced. Barbara was one of those who had gone through a marital breakup and was now single. A caring and good-natured soul, she had happily and fully pledged her life and heart to her high school sweetheart, Fredrick. For the first year and a half everything had seemed perfect. Barbara and Fredrick both loved their jobs (she was a social worker; he was an engineer) and they shared a passion for the arts. They had several friends and enjoyed exchanging visits. They also liked playing cards, listening to music, and visiting art exhibits together in their leisure time.

As they settled into married life, though, things began to unravel. They couldn’t agree on money. They clashed when it came to whether or not they should buy their own home. Barbara felt that Fredrick’s constant efforts to “improve” her had hurt their marital relationship, while Fredrick complained that Barbara was a poor housekeeper and too argumentative. Before their fourth anniversary, Fredrick and Barbara had separated, and two years later their divorce was finalized. Was Barbara now at higher mortality risk?

“Married people live longer!” This adage is one of the most common conclusions to emerge from epidemiological studies of longevity. In general it is a valid description, albeit a misleading one. If you examine large western populations and compare the life expectancy of the married to the longevity of those not married, you find that married people do live longer lives. Unfortunately, this finding is often turned into the pop advice “Get married to live longer!” repeated endlessly in newspapers and magazines around the world, particularly those aimed at women. We don’t know how many have taken the advice, but surely it has influenced some individuals to see spouses as health supplements as well as life partners. As with many of the other dead-end myths we’ve discovered, this recommendation is far, far from the truth.

It is correct that in the event of a medical emergency, it is better to have a spouse there with you to call for emergency assistance. Not only will your partner likely jump into action if you become ill, but he or she will help you understand that assistance is needed. Many who experience heart attack symptoms delay seeking treatment for critical hours; but those in the presence of a loved one are more likely to get help immediately when their symptoms kick in.

If you need to remember to take pills on time, or to stop eating that quart of ice cream, your partner can gently remind you. A spouse can help ensure cooperation with medical regimens like blood sugar testing or daily activity. On the other hand, of course, an enabling spouse might facilitate harmful behavior by bringing home an endless supply of hot dogs and beer.

If you are hospitalized, it is helpful to have an attentive family member at your bedside, advocating on your behalf. Medical errors in hospitals are a leading cause of death and disability. A hospital is one of the most dangerous places on earth, and we have known many physicians who tremble at the thought of being a patient in their own workplace. Having an advocate or even a loving and curious companion next to your hospital bed can help medical personnel catch mistakes.