Is optimism Linked to live longer?

[3mmanu3lrc]

Optimism Linked to Improved Survival With Coronary Artery Disease

A new study released Monday adds to growing evidence that having a positive attitude can help you live longer.

Researchers looked at nearly 3,000 patients who underwent hospital treatment for heart disease and found that those who had the highest expectations of a full recovery had a higher chance of living longer than those who were pessimistic about their chance of recovery.

"Patients differ widely in terms of their psychological reactions to major illnesses such as coronary heart disease," Barefoot and colleagues wrote in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

And many experts say there's good reason to believe that your attitude can shape your outcome.

Dr. Steven E. Nissen, department chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, who was not involved in the study, said patients "with a 'positive' attitude may simply be healthier than patients with a negative attitude. In fact, their 'attitude' may reflect their health status."

Study researchers also noted that those who are generally optimistic about their health are more likely to follow treatment recommendations.

"One of those factors might [also] be that cardiovascular providers give better care to patients with a positive outlook-perhaps spending more time with them or being more conscientious," Dr. James Kirkpatrick, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, who was not involved in the study.

On the other hand, those who are pessimistic about their health may experience stress that could trigger additional heart problems, researchers said.

The nearly 3,000 patients enrolled were followed for 15 years. One year after their hospital stay, they were asked to fill out a survey that would help researchers learn more about their attitude. The group of patients with a better perspective on their health had a lived nearly 20 percent longer than those who seemed pessimistic. Optimistic patients also lived a more active lifestyle than the pessimists.

I knew that between two patients in comma in the same condition, which has the strongest desire to live, has more probabilities to survive. But this goes farther than that, "live longer" not only in case of a illnes, but also about a lifetime at all.

 

[1048576]

The placebo effect is a real thing. Nobody's going to argue against this.

/thread?

 

[~Tac~]

Well no..not quite a /thread yet. Let's broaden on it...I agree that optimism is indeed a beneficial factor to live longer.

But what about other things in life such as health, jobs, school, maybe even "luck"? I believe that optimism/pessimism can affect all of these things to an extent. I'm going to hold back on the placebo effects on religious groups.

 

[Jun.]

There is no possible way to measure "optimism."

No concrete values = invalid study

/thread

 

[1048576]

First sentence is false. As the study explains, you can just ask the participants "Do you feel lucky punk? Well, do ya?"

Yes/No is a concrete value. In fact, I'd argue that binary values are as concrete as they get.

 

[Jun.]

Yes no are in fact concrete values but there is no possible way to measure the value of "optimism." The term isn't defined by yes's and no's and could encompass all aspects of life. Something that is impossible for even the most accurate of surveys and studies. Yes and no might be concrete answers to questions like "Are you a male?" but it certainly holds no validity if someone asks the question "Are you optimistic?"

Not to mention, do you have any idea exactly how many factors effect the length of a human life? In order to fully measure the effect of optimism of a human life you need to isolate a very large number of test subjects with similar to identical backgrounds including but not limited to gender, race, economic background, family history, and even daily activity. Exactly how do you plan on justifying yourself that there are legitimate concrete values for a subjective term such as optimism? Surveys are rarely if ever reliable sources of scientific data especially when there is such a small pool of participants (3000) with no specific common characteristics.

 

[1048576]

3000 is more than statistically significant.

We're looking for correlation, not causation. Maybe red hair makes you optimistic and also makes you live longer. Your point?

Also, we already know optimism makes you live longer even without this study. Placebo effect is well documented.

 

[Jun.]

When did I mention anything about causation?

You have no idea what you're talking about. There is no placebo effect in play here.

Did you ever think for one second that it might be easier to have a positive outlook on your life if your life is already going well?

Who do you think will live longer?
1. An individual that has a stable job that offers health care. Eats well balanced meals. Able to participate in leisure activities.
2. An individual that lives below the poverty line. Lives in an underdeveloped neighborhood. Struggling to feed themselves. Works both morning and night shifts.

Which one is more likely to be optimistic about their life? Most likely individual 1. Which one is also more likely to live longer? Most likely individual 1. At this point you can try putting on a bogus study trying to tie in optimism to the length of these people's lives but clearly its not a factor that is more influential than the characteristics of their lifestyles. Even if individual 2 were to be more "optimistic" than individual 1, odds are that he/she will still not live as long because there are many other factors in play.

 

[1048576]

You have no reason to be as ****-smug as you are.

You've made my point exactly and then acted as you've refuted me. Just replace living well with having red hair. Optimism is still linked to living longer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo
http://www.placebo.ucla.edu/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/18390493?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...6463545e57811a5308fd220b05acf569&searchtype=a (Parkinson's patients are injected with a salt-water solution. Dopamine is shown to accumulate. Improvement in symptoms occurs.)

There is a link to thinking you're getting better and actually getting better, even controlling for other factors. It's called the placebo effect. I do not think this can be disputed.

Since I have zero faith you're going to understand what I'm saying, here's the crystal-clear version:
This study shows a correlation between optimism and living longer. It does not show a causation. However, we already know there's a causation.

*sigh -- trolls love me/

 

[Xianglian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

LMFAO @ citing wikipedia. I'm dying from laughter.

EDIT: There isn't really much I can debate here since this study seems sound.

 

[Jun.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo
http://www.placebo.ucla.edu/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/18390493?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...6463545e57811a5308fd220b05acf569&searchtype=a

Besides citing wikipedia, do you realize that you cited an article that was written in 2002? 9 years changes many things in research...

Also the 9 year old article isn't even clear that there is even a link between placebo effect and the disease:

"The biochemical bases of the placebo effect are still incompletely known. We show here that the placebo effect in Parkinson's disease is due, at least in part, to the release of dopamine in the striatum. We propose that the placebo effect might be related to reward mechanisms."

Did you bother to read your citations?

Placebo effect has little to no part in the science of medicine
If anything, great care is placed in the research and development of medicine to ensure that aspects of the placebo are factored out of the trials. If a person believes that he/she is getting better, it probably has some kind of base for example they are getting treated or taking medicine. I can't think of a reason why an individual would just be "optimistic" about their health without any medical treatment especially if the disease or symptom cannot is completely involuntary. Here is an article which actually notes the placebo effect as a problem in the trials of cough medicine due coughing being voluntary.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w524618g73m12x48/

However, heart disease is not voluntary at all. One cannot fake to have it nor fake to be cured.

This study shows a correlation between optimism and living longer. It does not show a causation. However, we already know there's a causation.

As I've mentioned before, the study (which we aren't even sure of the source) does not take into consideration the hundreds of other factors that can be scientifically linked with the improvement of patient health. I'll give you my version of a crystal clear scenario:

Two nearly identical individuals are diagnosed with disease X. One is clinically treated while the other is not. Obviously the one who received the treatment is gonna be more "optimistic" about their health. Now at this point do we link optimism to being the cure or the treatments?

OP's study doesn't mention if any of these factors were even considered. It just ambiguously mentions that optimistic people were more likely to get better. Why are these people optimistic? Most likely because they have a legitimate reason to actually be optimistic which is more likely the explanation.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

LMFAO @ citing wikipedia. I'm dying from laughter.

You do realize that that wikipedia article is littered with external sources, right?

 

[1048576]

"The biochemical bases of the placebo effect are still incompletely known. We show here that the placebo effect in Parkinson's disease is due, at least in part, to the release of dopamine in the striatum. We propose that the placebo effect might be related to reward mechanisms."

So, they don't know what caused the placebo effect, only that there is one and it's (by definition) creating positive results.

I'm not seeing how that invalidates anything I've claimed.

And lol at you quoting me a second time and then listing a series of "rebuttals" I completely agree with. Is what I'm trying to say really that complex, or am I misunderstanding you?

Lemme try another approach. My claim is that if you give one group of people sugar pills and another group nothing, using a randomization to split the people into groups, then, on average, the former group will recover from some diseases faster. Do you disagree with this?

Given that claim is true, This marked physical improvement cannot be attributed to medicine or any externally caused biochemical alterations. However, it must have come from somewhere. The set space of things-that-cause biochemical alterations can be divided up into the physical and the mental. We know the cause cannot be physical, since this is controlled. Therefore, the alterations must be caused by a change in the average mental state of the former group. I call this change optimism. Do you have any problems here?

 

[ballin4life]

LOL @ people loling at wikipedia.

Wikipedia is a great source

 

[asianaussie]

Wikipedia is a fantastic source for those who don't have the time to sift through journal articles or search the galactically vast world of the internet. It shouldn't be your only source, but many of the sources Wikipedia itself cites are legitimate, and you only need explore the source for a minute or two to compile information and make it a proper reference.

As much as I like having scientific explanations and causes, there's a point I'd like to mention.

Evidence-based conclusions. You do not need to know the exact mechanisms of a procedure to know it has an effect. The classic examples are the placebo effect and acupuncture, both of which are well-documented to have positive effects on patients (acupuncture is now covered under health insurance in Australia lol). Jun, what you are saying is irrelevant to numbers' argument - just because it is not scientifically proven does not mean optimism is not linked to higher survival rates. It might be that factor X causes both optimism and higher survival rates - hence, they are linked and can be correlated, even if they aren't in a cause-effect relationship.

You're looking for someone to give proof that 'optimism causes longer life', which is fundamentally flawed, as it is immeasurable in universal quantitative terms, which you yourself mentioned. Something like 'optimism is correlated with longer life' is what everyone else is stating.

Numbers, a deterministic perspective would state a mental change is caused by a physical (most likely biochemical) change in itself. Even then, I'm not sure you can say 'we can't find a physiological cause, therefore it must be mental', as it may simply be that we cannot detect the physiological cause yet. Jun wants perfect scientific causation, he will undoubtedly object to it, because we can't definitively show that it is optimism causing the improvement, so you can only hypothesise. Feel free to support your hypothesis though.

 

[Xianglian]

You do realize that that wikipedia article is littered with external sources, right?

Then he should have cited the external sources, not wikipedia

LOL @ people loling at wikipedia.

Wikipedia is a great source

Wikipedia can be edited, therefore it compromises some of it's pages. Wikipedia is just a source page, not a credible source. citing wikipedia in a debate is not good though

 

[ballin4life]

Studies show that Wikipedia is more accurate than Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Would you get mad if I cited that?

 

[3mmanu3lrc]

^^^ lol
Yeah, I'd say that wikipedia has shown to be a reliable source.

As I've mentioned before, the study (which we aren't even sure of the source)...

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/HeartD...sm-linked-improved-survival/story?id=13021156

 

[Cemetery]

Yes.

Optimism has been linked to producing neurological chemicals such as serotonin, and obviously sustains positive emotional and psychological feelings.

I observed a clinical study a few months back that stated praying also produces serotonin. Anything in the guise of "hope" essentially would.

 

[asianaussie]

You do realise you just said 'optimism is linked to chemicals that make you happy', right? That's sort of a given.

You didn't link optimism and higher survival rates.

 

[Jun.]

Yes.

Optimism has been linked to producing neurological chemicals such as serotonin, and obviously sustains positive emotional and psychological feelings.

I observed a clinical study a few months back that stated praying also produces serotonin. Anything in the guise of "hope" essentially would.

So if I do ecstacy regularly I'll live longer?

not to mention you didn't link anything to longer life. You just linked chemicals to feeling better like asianaussie just stated. People need to stop putting together what they think are big, scientific words into incoherent ramblings (without even any sources).

Does everyone really not realize that there is gonna be something other than pure mindset that is going to be different optimistic people and non-optimistic people? My main point is that its most likely NOT optimism that is causing better health but an external factor that caused the optimism in the first place or actions coming after the optimism that improved health.

"The psychosocial constructs of optimism and pessimism have been under study for several decades. Optimism is associated with more active coping strategies, lower levels of psychological distress [1-5], health-enhancing behavior [6], higher immune functioning [7], better health outcomes[8] and even lower mortality."
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2393/9/39

The factors that I bolded clearly are voluntary actions resulting from the mindset and even the other factors are arguably outcomes of the voluntary actions.

Sure in this case optimism is on some level related to better health. However if one of your family members were ill, would you investigate how to make them more "optimistic" or look into what legitimate active coping strategies or health-enhancing behavior would make them better?

Trying to argue that optimism is linked to living longer is beating around the bush with people's lives.

 

[asianaussie]

You're still implying causation very heavily. And by very heavily, I mean it seems you're not accepting any other definition of link; see your final sentence. If the definition of link can be extended to 'correlation', then it's fine. Nobody can prove optimism causes higher survival rates (I don't think we're talking about longevity here, the current topic is on survival rates, from what I've read). On that point, nobody is arguing that optimism is the direct cause for higher survival rates.

External actions > Optimism + Higher survival rates. Optimism does not cause higher survival rates, though you can find a correlation between the two. You could even argue that optimism, as a mysterious psychosocial construct, may be the factor leading to those beneficial external actions, but you cannot ever prove a psychosocial construct, a creation rooted in theory, is the cause for anything.

Again, you can theorise or hypothesise that they do, but all you're doing is stringing immaterial concepts and linking them to something we can measure.

 

[Jun.]

Again, you can theorise or hypothesise that they do, but all you're doing is stringing immaterial concepts and linking them to something we can measure.

So this study is trying to build something out of nothing.

 

[Cemetery]

@ Asianaussie:

You do realise you just said 'optimism is linked to chemicals that make you happy', right? That's sort of a given.

You didn't link optimism and higher survival rates.

Happiness generally improves physical health. Mental and physical health are surprisingly intertwined.

@ Jun:

So if I do ecstacy regularly I'll live longer?

not to mention you didn't link anything to longer life. You just linked chemicals to feeling better like asianaussie just stated. People need to stop putting together what they think are big, scientific words into incoherent ramblings (without even any sources).

I researched it in a magazine. And no, ecstasy doesn't consist of concentrated biological compounds, but a lot of toxic, harmful ones that simply influence behaviour and mood swings. Safrole is the main ingredient, a black oily substance.

Does everyone really not realize that there is gonna be something other than pure mindset that is going to be different optimistic people and non-optimistic people? My main point is that its most likely NOT optimism that is causing better health but an external factor that caused the optimism in the first place or actions coming after the optimism that improved health.

So you're insinuating that a chronically depressed person, is expected to live a longer life than a happy, fit, and healthy person when external factors are not included?

Our bodies instinctively produce certain chemicals to ensure survival. Optimism is linked.

I'm not going out of my way to prove anything, since you're not necessarily disproving my points. And yes, producing serotonin is a coping strategy.

 

[Jun.]

Yeah you got me there.

You're most likely correct that a happier person will live longer than a depressed person if no other factors are considered. I'm just stating that almost any other physical factor would have more effect on health than the mindset of the subject and therefore time should be spent on the more effective factors.

 

[asianaussie]

@ Asianaussie:

Happiness generally improves physical health. Mental and physical health are surprisingly intertwined.

I understand that, but you have to explicitly link it, not assume everyone has studied psychology at some level. They may be intertwined but you cannot actually show evidence for it, aside from cross-sectional or correlational studies where mental health and status is vaguely defined.

So you're insinuating that a chronically depressed person, is expected to live a longer life than a happy, fit, and healthy person when external factors are not included?

Our bodies instinctively produce certain chemicals to ensure survival. Optimism is linked.

Of happy, healthy and fit, only happy contrasts with chronically depressed. I'm going to assume that the depressed person has similar health, because if I don't, that's taking external factors in.

Fairly sure there are studies (I think Jun's cited one had something about pessimism as insulation against negative factors) stating that sometimes depression is a barrier against disappointment and failure in life, and barring suicide, will not really have particularly adverse effects. It is only when chronic drinking, smoking, etc (common side-effects and habits from depression) are considered that you really have a solid case against it.

I know for certain that serotonin and dopamine have other incredibly important functions in the body, and that one type of depression comes from overexposure to said chemicals. You won't feel happy, but you will have the effects that ensure survival. Other types of depression are generally derived from social factors, and the causes will have only minimal effect on objective health, though I'm sure there are cases where the causes are detrimental to health in general.


Lastly, a nitpick:

And yes, producing serotonin is a coping strategy.

It actually isn't. The definition of a coping strategy includes voluntary and controlled behaviour, and while hormone secretion is manipulable to an extent, it's hardly controlled. Taking drugs to stimulate hormone production is a strategy, serotonin production is the mechanism.

 

[Cemetery]

Jun, I agree. Glad we cleared things up.

I understand that, but you have to explicitly link it, not assume everyone has studied psychology at some level. They may be intertwined but you cannot actually show evidence for it, aside from cross-sectional or correlational studies where mental health and status is vaguely defined.

All branches of mental health are essentially rhetoric, you simply engage common sense.

Of happy, healthy and fit, only happy contrasts with chronically depressed. I'm going to assume that the depressed person has similar health, because if I don't, that's taking external factors in.

Yes, similar health.

Fairly sure there are studies (I think Jun's cited one had something about pessimism as insulation against negative factors) stating that sometimes depression is a barrier against disappointment and failure in life, and barring suicide, will not really have particularly adverse effects. It is only when chronic drinking, smoking, etc (common side-effects and habits from depression) are considered that you really have a solid case against it.

Agreed. But, if an individual is thinking of suicide in the first place, disregarding all impulsive mechanisms geared towards survival, that alone classifies a case. In my opinion, at least.

I know for certain that serotonin and dopamine have other incredibly important functions in the body, and that one type of depression comes from overexposure to said chemicals. You won't feel happy, but you will have the effects that ensure survival. Other types of depression are generally derived from social factors, and the causes will have only minimal effect on objective health, though I'm sure there are cases where the causes are detrimental to health in general.

Depression comes from an imbalance, a malfunction caused by genetics or the environment.

Not overexposure necessarily, but social factors do definitely play a role. Good point.

However, these depressed mindsets still might exist in positive, safe environments. Is it an outside, external factor then?

Assuming there is, or has been, no conflicting abuse.

It actually isn't. The definition of a coping strategy includes voluntary and controlled behaviour, and while hormone secretion is manipulable to an extent, it's hardly controlled. Taking drugs to stimulate hormone production is a strategy, serotonin production is the mechanism.

I've been corrected, but perhaps the body recognizes our conscience, cognitive ability to detect stress and sends our brains a message at that point?

 

[3mmanu3lrc]

You're most likely correct that a happier person will live longer than a depressed person if no other factors are considered.

True, but however, it's a possibility, chances are higher for an optimistic person to survive.

I'm just stating that almost any other physical factor would have more effect on health than the mindset of the subject and therefore time should be spent on the more effective factors.

And also true.
Nobody is saying anything against that.

However, think about it as if there're two people with the same possibilities, status and treatment, if that'd make it easier to picture.

 

[asianaussie]

All branches of mental health are essentially rhetoric, you simply engage common sense.

This is a debate, not a branch of mental health. I'm a med student with a strong background in psych and bio, and I didn't have the same lines of thought as you because we're in this particular context. As a general rule of thumb, clarification is always wanted in a debate scenario.

Agreed. But, if an individual is thinking of suicide in the first place, disregarding all impulsive mechanisms geared towards survival, that alone classifies a case. In my opinion, at least.

This is a legitimate point. The question is whether to take into account actions derived from a depressive attitude. If it is merely the presence of depression as a factor (no depressive actions such as suicide, self-inflicted pain, etc include), the effects are probably going to be minor.

Depression comes from an imbalance, a malfunction caused by genetics or the environment.

Not overexposure necessarily, but social factors do definitely play a role.

Depression itself is theorised as non-reactivity to mood-bolstering hormones, namely serotonin. One possible reason is that oversensitivity to serotonin results in standard amounts of serotonin becoming ineffective, but this too is a theory.

Genetics have not been found to directly cause depression, but it is known to enhance susceptibility to a number of conditions, depression included. That's where the social factors come in.

I've been corrected, but perhaps the body recognizes our conscience, cognitive ability to detect stress and sends our brains a message at that point?

That's possible. The body is surprisingly well-equipped to handle stress, serotonin being one of the unconscious measures it can take.

 

[Cemetery]

I don't think we're actually disagreeing here, just to "clarify."

 

[asianaussie]

There hasn't been any disagreement in this thread, only misinterpretation.

 

[Cemetery]

Yep.

And that concludes matters in a non-eventful manner.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

There hasn't been any disagreement in this thread, only misinterpretation.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=282341

 

[SuperBowser]

I don't get this topic.

Last time I checked, optimism is good for your health. That is the placebo effect, a demonstrably real phenomenon.

 

[Ocean]

it doesn't necessarily have to be a placebo. it would make sense for optimistic people to have lower levels of stress, and stress can cause or worsen a lot of health problems.

 

[Jun.]

the main argument I was making is that in many cases, lower levels of stress and/or better health causes the optimism in the first place so it turns into a chicken or egg question.

 

[SuperBowser]

Yes, but the placebo effect shows that mere optimism in the human brain possesses its own healing power. It is not surprising to imagine this carries through to other cases. For example, when we are not given a placebo and simply have a more optimistic personality. I understand the issue you take with this particular study and it may well be a valid complaint in this case. However there are many, many other studies on the subject. Optimism really is good for your health and it likely works through the same mechanisms the placebo effect does. We may not fully understand these mechanisms, but that does not mean it does not exist.

Researchers should be fully aware of the chicken/egg dilemma you raise and account for it in their study design.

Perhaps I just misunderstood this whole topic.

 

[Jun.]

In this particular study, it doesn't seem like they took in consideration of other factors.

 

[SuperBowser]

There is no link to the study itself so it is a possibility.

 

[asianaussie]

Unrelated, but I heard it has been shown that a protein that comprises a lot of the eggshell makeup is only synthesised by chickens, which is significant evidence for the chicken coming first.

Related, there is significant circumstantial evidence that demonstrates that the human psyche has an influence of health - particularly, in the case trialling of many drugs I researched in high school, both a placebo and a nocebo effect were prominent in essentially every controlled trial.