Live data from Hacker News

Succeeding Against the Odds Can Make You Sick

nytimes.com

1–10 of 72 posts

Re: Succeeding Against the Odds Can Make You Sick

#3
post #2

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. Sounds plausible.

Important qualifier: (I only read up to the middle) the results were largely associated with African American subjects.

Re: Succeeding Against the Odds Can Make You Sick

#5
post #2

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. Sounds plausible.

Important qualifier: (I only read up to the middle) the results were largely associated with African American subjects.

Yes, they kept saying the negative effects didn't happen to whites, so I'm not sure what the takeaway here is. Life is harder for black people?

Re: Succeeding Against the Odds Can Make You Sick

#6
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"

Re: Succeeding Against the Odds Can Make You Sick

#7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Important qualifier: (I only read up to the middle) the results were largely associated with African American subjects.

Yes, they kept saying the negative effects didn't happen to whites, so I'm not sure what the takeaway here is. Life is harder for black people?

The idea is that the constant stress imparted to black people by institutional and systemic racism leads to poorer health outcomes.

This doesn't disprove that white people don't also have worse health outcomes with increased stress, but the focus for many researchers is in targeting health disparities and social inequalities. It just so happens that race plays a big role in that.

Re: Succeeding Against the Odds Can Make You Sick

#8
post #2

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. Sounds plausible.

Is there info about social status. Because Trump should be on his deathbed now and Obama must be already very very sick.

And generally speaking successful politicians live long. Castro, Mugabe... And they did had a lot of adversaries. And won against the odds.

Re: Succeeding Against the Odds Can Make You Sick

#9
post #2

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. Sounds plausible.

Is there info about social status. Because Trump should be on his deathbed now and Obama must be already very very sick. And generally speaking successful politicians live long. Castro, Mugabe... And they did had a lot of adversaries. And won against the odds.

That was exactly what was going through my mind. Trump basically fought and won against the GOP establishment, the democrats, media and the pollsters and made it. He is still at war with the media and the world at large still hates him. He seems pretty unperturbed though.

Re: Succeeding Against the Odds Can Make You Sick

#10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there info about social status. Because Trump should be on his deathbed now and Obama must be already very very sick. And generally speaking successful politicians live long. Castro, Mugabe... And they did had a lot of adversaries. And won against the odds.

That was exactly what was going through my mind. Trump basically fought and won against the GOP establishment, the democrats, media and the pollsters and made it. He is still at war with the media and the world at large still hates him. He seems pretty unperturbed though.

Lot's of stress over a decade is not what this is studying.

Suppose he aged 20% faster for 2 or 10 years that's simply not a big deal. However aging 20% faster for 50 years is.

Post reply on HN