LiveLongAgeWell

My next blog will be about health and social networking on the internet, but today I suggest you check out this outrageously funny blog, (supposedly) written by two women in their 80s…it’s wild and raw and if you can imagine something written by the Golden Girls on steroids, this would be it.

These women—assuming it’s not a hoax blog, but I believe somehow two old ladies are writing—are definitely going to drop dead dancing in their 90s…at least dancing on their scooters (see their homepage). The best word I think to describe them—feisty; these are two feisty women, getting older and having a great time at it.

Warning: if you love Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney and/or don’t like to read strong language, probably best to avoid the blog, but otherwise, check it out:

http://margaretandhelen.wordpress.com/
I hope I’m not violating any copyright here, but here’s a sample of one of their posts, so you can see what I’m talking about:

Let me tell you a little story about my shit for brains nephew who actually does live in California. He was married ten years and had two children. Sadly, it didn’t work out. Honestly she was horrible, but you never really want to see a marriage end. So we were all a little sad when she left and he fell apart. Eventually he got his shit together, picked up the pieces and met another girl. I don’t like her much, but she makes him happy so what do I care if they want to get married? However, the Catholic church cared a great deal. You see, he was still married in the eyes of the church even though his moron of an ex-wife had been gone 4 years. And the new one is also divorced… and (oh my) a Baptist.

Problem? Not for long. Two annulments later and wallah – they were never married. Never mind the kids. Bastards all of them I guess. Funny but I didn’t know the Catholic church could annul a Baptist marriage, but you live and learn.

I’ve lived a long time and I have learned many things. For instance, I now know that even if the marriage is annulled, you don’t get your wedding gift back. I also learned that the previously married then divorced then never really married and now newly engaged couple can actually have the gall to print on their invitation where they are registered. As if that blender I purchased for the first wedding was annulled as well. But I digress…

Medical Bankruptcy

Health care costs have been one big reason we are in the Great Recession right now, and a majority of personal bankruptcies also have medical bills as a cause…. check out this New York Times blog post:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/medical-bills-cause-most-bankruptcies/

Something seriously needs to be done to fix the medical care system. Usually I love Paul Krugman’s op-ed pieces in the Times, and today’s is about the insurance industry and health care reform:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/opinion/05krugman.html?em

bottom line:

1) Don’t trust the insurance industry.

2) Don’t trust the insurance industry.

Finally, here is the single best article I have read that explains why the U.S. has been going bankrupt medically. (I am sure the same forces are taking shape in many other countries as well.) It’s long, but, in true New Yorker fashion, is a sample of writing perfection and well worth your time:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all

I will leave you with a quote from the article:

the damning question we have to ask is whether the doctor is set up to meet the needs of the patient, first and foremost, or to maximize revenue….

Continuing the theme of last Friday’s post “do married people live longer?”, today a light and simple idea for couples looking for ways to keep their relationships fresh. A healthy, low-stress primary relationship goes a long way to keeping you physically healthy. First though, since many LLAW readers are outside the U.S., let me define “date night”.

“Date night” is a pre-set “date” time, typically one evening per week, that couples—often who have been together for some years—use to re-ignite or at least help maintain some fun and passion in their relationship. The two don’t have to be actually married, but the common theme is that the partners are often so busy with their independent work and home lives that without this pre-arranged time, they might not get out of the house alone together for fun and entertainment.

Researchers have found however that “date night” for many couples can be, every week, every time… pretty much the same…out to the same restaurants or movie theaters or with the same group of friends. Now some recent studies, based on neurotransmitters, suggests a better way to approach “date night”.

These days neuropsychologists look at either brain scanning or brain chemistry to try to explain and understand human emotions, and love and passion are prime targets for research. Already widely known is that couples’ relationships shift over the first several years, and the original excitement and passion is usually replaced by a (hopefully) still loving connection, but typically the newness and passion cools over time.

The neurochemical explanation is that when we are first in love, the brain is flooded with the neurotransmitters dopamine and norepinephrine, the same transmitters that fill our brains when we engage in new activities and adventures that are exciting, or daring, maybe a bit risky. Working with that data, a social psychologist from the State University of New York devised a number of experiments with couples in various situations.

He found that one big key to keeping a relationship exciting and the good neurochemicals flowing is to inject novelty and challenge into shared activites. Make an active effort to avoid the same places or the same people each week. Shake it up as much as you can. Rather than Chinese food, pick Moroccan, rather than biking in the park, try rafting or hiking on new trails, rather than hooking up with the couple from work, invite that new lesbian couple for drinks or dinner. Take risks, shake it up, constantly. Some things will work out, others will fail and that’s a good thing. It shows you’re willing to live a bit on the edge, and that helps keep your brain chemistry in good working condition. When you experience novelty in outside activities, the right neurotransmitters will keep flowing, and you’ll probably continue to see newness in your partner too.

Monday’s post will be “Date night success for married people”…
but today let’s examine one pearl of “conventional wisdom”: that married people live longer and are healthier than single people.

Fortunately this “marriage” benefit is not so rigid, as it allows for unmarried couples too; just living as a couple, or at least living with another person, is said to help you live longer. The reasons are uncertain. It could be that close daily social interaction itself is good for our hearts and brains, or that when we live with another person we are less likely to engage in damaging behaviors like laying on the couch all day or drinking too much or smoking. Probably it’s a combination of various things.

There is also good evidence that living with a pet is better than living alone. (I suspect it’s better to live with a pet than with another human with whom you don’t get along. I believe the stress from a nasty human relationship is worse than any benefit….yes, dogs and cats can be our best friends…)

Armed with the conventional wisdom then, I found this Psychology Today blog post very interesting. Written by a University of California psychologist, she argues that the basic research (the RAND study)—the foundation of the accepted dogma that marriage protects you—is biased and not true.

Dr. DePaulo’s examined the RAND study along with even longer-term data, and found that the most scientifically correct conclusion is: what is best for your health is not singleness or the married state, but consistency… that you either STAY married or STAY single.

She says the other studies had it wrong in their conclusion that people who were “single” died sooner. The reason lies in the RAND definition of “single”. They defined single as anyone who was not married at the time of the research. This means that their “single” group included not only people who had never married, but anyone who was also divorced, separated, or widowed. And there is plenty of data—and I saw this many times in my medical career—that people (especially men) who are divorced, separated, or widowed suffer more medical problems.

So the major study showing that being married was healthier than singlehood used a definition of “single” that included an less-healthy mix of separated, divorced, and widowed people. Another longer-term study of single vs. married, the Terman Life-Cycle Study which began collecting data in 1921, found that either consistent marriage or consistent singleness was the best for health.

I recommend you check out the Psychology Today blog, and if you have an opinion, email me or leave a comment. I am not against being in a couple; far from it, but I think we should, like this UC professor, look at the potential medical benefits more honestly. Next…one hint how to stay coupled.