长生不老迷思
实际上，在过去的 20年中，全世界科学家前赴后继地投入到这项研究中，取得的成就也是显著的。目前，公认的观点是，尽管人类不能像科幻电影中所杜撰的那样，随意更换单个“ 零件”，但现有的肌体和代谢水平如果能够有效修补“缺陷”，从而延缓衰老过程的话，延长到400岁到500岁应该并非天方夜谭。想想看，如果我们能够和康熙、拿破仑以及华盛顿生活在同样一个时代，即使距离永生仍然遥远，但或许也已经足以颠覆我们的世界观了。
[url]http://www.dxy.cn/bbs/post/view?bid=116&id=12707785&sty=1&tpg=2&age=0[/url]
[[i] 本帖最后由 刘承宜 于 2008-9-10 12:29 AM 编辑 [/i]]
最长寿老翁庆113岁寿辰
[url]http://epaper.nddaily.com/A/html/2008-09/19/content_578135.htm[/url]世界最长寿男性田锅友时18日在日本宫崎县家中迎来了自己113岁生日。
谈到长寿秘诀，田锅友时说，那就是不抽烟不喝酒。
“再活五年”
生日当天，田锅友时早早起床，吃过早点后与专程来道贺的宫崎县都城市市长长峰诚和媒体见面。田锅老人身着和服，腿脚灵便。
长峰诚为田锅送去生日贺礼，其中包括鲜花、专为都城市最长寿老人准备的1000美元奖金和一个大茶杯，茶杯上写着他的名字以及出生日期：1895年9月18日。
“我很高兴，”田锅友时说，“我身体很好，我能吃很多。”
美联社引用都城市政府发言人横山彰秀（音译）的话报道，田锅说希望自己“还能再活五年”。
去年过生日时，面对同一个问题，这名老人回答说：“不想死，希望永远活下去。”
田锅友时共有8个孩子、23个孙辈、52个曾孙辈和6个玄孙辈。
健康饮食
田锅友时曾是市政府土地测量员。去年6月，他被吉尼斯世界纪录评选机构认定为全球最长寿男性。如今他和儿子、儿媳生活在一起，身体状况良好，一些长年养成的好习惯至今仍然伴随着他。比如说，他坚持早起读报，每天15时都要喝牛奶【刘承宜注释：当然不含三聚氰胺（附录一）】，饮食规律，多吃蔬菜，不吸烟，不饮酒。他以前有每天记日记的习惯，但随着年龄增加，现在只能每月写一到两篇。
“他最喜欢的食物是炸虾，不过我们听说他现在已经尽量少吃油炸食品了，”都城市政府发言人横山彰秀说。
据共同社报道，田锅友时生日当天的早餐是日式酱汤、咸蒸苦瓜、煮牛蒡和米饭。
新华社供本报特稿
背景
日本是长寿之国
日本是世界上人均寿命最长的国家或地区之一。
日本女性平均寿命为86岁，23年来一直占据全球女性寿命榜首位；男性平均寿命为79岁，在冰岛和香港之后位列第三。
日本厚生劳动省12日公布的统计结果显示，截至9月底，日本百岁以上人口将达到36276人，其中女性占86%，比六年前几乎翻了一番。联合国预计，到2050年，日本百岁老人数量将会突破100万，为世界最多。
大部分日本百岁老人居住在冲绳南部岛屿。当地100万人口中900人年龄过百。
专家认为，日本人长寿与他们常吃鱼和米饭的饮食习惯有很大关系。
附录一 【科普】三聚氰胺(酸)的毒副作用：游泳池？致癌可能性？
[url]http://www.dxy.cn/bbs/post/view?bid=116&id=12766067&sty=1&tpg=1&age=0[/url]
【科普】情绪稳定个性活泼有助长寿
[url]http://www.dxy.cn/bbs/post/view?bid=116&id=12833378&sty=1&tpg=2&age=0[/url]根据一项长逾50年的调查研究指出，具有情绪稳定、个性活泼积极等人格特质的人，比起消极的人，寿命会较长。
这项刊登在《身心医学》（Psychosomatic Medicine）杂志上的报告，是由美国国家老年研究所根据超过2300人长达50年以上的时间，追踪研究每个人的人格特质与寿命之间的关系，并在最近发布研究结果。
其研究结果显示，人格特质与寿命长短具有决定性的关系，长寿的人拥有的人格特性包括情绪稳定、生活有条理与节制、处事认真、足智多谋，并且人生态度积极正面。
相反的，较短命的人则是容易生气、情绪不稳、焦躁、忧郁等。
据了解，这个研究结果并非首次发现，2003年时《身心医学》杂志便曾刊登过类似研究。当时研究指出，具有喜好与他人计较、缺乏耐心、个性急躁等A型性格特质的男性，比起其它型性格的人，身体健康受到的影响，较容易心脏病发作。
心理学家建议，如果发觉自己倾向封闭的A型性格，可以寻找外力改善生活方式，如发掘新嗜好，培养散步、打太极拳、或瑜珈等运动习惯，寻求灵性生活的寄托，检验自己的职场生活等等。甚至还可以看心理医生，找寻专业的建议。（来源：中国新闻网）
超级长寿
寿命超过110岁的超级寿星越来越多，原因何在？今天的Science报道了一些探索Mitch Leslie M. 2008. AGING: Searching for the Secrets of the Super Old. Science 26 September 2008: 321(5897): 1764 - 1765 DOI: 10.1126/science.321.5897.1764
[[i] 本帖最后由 刘承宜 于 2008-9-26 08:55 AM 编辑 [/i]]
50秒生育让女人更聪明
[url]http://www.jttop.com/Literature/dslove/801009-45098.shtml[/url]一个美国科研小组在新一期的《科学美国人》撰文指出，对女性而言，怀孕生子虽然是巨大挑战，但也能令她们变得更聪明。研究小组在对加州糜鼠、小白鼠以及人类进行观察和实验后认为，做妈妈会大大刺激雌性老鼠以及女性的智力发展，而且这个积极变化会持续一生。
研究人员认为，产生这些积极变化主要通过两个关键过程。其一就是在怀孕、生产和哺乳期女性体内的荷尔蒙变化，它能重塑大脑，改变脑部某些区域神经元的大小，女性也会因此变得更警觉和冷静。其次，抚养孩子这一巨大挑战刺激了大脑活动性，因为抚养孩子带来的各种强烈情感体验对大脑会产生极大刺激，加速脑细胞的形成和代谢。
做妈妈除了会让女性更聪明，还有其他的“好处”，包括：女性的感官敏锐度将大大增强，以便能迅速识别出自己的孩子；女性的大脑恐惧中心活性降低，因此会在受到挑衅和危险情况下更冷静和勇敢。此外，由于怀孕哺乳对女性智力的积极刺激作用，40岁的高龄产妇更容易长时间保持精神健康且长寿。
附录一 生育让女人更聪明
[url]http://epaper.nddaily.com/A/html/2008-10/14/content_597361.htm[/url]
人们通常认为,女性生育孩子后,大脑灵敏度会减弱。但美国研究人员的最新研究却发现,生育能帮助女性改善脑部功能,防止她们年老时患功能退化疾病。
大多数新妈妈会经常觉得疲倦,一件简单小事也要花大力气才能完成。
英国《每日邮报》12日援引美国弗吉尼亚里士满大学神经学教授克雷格·金斯利的话报道:“女性怀孕时的确要经历一阵所谓‘婴儿脑’时期,她们会感到大脑部分功能明显减弱。但这是因为她们大脑部分功能正在改变,以应对即将到来的新挑战。”
“这些变化从(怀孕)那时开始,可以延续一生,”他说,“这些变化能促进妈妈们的认知能力,防止她们老年时患功能退化疾病。”
金斯利计划在下个月举办的神经学学会年度会议上报告这一成果。
金斯利教授和他的同事研究发现,女性怀孕时记忆和口头表达能力降低是暂时现象,这是大脑重塑过程的一部分,而大脑重塑过程大部分对人有益。
金斯利对老鼠和灵长类动物等进行实验后发现,雌性动物生育后变得更勇敢。
研究发现,已生育的动物比没有生育的动物在觅食速度上快5倍,还拥有更好的空间意识。
新华社 王颖
英研究认为：基因突变降低 人类将停止进化
[url]http://www.sciam.com.cn/article.php?articleid=2455[/url]据英国《每日邮报》10月7日的报道，过去几个世纪以来，作家试图描绘未来的人类，把他们设想成超人，或是只会看电视的小妖精(goblin)。但基因学者认为，两者都是错误的，因为人类已停止进化，如果一百万年后还有人类，看起来将跟现代人无异。
英国大学(UCL)琼斯教授表示，物竞天择和基因突变不再在现代人的生活扮演重要角色。他6日说，我们现在已了解很多过去的进化情形，所以我们可以推测未来的进化。
物竞天择是让人类在困苦环境中竞争求生存的一个力量。例如在冰河期，基因突变赋予婴儿抵抗严寒或饥荒的优势，让他们更有机会把基因传承下去。但是现代，到处都有中央空调，这样的基因突变，不再算是一项优势。现代也不像古代有很多高龄父亲，让基因突变可能性变低。
责任编辑: wallsatan
本人评论：这个结论太绝对，值得怀疑
智力与寿命
EssayNature 456, 175-176 (13 November 2008) | doi:10.1038/456175a; Published online 12 November 2008
[url]http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v456/n7219/full/456175a.html[/url]
Why do intelligent people live longer?
Ian Deary1
Ian Deary is director of the University of Edinburgh Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology, Edinburgh EH8 9JZ, UK.
Email: [email]i.deary@ed.ac.uk[/email]
Top of pageAbstractWe must discover why cognitive differences are related to morbidity and mortality, argues Ian Deary, in order to help tackle health inequalities.
M. HODSON
Ten years ago, on 16 October 1998, I presented findings that people from Aberdeen with higher childhood IQs — measured at age 11 in the Scottish Mental Survey of 1932 — were significantly more likely to survive to age 76. It was at a psychology seminar at Glasgow Caledonian University, UK. For one audience member, the finding did not go down well. "So, you're saying that the thick die quick?" It was not a point of clarification; it was an accusation. The temperature in the room rose as the questioner railed against a result he found insulting and wanted to invalidate. Hadn't intelligence tests been discredited?
Actually, no. Scores from cognitive-ability tests (also known as intelligence tests or IQ tests) have validity that is almost unequalled in psychology1. A general cognitive-ability factor emerges from measures of diverse mental tasks, something that hundreds of data sets since 1904 have replicated. People's rankings on intelligence tests show high stability across almost the whole lifespan, are substantially heritable and are associated with important life outcomes — including educational achievements, occupational success and morbidity and mortality. More thumping confirmatory studies of the link between intelligence and mortality have appeared since our first work. One of these contains nearly a million Swedish men tested at around age 19 during military induction and followed for almost 20 years2. It shows a clear association: as intelligence test scores go up the scale, so too does the likelihood of survival over those two decades.
When we attempted to publish our original study, we came across a different complaint: the journals to which we submitted our initial findings said they found the link obvious. It was already well known that health inequalities are associated with different social backgrounds. That was deemed the likely explanation for the finding. But it has since been shown that childhood social class does not account for the association between childhood intelligence and later mortality3.
Intelligence can predict mortality more strongly than body mass index, total cholesterol, blood pressure or blood glucose, and at a similar level to smoking4. But the reasons for this are still mysterious. That needs to change. Reducing health inequalities is a priority, and to do that we need to determine their causes.
Catchy headlines
We weren't the first to find a link between individually assessed intelligence and mortality. In 1992 a report in the journal Personality and Individual Differences showed that mental test scores of Australian soldiers at the time of induction for the Vietnam War were associated with deaths up to early middle age5. The finding should have been headline grabbing, but it has been slow to gain a popular and academic reaction. It wasn't until our 2001 paper in the British Medical Journal6 that the media began to pay attention — 'Brainy Kids Live Longer' proclaimed Scotland's Daily Record; 'The Higher Your IQ, the Longer You're Likely to Live' said Britain's Daily Mail. And the papers became more frequently cited.
Cognitive epidemiology has since become established as a distinct area of study, and a systematic review has established the association between early-life intelligence and mortality across different populations, in different countries, and in different epochs3.
Four explanations
The field has focused on four non-exclusive possibilities for the link between intelligence and death. First, what occurs to many people as an obvious pathway of explanation, is that intelligence is associated with more education, and thereafter with more professional occupations that might place the person in healthier environments. Statistical adjustment for education and adult social class can make the association between early-life intelligence and mortality lessen or disappear2, 7. But not always.
Moreover, cause and effect among intelligence, education and social class is not settled. It may be that a person with more and better education achieves a higher IQ score; but a child with a high IQ score is more likely to undergo more years of education, attain higher qualifications and go on to a better job. Thus, adjusting for education and social class in the intelligence–mortality association could be an over-adjustment — it might weed out some of the very influence of intelligence that we are trying to detect. Linda Gottfredson, in the School of Education at the University of Delaware in Newark, has proposed that intelligence is a 'fundamental cause' of the association between education, social class and health8. Her gauntlet-throwing-down paper — which has just won the prestigious George A. Miller award from the American Psychological Association — is provocative to epidemiologists, who tend to look outside rather than within the individual for causes of health inequalities. Those with contrasting ideas in this area need a chance to debate their theories and work towards a solution.
Why do we die when we do, and to what extent is this question tractable?
Second, people with higher intelligence might engage in more healthy behaviours. Evidence is accruing that people with higher intelligence in early life are more likely to have better diets, take more exercise, avoid accidents, give up smoking, engage in less binge drinking and put on less weight in adulthood.
But this too doesn't seem to be the whole story. In an assessment known as the US Vietnam Experience Study9, higher intelligence test scores at induction were associated with a lower likelihood of developing metabolic syndrome in middle age — a condition combining factors such as obesity, high blood pressure and impaired glucose metabolism. In the same study, higher intelligence was also associated with lower likelihood of dying in 15 years of further follow-up. Adjusting for metabolic syndrome reduced the association of intelligence with total mortality by up to 10%, and with cardiovascular disease mortality by up to 32%.
Third, mental test scores from early life might act as a record of insults to the brain that have occurred before that date. These insults — perinatal events, or the result of illnesses, accidents or deprivations before the mental testing — might be the fundamental cause behind both intelligence test scores and mortality risk. So far, little evidence supports this. Both birth weight (commonly used as a marker of fetal development) and parental social class (used as a marker of early-life circumstances) are correlated with intelligence test scores. But, when the associations between intelligence and mortality are adjusted for these factors, the association remains almost unaltered. Perhaps subsequent work may find better indicators of early-life tribulations that have more explanatory power.
Fourth, mental test scores obtained in youth might be an indicator of a well-put-together system. It is hypothesized that a well-wired body is more able to respond effectively to environmental insults. This 'system integrity' idea has a parallel in the field of ageing, where some data suggest that bodily and cognitive functions age in concert.
Some supporting evidence comes from the finding that simple reaction speed — the time taken to press a button when a stimulus appears — can displace intelligence test scores as an even better predictor of mortality risk10. Reaction-time tasks do not require complex reasoning, and so are unlikely to be improved by education. A major job for the field is to discover better markers for system integrity and to test their explanatory power for mortality.
Unclear chain
Although intelligence plays a part in health behaviours and health outcomes that contribute to specific causes of death, a clear chain of causation from intelligence to health outcomes and then to death has not emerged. Different types of mortality, including cardiovascular disease, homicide and suicide, seem to demand their own explanations for being associated with early-life intelligence. Those who found the intelligence–death association 'obvious' must think again.
The new University of Edinburgh Centre for Cognitive Ageing and Cognitive Epidemiology, of which I am director, opened on 1 September 2008. High among its aims is to provide a forum and infrastructure to unpick the extent to which cognitive and other effects underlie different causes of mortality. Psychologists, epidemiologists, neuroscientists, behavioural geneticists, statisticians and others will interact in our programme, providing complementary skills to understand the causal pathways.
The field has benefited from many varied data sets, none of which was initiated with the aim of asking why intelligence foretells death. Considerable credit for identifying such data goes to David Batty, an epidemiologist interested in the causes of chronic disease and a colleague of mine since 2002, who was responsible for establishing links with the Swedish conscripts study and the Vietnam Experience Study, amongst others, to test our theories.
High among our priorities is to find more such relevant data sets, especially some involving twins. Members of our centre are now analysing twin studies from Minnesota and Denmark that seem, in the early stages, likely to be informative about the intelligence–mortality link.
There is also a search for other, non-cognitive psychological characteristics that are associated with living longer. For example, it seems that, independently of any association with intelligence, being more dependable or conscientious in childhood is also significantly protective to health. Children who scored in the top 50% of the population for intelligence and dependability were in one study11 more than twice as likely to survive to their late sixties as children scoring in the bottom half for both.
Why do we die when we do, and to what extent is this question tractable? This fundamental curiosity drives our team and others on to better scientific studies. More than satisfying our curiosity, the search has practical implications. The influence of intelligence on mortality isn't fated; intelligence does not unalterably spin, measure and cut the thread of life. The things that people with higher intelligence have and do that make them live longer may be found and, we hope, shared, towards the goal of better and more equal health.
Top of pageReferences
Deary, I. J. Intelligence: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford Univ. Press, 2001).
Batty, G. D. et al. Epidemiology (in the press).
Batty, G. D., Deary, I. J. & Gottfredson, L. S. Ann. Epidemiol. 17, 278–288 (2007). | Article | PubMed |
Batty, G. D., Shipley, M. J., Gale, C. R., Mortensen, L. & Deary, I. Heart doi:10.1136/hrt.2008.149567 (2008).
O'Toole, B. I. & Stankov, L. Pers. Individ. Dif. 13, 699–716 (1992). | Article |
Whalley, L. J. & Deary, I. J. Br. Med. J. 322, 819–822 (2001). | Article | ChemPort |
Hart, C. et al. Psychosom. Med. 65, 877–883 (2003). | Article | PubMed | ISI |
Gottfredson, L. S. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 86, 174–199 (2004). | Article |
Batty, G. D. et al. Diabetologia 51, 436–443 (2008). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
Deary, I. J. & Der, G. Psychol. Sci. 16, 64–69 (2005). | Article | PubMed |
Deary, I. J., Batty, G. D., Pattie, A. & Gale, C. R. Psychol. Sci. 19, 874–880 (2008). | Article | PubMed |
女人经典问题男人不同答案
*** 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽 ***2009年MBA考试答案QQ309565482。2009年MBA考前答案。2009年MBA助考
2009年MBA考试答案QQ309565482 09年MBA答案 2009年MBA考前答案2009年MBA助考QQ309565482 09年MBA助考 2009MBA考试助考
2009年MBA考试答案QQ309565482 09年MBA答案 2009年MBA考前答案
2009年MBA助考QQ309565482 09年MBA助考 2009MBA考试助考
2009年MBA考试答案QQ309565482 09年MBA答案 2009年MBA考前答案
2009年MBA助考QQ309565482 09年MBA助考 2009MBA考试助考
2009年MBA考试答案QQ309565482 09年MBA答案 2009年MBA考前答案
2009年MBA助考QQ309565482 09年MBA助考 2009MBA考试助考
2009年MBA考试答案QQ309565482 09年MBA答案 2009年MBA考前答案
2009年MBA助考QQ309565482 09年MBA助考 2009MBA考试助考
2009年MBA考试答案QQ309565482 09年MBA答案 2009年MBA考前答案
2009年MBA助考QQ309565482 09年MBA助考 2009MBA考试助考
2009年MBA考试答案QQ309565482 09年MBA答案 2009年MBA考前答案
2009年MBA助考QQ309565482 09年MBA助考 2009MBA考试助考
2009年MBA考试答案QQ309565482 09年MBA答案 2009年MBA考前答案
2009年MBA助考QQ309565482 09年MBA助考 2009MBA考试助考
2009年MBA考试答案QQ309565482 09年MBA答案 2009年MBA考前答案
2009年MBA助考QQ309565482 09年MBA助考 2009MBA考试助考
2009年MBA考试答案QQ309565482 09年MBA答案 2009年MBA考前答案
2009年MBA助考QQ309565482 09年MBA助考 2009MBA考试助考
2009年MBA考试答案QQ309565482 09年MBA答案 2009年MBA考前答案
2009年MBA助考QQ309565482 09年MBA助考 2009MBA考试助考
2009年MBA考试答案QQ309565482 09年MBA答案 2009年MBA考前答案
2009年MBA助考QQ309565482 09年MBA助考 2009MBA考试助考
2009年MBA考试答案QQ309565482 09年MBA答案 2009年MBA考前答案
2009年MBA助考QQ309565482 09年MBA助考 2009MBA考试助考
2009年MBA考试答案QQ309565482 09年MBA答案 2009年MBA考前答案
2009年MBA助考QQ309565482 09年MBA助考 2009MBA考试助考
2009年MBA考试答案QQ309565482 09年MBA答案 2009年MBA考前答案
2009年MBA助考QQ309565482 09年MBA助考 2009MBA考试助考
2009年MBA考试答案QQ309565482 09年MBA答案 2009年MBA考前答案
2009年MBA助考QQ309565482 09年MBA助考 2009MBA考试助考
2009年MBA考试答案QQ309565482 09年MBA答案 2009年MBA考前答案
2009年MBA助考QQ309565482 09年MBA助考 2009MBA考试助考
2009年MBA考试答案QQ309565482 09年MBA答案 2009年MBA考前答案
2009年MBA助考QQ309565482 09年MBA助考 2009MBA考试助考
挑战“中年危机”:人到四十更幸福
[url]http://xk.cn.yahoo.com/articles/070716/1/1d3a.html[/url]人生步入40岁以后，将会面临体力下降、事业发展遭遇瓶颈、夫妻出现沟通障碍……这便是人所共知的“中年危机”。然而，近日的一项研究成果却得出了与此相反的结论——人生从40岁开始才迈入幸福期。
据英国《星期日泰晤士报》报道，研究人员发现了一个情感上的“成长冲刺”期，它使人们更加放松、更容易与他人相处。科学家把这种品质称为“随和”。在将近40岁到刚过50岁的阶段，人们的这种品质会迅速增强，进而打开幸福之门。
这项研究成果基于大约12万份的电子邮件问卷调查。结果显示，与失望相比，感觉“自我实现”和认同“自身个性”的更多。这对几十年来有关人到40将步入彷徨期的传统观念提出了挑战。
任教于美国得克萨斯大学的英国心理学家塞缪尔·戈斯林是这一课题的研究成员。他说：“人们通常认为个性主要在30岁形成。但这一结果表明，在40岁以后，个性的发展会加速进行，这时我们才开始完全放松、享受生活以及欣赏他人。”
伦敦一家营销公司的主管、45岁的尼克·贝克说：“15年前，我总是以自我为中心，总想跑在别人前面，以至于精神紧张，压力沉重。随着经验日益丰富，你才知道自己想要什么以及如何去获得。” 学习了:w00t:
页:
1
[2]