Shailaja Neelakantan argues, in her Nature article, that stress is a major cause of heart disease, but this argument is subjective and unsupported. Plainly stated, it is false. The MayoClinic defines heart disease as, “ a broad term used to describe a range of diseases that affect your heart. The various diseases that fall under the umbrella of heart disease include diseases of your blood vessels, such as coronary artery disease; heart rhythm problems (arrhythmias); heart infections; and heart defects you're born with (congenital heart defects).” Statistical evidence by News-Medical shows that major causes of heart disease include: blockages, clotting, and plaque buildup in the arteries that lead to the heart. While researchers have conducted a wide array of medical studies to discover the leading causes of heart disease, they have never conclusively linked psychological factors, such as stress, as one of these major causes. Writers such as Shailaja Neelakantan, present ambiguous information about the idea that psychological factors cause heart disease. Research conducted to date does not support this claim, and the public deserves to know the facts. An about.com article, written by accredited and board certified MD, Richard N. Fogoros, states that, “physical stress does not actually cause heart disease.” Medical studies and research, doctor testimonials, and statistical support all indicate that psychological factors do not cause heart disease. Therefore, organizations such as the APA (American Psychological Association), WHO (World Health Organization), and the CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) should inform the public about the lack of connection between stress and heart disease.
Heart disease is commonplace within the United States. According to the CDC (Center for Disease Control) about 600,000 people or 1 in 4 deaths occur due to heart disease in the United States each year. Heart disease is the leading cause of death in both men and women. The causes of heart disease are unanimously agreed upon amongst the medical world. Based on research presented by Everyday Health the major causes of heart disease are inflammation of arteries that lead to the heart. Many culprits of the inflammation are listed by Everyday Health and include factors such as: the formation of plaque in the arteries; chest pressure or tightness; high levels of glucose, cholesterol, and nicotine in the blood. Within the previous list, none of these major causes points to psychological factors being one of the main origins of heart disease.
AuthorShailaja Neelakantan asserts that stress is a major cause of heart disease, writing that, “…stress, the most common… mechanism of heart disease.” Although she states this as being one of the facts in her articles, she later contradicts herself by saying all her evidence is based on the “subjective nature of psychological influences on physical health.” In other words, her argument is unproven. I will tell you what is proven: stress can, in fact, cause changes within the body, but stress is not always manifested as a negative response within the body. As reported by Health Reviser, “While it is true that the stress level of the person has an impact on his/her health, the effect isn’t always negative. Stress becomes harmful if it isn’t managed properly or if a person is overwhelmed by the amount of stress he/she encounters.” There is a healthy level of stress a person should experience each day. When this stress gets out of hand or becomes too much to handle, then one runs the risk of negative health consequences. According to the APA (American Psychological Association), people that live on the East Coast experience higher levels of stress than those in the Midwest, West and South of the United States. The APA also records that 38% of U.S Easterners have been reported stress levels beyond what is reported as healthy. This being said, the CDC reported that only 3.3% of the entire eastern population had a heart attack. In contrast, the APA reported that only 23% of U.S Southerners report being affected by higher levels of stress, yet the CDC reports that 9.8% of the Southern population had a heart attack. From this data, it can be concluded that there no direct correlation between heart disease and heart disease related heart attacks. George Rodgers, MD, a clinical cardiologist at the Austin Heart Cardiology Group and chairman of the Governors of the American College of Cardiology, reports that, "when we're talking about heart disease, in America really we're talking about atherosclerosis, or the tendency to form plaque in the arteries.” Noting the definition of heart disease in America is very important in understanding the faulty nature of Shailaja Neelakantan ‘s argument. Her definition of heart disease does not align with America’s definition of heart disease. Neelakantan claims that a man experienced a heart attack due to psychological factors that ultimately caused a heart attack. The reason for the heart attack in her example is unclear, but she immediately attributes the cause to psychological factors (also unproven and subjective). Beyond this, she later states that, “stress causes… heart disease.” According to the information provided by MD Rodgers, heart disease is defined as the inflammation of arteries surrounding the heart, or atherosclerosis. Thus, this claim proves to be nonlinear with the views of the American Health World.
As I said above, all stress is not bad stress. Now don’t get me wrong; I believe that stress can, during extended and strenuous periods of time, cause mild to moderate physiological changes within the body. This is supported by concrete evidence provided by Health Reviser, but I do not assert that stress is the major cause of heart disease as argued by Shailaja Neelakantan. Years of research has concluded that, “chronic stress negatively affects your health.” The key word here is chronic. WHO (World Health Organization) defines chronic diseases as “diseases of long duration and generally slow progression.” WebMD states that chronic stress has negative effects on the body because “[chronic stress] exposes your body to unhealthy, persistently elevated levels of stress hormones like adrenaline and cortisol.” Scientists have not discovered all there is to learn about stress, but as for the facts that are available to date, psychological factors are not a conclusive factor of heart disease. With this said, scientists have linked chronic stress to negative effects within the body, but these “negative effects” are not reported to be heart disease. Shailaja Neelakantan’s article is full of subjective material that misleads its readers. In essence, a person should try to balance emotional and physical health, but stress is a normal part of life. Attaining some level of stress will not lead to heart disease, but it is also unsafe to have high levels of stress that one cannot properly manage. The impact of stress on health is clearly documented and remains fairly constant despite innovations, and technological advances. Even still, scientists, doctors, and health professionals alike are continuing research on the effects of stress on heart disease.
We cannot conclude that one leads to the other. Of course, if you have any further questions about your stress levels and chances of heart disease, you should consult your doctor.
Works Cited
Neelakantan, Shailaja. "Psychology: Mind over Myocardium." Nature 493.7434 (2013): n. pag. 30 Jan. 2013. Web. 7 Feb. 2013
United States. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 16 Oct. 2012. Web. 07 Feb. 2013. http://www.cdc.gov/HeartDisease/facts.htm.
Lundell, Dr. Dwight. "Heart Surgeon Speaks Out On What Really Causes Heart Disease -- Health & Wellness -- Sott.net." SOTT.net. Quantum Future Group Inc, 01 Mar. 2012. Web. 07 Feb. 2013. http://www.sott.net/article/242516-Heart-Surgeon-Speaks-Out-On-What-Really-Causes-Heart-Disease.
Sholl, Jessie. "What Is Heart Disease?" EverydayHealth.com. Everyday Health Media LLC, 01 Dec. 2008. Web. 07 Feb. 2013. <http://www.everydayhealth.com/heart-disease/understanding/index.aspx>.
Congestive Heart Failure." LifeExtension.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 07 Feb. 2013. http://www.lef.org/protocols/heart_circulatory/congestive_heart_failure_02.htm.
Despite the common misconception that commercially produced fruits and vegetables today lack the flavor and nutrition of those before the use of genetic modification, evidence shows that modern produce is actually "tastier" and higher in essential nutrients. With the breakthrough of genetics and understanding of DNA, scientists have identified the genes responsible for the beneficial traits of our favorite produce, which agriculturalists have used in selective breeding in hopes of achieving more desirable crops. Even more recently, the direct manipulation of DNA to add or alter specific traits of a plant genome has been practiced and refined into the successful method of genetic engineering, yielding more nutritious and resource-efficient produce than traditional cross-breeding could ever hope to accomplish. However, most people today maintain a fear of consuming genetically modified foods due to common misconceptions about 'Frankenfoods,' so the majority of the public has little understanding of the health and environmental benefits genetic engineering can offer in contrast to conventional breeding methods, making it clear that the scientific community has a responsibility to educate consumers to ensure the continuance and growth of this vital field.
In order to overcome the common misunderstandings and fears of genetically modified foods, people must first understand the universality of the mechanisms involved in the combination of genetic material, whether by the intended breeding of selected organisms or the direct manipulation of genetic material. A crucial factor to understand is the definition of 'mutation' and the versatility of this word. A genetic mutation is any change in the DNA sequence of an organism, whether it produces an overall harmful or beneficial effect. The problem with this word is that it has many negative connotations, giving the impression that anything 'mutated' or genetically altered is detrimental, which is in fact far from the truth. According to the Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health and the National Research Council, "any time genes are mutated or combined, as occurs in almost all breeding methods, the possibility of producing a new, potentially hazardous substance exists." Regardless of the method used to reproduce and sustain actively producing plants, the interaction and exchange of genetic material between two species, and the inevitable chance of inducing a mutation, is equivalent. The process of interaction between genes is universal among organisms of all species, regardless of the methods by which they were induced.
As a matter of fact, according to a group of geneticists working for the Society of Toxicology, "the extent of the genetic changes resulting from such conventional breeding techniques, which is generally undefined, far exceeds that typically produced by transgenic methods," due to the sheer number of genes involved in each case. In genetic engineering, generally one gene at a time is selected for transfer into a genome, and several analyses specific to that single gene can then be done to confirm its correct placement. In contrast, conventional breeding involves the interaction of the entire genomes of two species, "transferring thousands of unknown genes with unknown function along with the desired genes.” So while genetic engineering "could be used to transfer only the beneficial genes” into a genome, conventional breeding is the blind mixing of two complete and separate array of genes in hope of creating an enhanced product, with no direct method of actually identifying the sequences made.
To see the advantage of genetic engineering over conventional breeding more clearly, it's crucial to also consider the subsequent regulations placed on these methods before commercially releasing their products. “In the United States, the plant breeding community is largely self-monitored. Regulatory agencies do not evaluate conventional new crop varieties for health and environmental safety prior to commercial release." Further stated by the Danish International Development Agency, before the introduction of genetic engineering, "plant breeding was not subject to a great deal of regulation...little attention has been paid to the possible food safety or environmental impacts of new plant varieties derived from conventional breeding." However, with the introduction of genetic engineering also came the beginning of regulation on newly bred crops, and this correlation is the ultimate source of the misconception that genetically modified foods are 'harmful'. In reality, however, the advent of genetic engineering merely brought light to the fact that any crop or animal that is manipulated genetically, whether by selective breeding or genetic modification, must be assessed for consumer safety. A genetically modified plant, prior to being approved for release must be assessed by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service agency within the US Department of Agriculture, and may also be assessed by the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental protection agency, depending on the intended use of the organism. After approval by these federal agencies, individual states and counties still have authority in denying any genetically modified food from release to the public. Since genetic engineering has been unanimously accepted by nearly all geneticists worldwide as being equally safe or safer than conventional breeding, the remaining fact that genetic engineering is more closely regulated than conventional breeding should seem highly alarming to the community. With the given facts, it is clear that plant breeders especially in the United States are given ample freedom to cut corners in testing their produce, indicating that people need to shift their focus from critiquing genetic modification practices to tightening those of conventional methods.
Further looking at the possible advantages of genetic engineering in its highly specified and improved products, it seems evident that it should be favored over conventional practices. Genetic engineering, with its precise and controllable methods, ensures the accurate transfer of certain desired genes and creates the potential of producing "super" fruit infused with higher amounts of essential vitamins, antioxidants, and flavor-creating sugars and acids. According to researchers at the American Heart Association's Scientific Sessions 2012, a study performed by researchers at the UCLA School of Medicine has confirmed "for the first time, genetically engineered tomato plants produced a peptide that mimics the actions of good cholesterol when eaten." After genetically modifying tomatoes to express a gene similar to that of HDL or "good" cholesterol expressed in human genomes, mice lacking this gene were fed the modified tomatoes and were found on conclusion to have "less inflammation and reduced atherosclerosis (plaque build-up in the arteries)." Additionally, studies have shown that insect-resistant crops created via genetic engineering have reduced the use of pesticides globally by 286,000 tons as of 2006, decreasing the environmental impact of herbicides and pesticides by 15%, according to PG Economics, a UK company specializing in plant biotechnology and agricultural production. According to the Irish Times, genetically modified plants have also been used in cleansing contaminated soils, by creating transgenic plants with the added genes of some proteins used by bacteria in breaking down metal pollutants and organic solvents like pesticides. Clearly, the benefits to be gained by consuming genetically modified foods are vast on both the individual and the global scale.
In spite of discernible evidence for genetic engineering being a remarkable tool with enormous scientific potential, competitive criticism fueled by current markets and traditional plant breeders remains a factor in advancing this field. Author of the Nature article 'You say tomato' epitomizes the taboo of genetically enhanced produce, in this case specifically tomatoes. The author mentions a previously unsuccessful attempt to market genetically modified tomatoes and attributes the failure to "the public's fear of 'Frankenfoods'," and concludes that "it is not necessary to go down the genetic-modification path again" but is enough to know simply "which genes sitting on what part of the genome control which traits - because this helps to avoid undesirable knock-on effects of interbreeding for a particular characteristic." While the author rightfully agrees that "undesirable knock-on effects" are quite common in cross-breeding, he also suggests that merely knowing where desirable traits are located allows plant breeders to target these genes, whereas this 'guessing-game' is highly impractical, costly, and time-consuming. The solution to the "public's fear of 'Frankenfoods'" should not be to simply abandon genetic engineering, as the author suggests, but to educate the public on possible advantages genetic modification can offer.
Genetic engineering by mechanical means is a resourceful and effective way of achieving results in a shorter period of time, while also intently testing and analyzing the results of these experiments. Having the tools to test and analyze these results actually minimizes the chances of adverse mutational effects that could otherwise easily go undetected in plants and animals created via conventional breeding. Therefore, instead of shying away from the use of genetic engineering due to the public misconception of it being harmful, the focus should be re-shifted in an attempt to educate the public on the advantages of genetic engineering, and to allow it to become recognized as a tool with tremendous potential in human and environmental health.
Works Cited
American Heart Association. "Genetically engineered tomatoes decrease plaque build-up in mice." ScienceDaily. (2012) Web. 7 Feb. 2013. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121105114616.htm
Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health, National Research Council. "Unintended Effects from Breeding." Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Effects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press (2004) Web. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10977&page=43
Krishna, Vijesh V., Matin Qaim. “Bt cotton and sustainability of pesticide reductions in India.”Agricultural Systems. 107. (2012): 47–55. Web. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X11001764
Strange, Amy. “Scientists engineer plants to eat toxic pollution.” The Irish Times. (2011) http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0913/1224304027463.html
"The Safety of Genetically Modified Foods Produced through Biotechnology." Oxford Journals: Toxicological Sciences. 71.1 (2003): 2-8. Web. http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/71/1/2.full
"You say tomato." Nature. 485 (2012): 547. Web. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7400/full/485547a.html
In the United States alone, there are likely 3 million psychopaths that walk among us at any given time, according to Dr. Robert Hare, creator of the famous psychopathy diagnostic tool, the PCL-R (Nunez et al., 2005). Doctor Leonard Mateo of the University of Minnesota conducted a study observing 700 children doing normal daily activities, reporting that 684 of them showed behavior related to sociopathy. Approximately 3% of all adult males have a sociopathic disorder called antisocial personality disorder. Headscratchers indeed, especially the case involving the sociopathic children. Surely, environmental factors cannot be the first or only reason for these statistics, nor should it be the answer we willingly accept without further evidence. These numbers strongly suggest an underlying biological problem: specifically, a problem within one’s genes. Genes are biological units which contain all instructions for all cells in every living organism. Since they make up who we are, what we are, and persist as the root cause of many physical and psychological ailments, analyzing them can reveal genetic markers linked to violent behavior. Though people fear that genetic analysis can lead to stigmatization of innocent people (according to Nature), in reality, identifying these genetic factors and analyzing them in tandem with sociological factors will help us to better understand violence and its potential criminal result.
Violent events, such as the recent Adam Lanza shooting, bring anger, bitter sadness and a public outcry for answers. Why, on December 14, 2012, did twenty year old Adam Lanza shoot twenty children and six educators at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut? And worse, why have many blazed the path before him, including the mass shooter at a theater in Colorado this past July, the mass shooter of Virginia Tech, and who can forget Columbine. Scientists heed the call to answer these questions and they believe the answer may lie within our genes. A scientific journey to discovery, however, faces much resistance as tempers flare at the notion of analyzing Lanza’s genes. Instead of looking to science to potentially answer the disturbing questions of how and why someone can commit such acts, many belittle the idea of genetic analysis, while others peg it as downright invalid. Perhaps this response stems from an ignorance as to what genetic analysis can reveal and how those findings can be a step to a better understanding of the human psyche.
The idea of studying Adam Lanza’s genes is not a new phenomenon. In fact, genetic and neurological studies have been done extensively in attempts to understand criminal and violent behavior. Sam Harris, a neuroscientist, speaks about psychopathy in his book The Moral Landscape. Harris refers to a neuroimaging experiment comparing psychopathic criminals to non-psychopathic criminals. Scientists noted that the psychopathic brains exhibited reduced activity in the parts of the brain responsible for processing emotional stimuli. Meanwhile, in the reward region of the brain, neural connections associated with impulsiveness and antisocial behavior showed abnormally high activity (Harris, 2010). Harris further refers to the work of neuroscientist James Blair and his colleagues, who suggest that the absence of emotional learning stems from a genetic handicap in the parts of the brain responsible for processing emotion, specifically the amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex (Blair et al., 2005). Harris gives a fascinating and chilling laundry list of characteristics pertaining to psychopaths, stating, “A list of their most frequent characteristics reads like a personal ad from hell: they are said to be callous, manipulative, deceptive, impulsive, secretive, grandiose, thrill-seeking, sexually promiscuous, unfaithful, irresponsible, prone to both reactive and calculated aggression,and lacking in emotional depth” (Harris, 2010). The behavioral characteristics Harris lists result from the inability or reduced ability to process emotion, and faulty genes are front and center as the underlying biological cause. This does not imply that all psychopaths exhibit violent behavior, nor that they all become criminals. Many can live fruitful lives, but this does not mitigate the importance of studying the disorder, nor does it negate the role that genetics play.
The UTD News Center reports on another study conducted by Dr. J.C. Barnes, Assistant Professor of Criminology in the School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences at UT Dallas, questioning whether genes serve as an indicator for a life of crime. The experiment collected data from 4,000 young individuals exhibiting antisocial behavior, then ranked each individual into one of three categories: life-course persistent offenders, adolescent-limited offenders, and abstainers. Determining the extent to which genetics and environmental factors affected each category, also referred to as a “pathway,” governed the premise of the experiment. The outcome of the study showed greater genetic implications than environmental implications in life-course persistent offenders, and also greater in this particular pathway than the other two. Dr. Barnes clarifies that the actual genes responsible for the behavior were not identified, but encourages the pursuit of their identification. He says that: “... there are likely to be hundreds, if not thousands, of genes that will incrementally increase your likelihood of being involved in a crime even if it only ratchets that probability by 1 percent. It still is a genetic effect. And it’s still important."
Even more supporting evidence for the validity of this kind of genetic analysis emerges from the findings presented in an episode of Nova ScienceNow called “Can Science Stop Crime.” Journalist David Progue investigates whether biology produces violent brains. His interviews begin with Criminologist Kevin Beaver who claims to have found a pattern after analyzing the genetic profiles and criminal records of more than 1,000 young men. He states, “There are some men that are, biologically and genetically speaking, much more likely to be predisposed to be violent and aggressive than others." Progue’s investigation further led him to interview other experts in the field, as well as a young man named Nikko, who underwent genetic analysis himself. Nikko admits to struggling with violence in high school, which later led him to join the Taliban. In conducting genetic analysis on Nikko, scientists discovered that he carries a variation of a gene called MAO-A, nicknamed the “warrior gene.” All people carry the normal version of this gene, which functions to regulate neurotransmitters, the chemicals responsible for our behavior and other traits. The less active version of the MAO-A gene results in excess neurotransmitters floating about in the brain. What does this mean? In studies, laboratory mice possessing the MAO-A gene became extremely aggressive. But Neuroscientist Joshua Bulkholtz analyzed the brain scans of people with the variant gene and found that their brains looked different. For starters, he found less grey matter in that region of the brain. Further, the amygdala (the part of the brain that detects threat) was highly active. The prefrontal cortex, responsible for emotional learning and acting on the amygdala, fails to subdue it, ergo its hyperactivity. Bulkholtz cautions, however, that the presence of this gene does not necessarily make a person violent and that “one factor alone is not enough to make someone violent."
The Nova ScienceNow interviews continued with Neuroscientist James Fallon, a descendant of a long line of murderers, including the famous ax murderer, Lizzie Borden. Intrigued about the warrior gene, he had himself and his family tested. He, his wife, his mother, and his son all carry this version of the gene. He then decided to compare his brain scan to those of criminals with abnormal emotional centers and shockingly discovered that his brain fell in line with theirs. But Fallon does not exhibit violent behavior. Fallon believes his positive upbringing suppressed any tendency for violent behavior. Nelly Alia-Klein, Brookhaven National Laboratory, corroborates this belief with PET (Positron Emission Tomography) scans she conducted on individuals with high levels of aggression who did not possess a warrior gene. Her findings allege that environments actually change the circuitry of the brain; that is, environmental causes took front and center in this case. The combined findings of both Klein and and Bulkholtz propose that genes and/or environmental factors can cause violent behavior, and that even if one has a genetic predisposition for violent behavior, it can be curtailed by a positive environment.
The various well-researched evidence presented throughout this article overwhelmingly supports genetic analysis for violent behavior. However, not everyone seems to agree, especially not the author of Nature whom I have referenced earlier. He believes that genetic analysis will reveal nothing about Adam Lanza’s genes and will only cause stigmatization (Nature, 493. 7431). Contrary to the author's claims, a plethora of evidence shows that genetic analysis can reveal pertinent biological information both alone and in environmental context. Evidence shows that we cannot narrow-mindedly rely solely on the idea of sociological causes as the culprits behind this kind of behavior, especially since time and again we have seen people raised in the same environment turn out quite differently. Further, the primal fear that stigmatization will be the end result is understandable, but unfounded. Notice that the scientists discussed here exercised nothing but caution to ensure that stigmatization does not happen; note the caveats and disclaimers they continually offered. Clearly the very idea of labeling people as dangerous and criminal simply because they carry a genetic anomaly screams absurdity and deceit. If anything, a thorough understanding of violent behavior in the context of biology and the environment should remove all ignorance and presuppositions of the matter and curtail stigmatization.
I conclude by saying that opposing genetic analysis on Adam Lanza’s genes, or anyone else's for that matter, is not only ignorant, but also demeans the validity and integrity of science, it denies the possibility of future explanations, and it stands in the way of a potential means of preventative measures. Science sets forth the goal to investigate, to report findings, and to improve the quality of life for living beings. A person with a known genetic predisposition for a particular disease may never acquire that disease, but knowing his or her susceptibility affords the action in taking precautions to lessen the chances of ever developing it. In essence, the largest of everyone’s concern should not be stigmatization or if we actually find something, but should be researching every possibility for how we can help the potential Adam Lanzas of the world to live a happy and functional life.
Works Cited
Blair, J., Mitchell, D. R., & Blair, K. The Psychopath: Emotion and the Brain. Massachusetts: Blackwell, 2005. Print.
Harris, Sam. The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. New York: Free Press, 2010. Kindle file.
“No Easy Answer.” Nature International Weekly Journal of Science 493. 9 Jan. 2013. University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Library. Web. 1 Feb. 2013. <http://www.nature.com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/news/no-easy-answer-1.12157>.
Nunez, J. M., Casey, B. J., Egner, T., Hare, T., and Hirsch, J. (2005). “Intentional false responding shares neural substrates with response conflict and cognitive control.” Neuroimage, 25 (1), 267–277.
Shailaja Neelakantan argues, in her Nature article, that stress is a major cause of heart disease, but this argument is subjective and unsupported. Plainly stated, it is false. The MayoClinic defines heart disease as, “ a broad term used to describe a range of diseases that affect your heart. The various diseases that fall under the umbrella of heart disease include diseases of your blood vessels, such as coronary artery disease; heart rhythm problems (arrhythmias); heart infections; and heart defects you're born with (congenital heart defects).” Statistical evidence by News-Medical shows that major causes of heart disease include: blockages, clotting, and plaque buildup in the arteries that lead to the heart. While researchers have conducted a wide array of medical studies to discover the leading causes of heart disease, they have never conclusively linked psychological factors, such as stress, as one of these major causes. Writers such as Shailaja Neelakantan, present ambiguous information about the idea that psychological factors cause heart disease. Research conducted to date does not support this claim, and the public deserves to know the facts. An about.com article, written by accredited and board certified MD, Richard N. Fogoros, states that, “physical stress does not actually cause heart disease.” Medical studies and research, doctor testimonials, and statistical support all indicate that psychological factors do not cause heart disease. Therefore, organizations such as the APA (American Psychological Association), WHO (World Health Organization), and the CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) should inform the public about the lack of connection between stress and heart disease.
As I said above, all stress is not bad stress. Now don’t get me wrong; I believe that stress can, during extended and strenuous periods of time, cause mild to moderate physiological changes within the body. This is supported by concrete evidence provided by Health Reviser, but I do not assert that stress is the major cause of heart disease as argued by Shailaja Neelakantan. Years of research has concluded that, “chronic stress negatively affects your health.” The key word here is chronic. WHO (World Health Organization) defines chronic diseases as “diseases of long duration and generally slow progression.” WebMD states that chronic stress has negative effects on the body because “[chronic stress] exposes your body to unhealthy, persistently elevated levels of stress hormones like adrenaline and cortisol.” Scientists have not discovered all there is to learn about stress, but as for the facts that are available to date, psychological factors are not a conclusive factor of heart disease. With this said, scientists have linked chronic stress to negative effects within the body, but these “negative effects” are not reported to be heart disease. Shailaja Neelakantan’s article is full of subjective material that misleads its readers. In essence, a person should try to balance emotional and physical health, but stress is a normal part of life. Attaining some level of stress will not lead to heart disease, but it is also unsafe to have high levels of stress that one cannot properly manage. The impact of stress on health is clearly documented and remains fairly constant despite innovations, and technological advances. Even still, scientists, doctors, and health professionals alike are continuing research on the effects of stress on heart disease.
