By Barbara Morris, R. Ph.
I stayed up past my bedtime :-) to watch the much touted Barbara Walters Special that promised to reveal startling new breakthroughs in the control of the aging process.
For anyone involved in the anti-aging movement, the first 45 minutes were a yawner. It's not new news that on the horizon are promising techniques and products to control aging: adult stem cells, carloie restriction, resveratrol, and human growth hormone to name a few.
Resveratrol, a product of red wine, is not new. I use it. What might be new, however, is that apparently there may be a way to make resveratrol more potent so that it has a more immediate result. That was good news. However, being the cynic that I am when it comes to anything the government might become involved in, I suspect that if a substance could really control aging to any significant extent, the FDA with the aid of Big Pharma would be all over it to regulate the daylights out of it, and perhaps even make it semi-legal, as in the case of human growth hormone. I can see another sanctimonious congressional investigation of anyone who would dare to use it.
What I did enjoy about the program was the last 15 minutes or so in which healthy centenarians were featured. It was inspiring to witness the reality that chronological age was not a deterrent to their ability to feel and function as they did years earlier.
There was one important element missing from the program that could have had a profound impact. While Barbara did mention that the lifespan has increased by 30 years (I thought it was only 27 years!) in the past century, there was no mention of how that reality could and should affect how our culture defines or regards stages of aging.
For example, we still define age 65 as elderly. If in fact many are living 30 years longer, does labeling age 65 as elderly make sense? Not only that, what does the "elderly" designation do to the psyche of a 65-year-old who is still, mentally and physically, in prime condition?
I can assure you, it does have an effect. For example, when faced with temporary personal setbacks or temporary health issues, that 65-year-old will probably chalk it all up to "Well, I must be getting old. After all, I am 65." That kind of debilitating resignation is fostered by prevailing cultural norms and it perpetuates the myth that 65 is elderly.
Researchers for the show missed a great opportunity. The could have interviewed a futurist such as Dr. Helen Harkness who, in her book, "Don't Stop the Career Clock" gave her new stages of aging based on the reality that we are living longer. I've shared this many times before, but here it is again because it's so significant. On page 75 of her book, Dr. Harnkess spells it out for us:
Young adulthood: 20-40
First midlife: 40-60
Second midlife 60-80
Young-old: 80-90
Elderly: 90 and above
Old-old: 2-3 years to live
If you wateched the show, will you agree that the Harkness model makes more sense than prevailing cultural beliefs about what is "old"?
I don't know about you, kiddo, but at 79, I am not elderly by a longshot. I am in my second midlife and plan to be there for a long time. I may not last to 150, but I am certain that if I last to 100, I will still be in my second midlife because I know I can make choices that will keep me from ever being "old" and decrepit.
So overall, thanks to Barbara Walters for a much needed expose of what's happening in the anti-aging movement. Hopefully it will in some way result in positive change for individuals who have the capacity and desire to take charge of how they live, regardless of their chronological age.
