Longevity gurus love to hawk pricey supplements, stem-cell injections, plasma infusions, and various other exotic interventions to extend your lifespan. But what if you could live a bit longer by simply settling in a nice neighborhood?
Plenty of evidence has surfaced in recent years pointing to the influence of geographical location on our health and longevity. People living in the rural South, for instance, tend to struggle with chronic disease and succumb to premature mortality more than urban dwellers on the West Coast do. And some research has focused more specifically on the salutary effects of living amid abundant green space in city neighborhoods.
Authors of some of this earlier research have often explained their results by citing regional variations in lifestyle choices, access to healthcare, and the stress-producing effects of poverty and discrimination. But New York University researchers, in a study published last week in Social Science & Medicine, have taken this notion a step further by explaining how your neighborhood may affect your longevity at the cellular level.
“Our health is shaped not only by individual behaviors, but also by the environments we live in,” notes lead study author Mariana Rodrigues, MA, a PhD student at NYU School of Global Public Health. “This study suggests that structural conditions may become biologically embedded and influence aging processes over time.”
Rodrigues and her team wanted to focus on specific cellular mechanisms among individuals living in various types of neighborhoods. So they analyzed health data — including blood samples containing four molecular markers of cellular aging — among 1,215 participants in the Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) study.
They then located each individual’s neighborhood and determined the relative quality of life in that geographic area based on 44 location-specific metrics, ranging from education and homeownership to water quality and walkability, compiled in the Childhood Opportunity Index 3 (COI3). Combining these metrics, the COI3 grouped neighborhoods into five levels of opportunity, from very low to very high.
Researchers found that one indicator of accelerated biological aging, a gene known as CDKN2A, was more prevalent in participants residing in “low-opportunity” areas when compared with those living in neighborhoods classified as “high opportunity” — even after accounting for various demographic, lifestyle, and health factors. The gene is known for its role in promoting cellular senescence and accelerating the aging process. It’s among the molecular markers that have been linked to a higher risk of chronic disease and a general decline in physical function.
This connection between geographic characteristics and cellular dysfunction suggests a need to integrate public health initiatives with socioeconomic policy, notes senior study author Adolfo Cuevas, PhD, associate professor of social and behavioral sciences at NYU School of Global Public Health. “Stressors related to income, jobs, and housing are not occasional, but persistent conditions that shape daily life,” he says. “Our findings suggest that chronic stress caused by economic deprivation and limited mobility may be the primary driver of cellular aging.”
It’s an interesting argument, though it leaves me with more questions than answers. I’ve lived at 15 different addresses in the past 50 years, some of those in fairly sketchy neighborhoods and others in more upscale environs. Does that mean any periods of accelerated aging were limited to the time spent living in rougher areas, and my relatively comfortable surroundings these days have mitigated the molecular mischief of the past? Or did the cellular damage move with me to each new address? The NYU study can’t really offer much clarity on this, as it didn’t measure those metrics over an extended period of time.
Limitations of the MIDUS study, Rodrigues explains, precluded “assessment of cumulative neighborhood exposure, residential mobility, and length of residence. Thus, we could not distinguish between long-term residents and recent movers or account for prior neighborhood exposures.”
Still, the NYU study may offer some fodder for policymakers willing to leverage public health arguments to support community-development initiatives. And for those in the market for a new place, the findings could perhaps influence homebuying decisions. Given the cost and questionable efficacy of longevity treatments, securing a tidy bungalow in a decent neighborhood might be a healthier long-term investment.
This Post Has 0 Comments