The word "stress"
describes our animal response to threatening situations: our bodies release a
rush of adrenalin and other chemicals in order to allow a "fight of flight"
response to danger. As a result, the pulse rate increases, blood pressure rises,
blood sugars are raised and blood is diverted to the heart, lungs and muscles.
Stress isn't thought to cause disease by itself, but it has been proved to
affect the way our immune system works and so render us more or less liable to
some illnesses.
American and
Canadian researchers conducting a huge study on the effects of stress on the
immune system recently concluded that it all depended on the type of stress, and
how individuals responded to it. They examined 293 studies involving 19,000
people and discovered that short, sharp bursts of stress ("acute time-limited
stressors") lasting between five and 100 minutes - such as public speaking -
were indeed helpful to the immune system. There was a marked increase in natural
killer cells being produced by the body, which are vital for fighting off
disease.
"Brief naturalistic
stressors" - such as preparing for an exam - showed a mixed picture. They
boosted one part of the immune system that fights off bacteria, but tended to
make the person more susceptible to viruses. It turned out that longer-term,
chronic stress was more damaging. "Stressful event sequences", such as the death
of a spouse, resulted in poorer-quality natural killer cells, although the
researchers were surprised that the results were not worse.
The most damaging
of all were "chronic stressors", such as unemployment or long term overwork,
with no end in sight. These had damaging effects on the whole immune system. The
key to it all, concluded the researchers, was whether the stress was
never-ending (that is. bad) or short-term (good).
So far, so good -
for our theory. But here's the rub: the researchers admitted that most of the
studies involving short-term stress were conducted on students and young adults.
They caution that because our immune systems become less effective as we age,
older people are probably more susceptible to the negative immunological effects
of stress and even short-term stress may not be as beneficial, once the
“stress-debt” has become overwhelming to the body. The older we get, the more
exaggerated become our stress responses. Eventually the “alarm circuitry” is
turned on but there is nothing to turn it off. People then become less
accommodating as they get quite skilled at avoiding stress. It’s a fact that
neuroticism – being prone to distress and a great anxiety in stressful
situations – increases with age. Generally, the older we get, the less appealing
we find stress – even the kind we would find intoxicating as a young person –
like a fairground ride.
It is stimulation,
not stress, that is beneficial. Rather than subjecting people to deliberate
bursts of stress, a better approach is to “remain engaged with the world”
through doing activities you enjoy and which provide stimulation for the brain.
This will, in turn, make you more able to deal with stressful events. So
“stress” could be said to be always bed but the right amount of pressure is
good. What’s important is getting the balance right. This is because your own
response to potentially stressful situations determines whether something is
stressful or not – what counts as stressful varies from one person to the other.
It’s whether you
are vaguely in control of a stressful situation that determines whether it’s
good or bad for you, actually. That’s why some people thrive on deadline stress:
it’s short term and it’s largely within their control (or they believe it is,
whereas a more stressed-out person believes it isn’t). It’s these people – the
extroverts of the world – who may benefit from increasing their levels of mild
stress, particularly if they are bored and lack stimulation.
In the end, whether
a situation is seen as stressful depends on the response of the individual. A
feeling of optimism and coping moderates the negative aspects of the stress. So
the real question is: how well are you dealing with it?
