How Not to Look Old

It's a question surely as old as vanity itself: How can you look young forever? A forthcoming study in the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery offers one surprising idea: as you age, don't be afraid to put on a few pounds. Fat, it turns out, can significantly smooth out wrinkles and give you a younger-looking face. (Read "Beth Teitell: On Not Looking Old.")

The authors of the new study, a team led by Dr. Bahman Guyuron of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, are plastic surgeons who study faces for a living. They analyzed photographs of the faces of 186 pairs of identical twins taken at the Twins Days Festival, a sort of twin-pride event held every summer in (naturally) Twinsburg, Ohio. Because the pairs had identical genetic material, differences in how old they looked could be attributed entirely to their behavioral choices and environment. Guyuron's team had the twins fill out extensive questionnaires about their lives - everything from how many times they had married to whether they regularly used sunscreen. Then a panel of four judges independently estimated the twins' ages by looking at photos taken in Twinsburg. (See pictures from the Annual Twins Days Festival.)

The Guyuron team's most interesting findings had to do with weight. Many of the twin pairs were of similar weight, but differences in how old they looked began to appear when one had a body mass index (BMI) at least four points higher than the twin sibling. For twin pairs under 40, the heavier one looked significantly older. But surprisingly, after 40, that same four-point difference in BMI made the heavier twin look significantly younger. (Read "Aging Gracefully.")

The study's authors theorize that "volume replacement" - that is, fat filling in wrinkles - accounts for the rejuvenated appearance of the over-40 twins. This theory was supported even more dramatically among twins older than 55. For them, having as much as an eight-point-higher BMI than their twin was associated with a younger appearance in the face. (Read "A Brief History of Multiple Births.")

Guyuron doesn't recommend that people gain weight just to look younger, and one limitation of his study is that the Twinsburg photos included only faces. If they had shown the whole body, the judges may have knocked a couple of years off the age estimates of those who had kept a youthful figure - and added a couple of years for those who were well fed in the middle.

The paper also makes clear that, weight aside, healthy living is crucial for keeping a youthful face. The siblings who smoked and didn't wear sunscreen looked significantly older than those who avoided cigarettes and tanning. Those twins who had been divorced also looked older (by about 1.7 years) than the twins who had not. (They also looked older than those who had stayed single, which reinforces a point I made in this article: you are better off staying single than getting into a bad relationship.)

Finally - and this was the cruelest finding - those who had taken antidepressants also looked older than their twins who hadn't. In other words, if the misery of your divorce doesn't age you, your attempt to treat it with Prozac might. Guyuron and his colleagues believe this unjust fact has something to do with the drooping relaxation of facial muscles that antidepressants can cause.

The bottom line is that if you care mostly about a young-looking face, don't smoke, don't spend time in the sun without protection, and try not to get into a bad relationship that will make you depressed. Instead, this summer at the beach, stay inside and have an ice cream. Make it a double scoop.

See pictures of the world's most celebrated senior citizens.

Read "The Year in Medicine 2008: From A to Z."

View this article on Time.com

Related articles on Time.com:

• Facing Realities

Stimulus bill survives Senate test, moves ahead

WASHINGTON – An $838 billion economic stimulus bill backed by the White House survived a key test vote in the Senate Monday despite strong Republican opposition, and Democratic leaders vowed to deliver legislation for President Barack Obama's signature within a few days.

Monday's vote was 61-36, one more than the 60 needed to advance the measure toward Senate passage on Tuesday. That in turn, will set the stage for possibly contentious negotiations with the House on a final compromise on legislation the president says is desperately needed to tackle the worst economic crisis in more than a generation.

The Senate vote occurred as the Obama administration moved ahead on another key component of its economic recovery plan. Officials said Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner would outline rules on Tuesday for $350 billion in bailout funds designed to help the financial industry as well as homeowners facing foreclosure.

Monday's vote was close but scarcely in doubt once the White House and Democratic leaders agreed to trim about $100 billion on Friday.

As a result, Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania broke ranks to cast their votes to advance the bill.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., battling a brain tumor, made his first appearance in the Capitol since suffering a seizure on Inauguration Day, and he joined all other Democrats in support of the measure.

"There is no reason we can't do this by the end of the week," said Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. He said he was prepared to hold the Senate in session into the Presidents Day weekend if necessary, and cautioned Republicans not to try and delay final progress.

He said passage would mark "the first step on the long road to recovery."

Moments before the vote, the Congressional Budget Office issued a new estimate that put the cost at $838 billion, an increase from the $827 billion figure from last week.

"This bill has the votes to pass. We know that," conceded Sen. John Thune, a South Dakota Republican who has spoken daily in the Senate against the legislation.

As if to underscore its prospects for passage, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a prominent and powerful business group, issued a statement calling on the Senate to advance the measure.

Even so, in the hours before Monday's vote, Republican opponents attacked it as too costly and unlikely to have the desired effect on the economy. "This is a spending bill, not a stimulus bill," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.

All 36 votes in opposition were cast by Republicans.

The two remaining versions of the legislation are relatively close in size — $838 billion in the Senate and $819 billion in the House, and are similar in many respects.

Both include Obama's call for a tax cut for lower-income wage earners, as well as billions for unemployment benefits, food stamps, health care and other programs to help victims of the worst recession in decades. In a bow to the administration, they also include billions for development of new information technology for the health industry, and billions more to lay the groundwork for a new environmentally friendly industry that would help reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil.

At the same time, the differences are considerable.

The measure nearing approval in the Senate calls for more tax cuts and less spending than the House bill, largely because it includes a $70 billion provision to protect middle-class taxpayers from falling victim to the alternative minimum tax, which was intended to make sure the very wealthy don't avoid paying taxes.

Both houses provide for tax breaks for home buyers, but the Senate's provision is far more generous. The Senate bill also gives a tax break to purchasers of new cars.

Both houses provide $87 billion in additional funds for the Medicaid program, which provides health care to the low income. But the House and Senate differ on the formula to be used in distributing the money, a dispute that pits states against one another rather than Republicans against Democrats.

There are dozens of differences on spending.

The Senate proposed $450 million for NASA for exploration, for example, $50 million less than the House. It also eliminated the House's call for money to combat a potential flu pandemic.

On the other hand, the Senate bill calls for several billion more in spending for research at the National Institutes of Health, the result of an amendment backed last week by Specter.

___

Associated Press Writer Andrew Taylor contributed to this story.

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent

Mitchell defends naming stars in report

George Mitchell insisted naming names was the right decision and said he was prepared for Roger Clemens and others to deny they used performance-enhancing drugs.

"We made every effort to establish the truthfulness of the information that we received," baseball's steroids investigator said Friday during a half-hour interview at his law office. "Several of the witnesses were interviewed in the presence of federal law enforcement agents who informed the witnesses that if they made false statements they would subject themselves to possible criminal jeopardy. So there was very strong incentives to tell the truth."

A day after Mitchell issued a searing report that implicated Clemens, seven former MVPs and more than 80 players in all, President Bush said he's been "troubled by the steroid allegations."

Mitchell said he included in his report nearly all those who were implicated in his investigation. Players largely declined to interview with Mitchell.

"There were two players whose names I did not publish because the allegations occurred after the time that they had left baseball," he said.

The 74-year-old former Senate majority leader, hired by baseball commissioner Bud Selig in March 2006, wouldn't put a precise figure on how many major leaguers used performance-enhancing drugs.

"It is my judgment that the 5-7 percent that tested positive in the 2003 anonymous survey testing understated the amount of use, but I don't think it reaches a majority. I think it is a minority, albeit a significant minority," he said. "That's why I think that the majority of players who don't use such substances are principal victims of what has occurred. They follow the rules. They obey the law and they are placed in a position where they have to make the awful choice between either becoming illegal users themselves or being put at a competitive disadvantage."

Although he received cooperation from the Justice Department, Mitchell said he did not obtain evidence from the Albany, N.Y., district attorney, who has been investigating a drug ring that sold to players. He also said he never got complete copies of sworn statements by IRS special agent Jeff Novitzky that implicated players but were released publicly with the names blacked out.

Because it was a private inquiry, Mitchell said he did not think a standard of evidence was necessary.

"It is not a judicial proceeding. It is not a trial," he said. "But it doesn't make any difference what standard or what court you're in: direct, personal, eyewitness testimony, it is the principal form of evidence in most proceedings."

Much of his evidence came from former Mets clubhouse attendant Kirk Radomski and former Yankees strength coach Brian McNamee, who said he personally saw use by Clemens and Andy Pettitte.

Clemens' lawyer vehemently denied the accusations against the seven-time Cy Young Award winner, whose Hall of Fame chances might have been damaged by Mitchell's report. Pettitte's agent, Randy Hendricks, has advised his client not to comment because he is an active player.

Although Radomski didn't see players inject drugs, his records and story were compelling to Mitchell.

"If someone makes one purchase and says he didn't use it, that's one thing," Mitchell said. "If someone makes three, four, five, six, seven purchases over a period of several months or years, it obviously raises the question: If you weren't using it, why were you continuing to buy it?"

Sitting in a conference room, a plant behind his chair to add a scenic background, Mitchell said his next big task would be to start treatment for prostate cancer, an illness he made public in August. He said he was told his prognosis is good.

Although he thinks drug testing is essential in baseball, he didn't agree that congressional representatives, judges and the president and vice president should set an example by also submitting to tests.

"I don't think one can make a blanket statement that all people should be tested," he said. "It obviously requires a case-by-case analysis."

Mitchell is a director of the Boston Red Sox and some criticized him during the probe for having a conflict of interest. When the report was issued Thursday and singled out present and former Yankees stars such as Pettitte, Clemens and Chuck Knoblauch, Mitchell's role with the Red Sox came under renewed focus.

No major Red Sox were cited.

However, Mitchell did include e-mails from Boston officials speculating over which players were on steroids among those the team contemplated acquiring.

"We received no such documents from the Yankees," he said. "Now surely no one would argue that I was biased in favor of the Yankees because I published this about the Red Sox."

Mitchell said baseball's problem seems to have shifted from steroids to human growth hormone, for which there is no reliable test. He predicted a different substance will replace HGH as the drug of choice.

"At this precise moment, somewhere in the world, in China, in Mexico, or somewhere in the United States, someone is working to develop another drug that avoids detection, that accomplishes the purpose or at least is claimed to accomplish the purpose," he said.

He was forceful when he discussed how he envisioned his report would have an audience beyond baseball and its fans. He worried about the example being set by the pros.

"Young kids don't just look up to baseball players. They look up to all professional athletes," he said. "That's an alarming and dangerous thing in our society. That should cause concern among not just baseball fans, but all Americans."

President Bush, a former Texas Rangers owner, was among the many baseball fans who commented on Mitchell's findings.

"My hope is that this report is a part of putting the steroid era of baseball behind us," he said. "Steroids have sullied the game."

"The players and the owners must take the Mitchell Report seriously," Bush said. "I'm confident they will."

Baseball commissioner Bud Selig wouldn't rule out discipline for active players cited by Mitchell, but that process likely will go into next year. It is unlikely players will be penalized for conduct before September 2002, when the drug agreement between the union and management went into force.

Several congressmen have called for new hearings, but the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee session at first set for Tuesday was pushed back until Jan. 15.

Cleveland pitcher Paul Byrd, among the players tied to HGH in media reports of the Albany investigation, is scheduled to meet with baseball officials Monday.

Mitchell said baseball should draw a lesson from the peace accord he brokered in Northern Ireland.

"You have to turn the page and look forward," he said. "In some circumstances, you can benefit from turning away and looking to the future, and I think this is one of them. And I hope that out of this will come the perspective that this is a possible turning point for baseball, as the commissioner said, a call to action. And, hopefully, there will be a response."

By RONALD BLUM, AP Baseball Writer
from news.yahoo.com