INFORMATION TO USERS
While the most advanced technology has been used to
photograph and reproduce this manuscript, the quality of
the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of
the material submitted. For example:
•

Manuscript pages may have indistinct print. In such
cases, the best available copy has been filmed.

•

Manuscripts may not always be complete. In such
cases, a note will indicate that it is not possible to
obtain missing pages.

•

Copyrighted material may have been removed from
the manuscript. In such cases, a note will indicate the
deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, and charts) are
photographed by sectioning the original, beginning at the
upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in
equal sections with small overlaps. Each oversize page is
also filmed as one exposure and is available, for an
additional charge, as a standard 35mm slide or as a 17”x 23”
black and white photographic print.
Most photographs reproduce acceptably on positive
microfilm or microfiche but lack the clarity on xerographic
copies made from the microfilm. For an additional charge,
35mm slides of 6”x 9” black and white photographic prints
are available for any photographs or illustrations that
cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography.

O rder N um ber 8722873

The relationship between caloric expenditure and longevity
among Michigan State University athletes and non-athletes
Quinn, Timothy John, Ph.D.
Michigan State University, 1987

UMI

300N. ZeebRd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48106

PLEASE NOTE:

In allcases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy.
Problems encountered with thisdocument have been identified here with a check mark •/ .

1. Glossy photographs or pages_____
2.

Colored illustrations, paper or print_____

3.

Photographs with dark background

4.

Illustrationsare poor copy_____

5.

Pages with black marks, not original copy_____

6.

Printshows through as there istext on both sides of page_____

7.

Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages

8.

Printexceeds margin requirements_____

9.

Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine______

10.

S

^

Computer printout pages with indistinct print_____

11. Page(s)__________ lacking when material received,and not available from school or
author.
12. Page(s)__________ seem to be missing in numbering only as textfollows.
13.

Two pages numbered

14. Curling and

. Text follows.

wrinkled pages____

15. Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed as received _
16.

Other____________________________________________________________

University
Microfilms
International

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CALORIC EXPENDITURE AND
LONGEVITY AMONG MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
ATHLETES AND NON-ATHLETES

BY

TIMOTHY J. QUINN

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

School of Health Education, Counseling Psychology,
and Human Performance
1987

ABSTRACT
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CALORIC EXPENDITURE AND
LONGEVITY AMONG MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
ATHLETES AND NON-ATHLETES
By
Ttmothy J. Quinn

The purpose of this study was to determine the
effects of aerobic activity, represented by kllocalorles
per week expenditure, upon longevity and the occurrence of
various ailments. Secondary to this was the effect of
somatotype upon caloric expenditure and longevity.
Michigan State University (MSU) athletes and nonathletes who responded to the original 1952 MSU longevity
questionnaire as well as subsequent 1976 and 1984 followup questionnaires were selected as the study group.
Aerobic activity was utilized and caloric expenditure was
calculated for 256 former athletes and 239 former non­
athletes.

The mean age for these subjects was 68.9 years.

Subjects were subsequently grouped Into three activity
ratings; less than or equal to 500 kcal/week (LE 500), 5011999 kcal/week (TO 1999), and greater than or equal to 2000
kcal/week (GE 2000).
It was found that the former athletes exercised
significantly more than the former non-athletes In 1976.

Timothy J. Quinn

Subjects known to be deceased In 1984 performed less
aerobic activity In 1976 than subjects known to be alive In
1984. Also, those subjects In the LE 500 group tended to be
older than subjects In the other two higher activity
groups.
No significant difference was noted between the
three somatotype groups and caloric expenditure although It
was found that the ectomorphs exercised approximately 200
kcal less per week than did the endomorphs or mesomorphs.
Considering ailments reported In 1984 versus 1976
caloric expenditure ratings, It was found that signif­
icantly more Individuals reporting cardiovascular disease
(CVD), hypertension, or new CVD were In the higher activity
groups than In the LE 500 group.

Also, more Individuals

reporting any aliment were In the lower activity groups.
No significant relationship was found between activity and
cancer or any of the other ailments studied.

To my parents, John and Arden, and my wife, Amy, without
whose constant understanding, support, and love this
degree would never have been completed.

II

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express appreciation to my
chairperson, Wayne D. Van Huss.

His continual guidance on

this dissertation as well as throughout my five-year stay
at Michigan State University has been appreciated.

Also,

his friendship will last forever.
I would like to thank my other committee members,
William W. Heusner, Kwok W. Ho, Walter Baird, and Barry
Franklin.

Your Input and Influence on this dissertation

have been appreciated.
Gratitude Is extended to Homer Sprague for
statistical support throughout the project.

HI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES..................................
LIST OF FIGURES.............

v!
vll

Chapter
I. THE PROBLEM.............................

1

Purpose of the Study..................
Rationale.............................
Significance of the Study.............
Limitations of the Study..............

2
3
4
5

REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE.........

6

Introduction..........................
General Population Studies.............
Non-Cohort Athletic Studies...........
Cohort Athletic Studies...............

6
7
18
34

RESEARCH METHODS........................

59

Background Information................
Design of the Study...................
Calculation of Activity Rating.........
Somatotype Determination......
Subject Groupings.....................
Statistical Analyses..................

60
63
63
65
65
67

II.

III.

1v

Page
IV.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION...............

69

Results...............................
Sample Description and Group
Activity Levels.....................
Activity versus Longevity.............
Discussion of Activity versus
Longevity...........................
Activity versus Somatotype............
Discussion of Activity versus
Somatotype.................
Activity versus Aliments..............
Discussion of Activity versus Ailments..

69

V.SUMMARY,CONCLUSIONS,AND RECOMMENDATIONS...
Summary...............................
Conclusions...........................
Recommendations.......................
APPENDICES.....................................
A.

B.

C.

70
79
61
85
87
87
96
100
100
102
102
104

QUESTIONNAIRES (1952, 1960, 1968, 1976,
1984)...................

104

CALORIC EXPENDITURE STANDARDS FOR THE
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LONGEVITY STUDY.

123

STATISTICAL ANALYSES................

126

REFERENCES.....................................

144

v

LIST OF TABLES

Tab Ie
2-1

2-2

2-3

2-4

2-5

2-6

Page
Summary of General Population Longevity
Studies.................................

15

Comparison of Actual to Expected Deaths
Among Yale Untverslty Athletes...........

19

Percent of Actual vs. Expected Deaths
According to the American Men Table

21

Mortality by Birth Decade of Athletes of
Ten Colleges Compared with Expected
Deaths by the American Men Table.

21

Mortality of Athletes of Ten Colleges,
Compared with the Expected Mortality
According to the American Men
Ultimate Tab le..........................

22

Actual versus Expected Deaths by
Age Group...............................

24

2-7

Longevity of Athletes versus Non-Athletes.

2-8

Number of Surviving Men In the Cohort
of Skiers and In the Total Male
Finnish Population During Three
Periods.................................

27

Mortality of Major League Baseball
Players Compared with White Males
In the United States Population..........

29

Summary of Non-Cohort Athletic Longevity
Studies.................................

30

A Comparison of Expectation of Life
In Years................................

34

Total Numbers Under Investigation..........

36

2-9

2-10

2-11

2-12

vl

25

Page
2-13

Survival Rates of Sportsmen and Controls
Excluding Deaths Due to War and
Accidents...............................

37

2-14

Causes of Death In Percentages.............

38

2-15

Harvard Athletes, Alive or Dead of Natural
Causes; Percentages of Men Reaching
Ages 70 and 75, by Birth Decade..........

42

Harvard Athletes: Mean Age at Death for
Men Dead of Natural Causes...............

42

2-16

2-17

2-18

2-19

2-20

2-21

2-22

2-23

3-1

3-2

4-1

Mean Age at Death for Harvard Athletes
and Classmates Dead of Natural Causes...

43

Mean Age at Death of Athletes and NonAthletes................................

45

Comparison of Average Life Span of Crew
Members and Controls at Harvard and
Yale....................................

45

Age-Adjusted Rates and Relative Risks of
First Heart Attack CH.A.) Among
Harvard Male Alumni.....................

47

Age-Adjusted First Heart Attack (H.A.)
Among Harvard Athletes and Non-Athletes
Based on Physical Activity..............

48

Age-Adjusted Rates and Relative Risks of
Death Among Harvard Alumni Based on
Physical Activity.......................

52

Summary of Cohort Athletic Longevity
Studies.................................

55

Overview of The Michigan State University
Longevity Study.........................

61

Example of Caloric Expenditure
Calculations.....................
Descriptive Caloric Measures for Subjects
Per Week, Month, and Year In 1976 and
1984....................................

vll

63

71

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure
2-1

2-2

2-3

2-4

2-5

2-6

2-7

3-1

4-1

4-2

4-3

Page
Mean Age at Death of Michigan State
University Athletes and Non-Athletes...

41

Percentage of Deaths from Cardiovascular
Diseases of Michigan State University
Athletes and Non-Athletes...............

41

Physical Activity of Individuals Within
the Michigan State University
Longevity Study......................
Heart Attack Incidence Among Harvard
Alumni Based on Physical Activity

41

51

Relative Risk of First Heart Attack
Based on Activity and College
Sports Play........................

51

Relative Risks of Mortality Among
Harvard Alumni According to Physical
Activity Levels
..................

54

Relative Risks of Mortality Among
Harvard Alumni Based on Physical
Activity and College Sports Play........

54

An Example of one of the Somatotype
Curves In Atlas q ± Men.................

66

Year of Birth Among Michigan State
University Longevity Study Sample

72

Calortc Expenditure per Week for
Sample - 1976..........................

73

Percent of Population Within each
Exercise Caloric Expenditure
Category...............................

75

v 111

Page
4-4

4-5

4-6

4-7

4-8

4-9

4-10

4-11

4-12

4-13

Weekly Exercise Caloric Expenditure
Comparison of Athletes and NonAthletes In 1976 and 1984............

76

Year of Birth Comparison of Athletes
and Non-Athletes.....................

77

Year of Birth Comparison Among Subjects
Deceased (1984) versus Alive Within the
Study................................

78

Caloric Expenditure (1976) Comparison
Between Deceased and Living Subjects
In 1984..............................

82

Year of Birth of Comparison A. Athletes,
B. Non-Athletes, and C. Total Subjects
Comparison Among the Three Caloric
Activity Ratings.....................

83

Percentage of A. Athletes, B. NonAthletes, and C. Total Subjects
Deceased and A11ve In 1984 per the
Three ActivityGroups..................

84

Comparison of Weekly Caloric Expenditure
(METS) Among the Four Somatotype
Groups...............................

86

Percentage of A. Athletes, B. NonAthletes, and C. Total Subjects
Reporting CVD In 1976 per Activity
Group In 1976........................

90

Percentage of A. Athletes, B. NonAthletes, and C. Total Subjects
Reporting Hypertension In 1976 per
Activity Group In1976................

91

Percentage of A. Athletes, B. NonAthletes, and C. Total Subjects
Report Ing Any A11ment In 1976 per
Activity Group In1976................

92

Ix

Page
14

15

16

17

Percentage of A. Athletes, B. NonAthletes, and C. Total Subjects
Reporting CVD In 1984 per Activity
Group In 1976........................

93

Percentage of A. Athletes, B. NonAthletes, and C. Total Subjects
Reporting Hypertension In 1984 per
Activity Group In 1976...............

94

Percentage of A. Athletes, B. NonAthletes, and C. Total Subjects
Reporting New CVD In 1984 versus 1976
Activity Groups......................

95

Percent of Population Deceased In 1984
Per Activity Group In 1976 According
to Year of Birth.....................

98

x

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM

Studies which have looked at human longevity are
numerous and varied In scope.

Conversely, studies relating

exercise caloric expenditure to human longevity have been
limited.
Some of the original longevity studies compared
college athletes with the general population.

This general

population was usually an Insured group of Individuals with
varied educational, ethnic, and economic backgrounds.
Although athletes tended to live longer when compared to
Insured Individuals, these studies (1,8,11,14,24,28) were
often criticized for their Inadequate match between
athletes and a control group.

Later Investigators

com­

pared athletes with a more uniform group, specifically non­
athletes, who attended college at the same time as the
athlete (7,25,27,54).

Results from these studies Indicated

that longevity of the former athletes was slightly shorter
when compared with the non-athlete control subjects.
Investigators proceeded to attempt to determine why the
non-athlete groups lived longer than the athlete groups.
Post-college activity was assessed In a gross manner by

1

2

several Investigators. Generally, post-col lege activity
played a positive role In enhanced longevity
(25,26,27,36,44,51,61).

Statistically, however, there was

little difference between the life span of college athletes
and their non-athletlc counterparts.
Research pertaining to caloric expenditure through
exercise In later life has been under-developed and
relatively non-conclustve.

Only one longevity study has

examined the specific relationship between caloric
expenditure and life span.

In this study greater exercise

In later life was shown to delay the aging process , reduce
the Incidence of coronary heart disease, and Improve
longevity (40,41,44).
Research which looks at the caloric expenditure of
exercise and, a possible confounding factor, body type and
the subsequent relationships to longevity, to date, have
not been elucidated.

Purpose ot ih& Study

To determine the effects of post college activity
on longevity former (pre-1938) Michigan State University
athletes and non-athletes were utilized.

Follow-up

questionnaires (1976 and 1984) to the original 1952 study
of the Longevity s M Morbidity Q± Col lege Athletes (27)

3

were assessed.

Caloric expenditure was established

utilizing aerobic avocatlonal activity.

The groups In the

study tncluded living and non-living athletes and non­
athletes.
This study was designed to answer the following
questions:
1. Did athletes, non-athletes, or both groups
exercise aerobically an average of 2000 k11oca lories (kcal)
per week In 1976 or 1984?
2. Is there a relationship between aerobic
exercise Induced caloric expenditure In 1976 and the status
of life (living vs. deceased) In 1984?
3. Are certain body types associated with higher
exercise caloric expenditures?
4. Is a high exercise caloric expenditure related
to the frequency of a 11ments?
Answers to these questions should supplement
relevant previous research (40,41,44) and lend additional
Insight Into the relationship of aerobic exercise to
morbtdlty and mortal tty.

Rationale
The rationale for selecting 2000 kcal per week and
the subsequent exercise groupings was from the work
conducted by Paffenbarger, et. al. (40,41,44).

In his work

Individuals expending 2000 kcal or more were shown to have

4

Increased longevity.

Since the longevity study contained

Information which made It possible to replicate
PaffenbargeMs study In an older group of former athletes
and non-athletes It was reasoned that by determining the
exercise-related caloric expenditures In this population
additional Insight could be gained concerning this
relationship.

Significance q ± ±ha Study

Considerable Impact could be afforded from the
results of this study.

If Individuals, independent of

whether they are athletes or non-athletes, tend to have an
Increased longevity when they exercise at or above 2000
kcal/week then lifestyle changes could be Implemented to
enhance caloric expenditure.

Also If the findings tend to

Implicate a specific body build as being related to In­
creased longevity then again lifestyle changes (dietary and
activity) could be Implemented.
These data could result in recommendations for
lifestyle changes among population groups that may lead to
an enhanced longevity.

5

Limitations q± j M Study.

Limitations of this study are as follows:
1. A possible bias of Information may be evident
due to the large number of non-respondents In the original
1952 questionnaire.
2. Predictions to the general population are
limited due to the selectivity of subjects.
3. The study pertained only to those Individuals
who either completed both the 1976 and 1984 questionnaires
or who completed the 1976 questionnaire and was proven de­
ceased during the 1984 follow-up.
4. The method of classifying activity standards
has not been val(dated.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction

The topic of athleticism and longevity has long
been controversial.

The question of whether strenuous

athletics produces positive or detrimental effects upon
the heart goes back many ages with different theories of
thought.

An Individual who believed that exercise was

beneficial was the philosopher, Plato, who said, "Lack of
activity destroys the good condition of every human being
while movement and methodical physical exercise save It
and preserve It".

Paul In his letter to Timothy, on the

other hand, believed the opposite stating "Physical
exercise benefits little....
More recently much controversy has surfaced due to
the deaths and severe cardiovascular Illnesses seen In
prominent athletes.

James FIxx, author of The Complete

Book of Running, died recently while performing a dally
ritual - his morning Jog.

Much speculation developed

after this pertaining to the safety and "benefits" of
exercise.

Arthur Ashe Is another prominent athlete, a

tennis player, who experienced a myocardial Infarction

6

7

at an early age.

He was lucky enough to recuperate and Is

now playing tennis on a regular basis.

Again, the

question Is raised as to whether or not exercise Is safe.
Moreover, will It lead to a longer, fuller 11fe?
Many studies have been conducted which try to
answer

questions concerning Increased longevity and exer­

cise utilizing various study groups Including the general
population, university athletes, and non-athletes.
Consequently, this review of the literature pertains to
these studies.

The studies are divided Into three main

headings and are discussed separately.

Genera I Population Studies

The first study to look at habitual activity In
the general population was conducted by Pearl (47) In 1924.
Pearl looked at 132 occupations and grouped these occupa­
tions as being "heavy" or "light" In nature.

His con­

clusion In this study was that "physical hard work was
Indeed beneficial to an Individual before the age of 40".
From 35 to 44 years of age the death rate In "heavy"
occupations was 3.9? greater than that In the "light"
occupations.

From 45 to 54 the rate rises to 12.8J6 and

8

from 55 to 64 years of age the percentage Increases to
18.6£.

Superficially, the data seem to support the hy­

pothesis that physical activity Is detrimental to an In­
creased longevity.

Upon further examination, though. It

Is seen that those Individuals who are categorized as
"heavy" workers are the same Individuals who experience
envIronmentaI types of III nesses and deaths such as those
seen In coal miners and steel workers.
Approximately 30 years later Morris and colleagues
(29,30,31,32) performed a series of studies primarily
looking at London busmen.

Morris and Heady (31) looked at

causes of deaths In the middle aged during the years 19301932.

Seven conditions were Identified as major causes of

death In the middle-aged men working In what was classified
as "IIght-actlvlty" jobs.
following:

The classifications Include the

coronary heart disease (CHD), lung cancer,

appendicitis, prostate disorders, duodenal ulcers,
diabetes, and cirrhosis of the liver.
classified as "light"

Individuals

workers tended to show a decreased

longevity and an Increased Incidence of coronary heart
disease (33JJ) compared to "heavy" workers.
Morris and Crawford (30) looked at post-mortem
Information of males at 206 hospitals In the United
Kingdom and looked specifically at the coronary tree.
Dependent variables Included coronary, vascular lesions of
one centimeter or greater and the cardiac weight.

Occupa-

9

tlons were classtfled as "light" (clerk or schoolmaster),
active (postman, carpenter), and heavy (boilermaker or
dockworker).

Their findings showed that there were two

times as much Ischemic myocardial fibrosis In the light
groups as In the heavy 16.8% - 13.4?).

They concluded

that men In physically active Jobs have less CHD during
middle age than men with physically Inactive Jobs. Also,
any disease observed In active middle-aged men Is less
severe and man Ifestates itself later In life than In men
with physically Inactive Jobs.
Morris (29) looked at CHD In London.bus drivers and
conductors and found that the more active conductors had
less CHD than did the bus drivers.

Also If CHD was

clinically observed In the conductors It tended to appear
later In life and was less severe than that seen In the
drivers.

The conductors did display a higher Incidence of

angina pectoris In this study.
was performed.

In 1956 a follow-up study

In this study Morris, et. al. (32) looked

at uniforms of the drivers and conductors to determine
physique of the Individuals and the relationship to CHD.
The data exhibited the following:

drivers tend to be

taller, girth Increased with age In both groups, the girth
of the drivers was greater than that of the conductors,
and the difference In girth Is present at every age.
Therefore It was concluded that drivers are bigger when
they Join the service.

This would suggest that somatotype

10

and coronary heart disease are related and that heavier
Individuals self-select Into the more sedentary classifi­
cation of drivers.

Further study was warranted here.

In

1966 Morris, et. al. (34) published a study that looked at
667 middle-aged London bus drivers who showed no clinical
evidence of Ischemic heart disease (IHD) and followed them
for 5 years.

Forty seven men (7%) developed IHD and It

was found that more drivers than conductors developed IHD,
systolic blood pressure In men aged 30 or greater was
higher In the drivers, and blood cholesterol levels were
higher In the drivers.

This seems to Impltcate physical

activity as being protective In nature.
Morris and his colleagues (33) also looked at
postal route men and clerks.

Again, It was concluded that

the more active the Individual the less CHD, the less
severe the Ischemia If It was evident, and the more angina
pectoris when compared to the more sedentary clerks.
Morris concluded that the physical activity of work Is
Indeed protective against Ischemia and coronary heart
disease.
Similar findings were observed among other re­
searchers.

Zukel, et. al. (65) In 1959 looked at 228

cases of CHD In northeast North Dakota, 101 of which were
farmers and the rest were varied occupations.

The In­

cidence of more severe manifestations of CHD I.e., myo­
cardial Infarction (Ml) or sudden death, were two times as

11

high among other occupations as In farmers.

Preliminary

data found that men whose occupational level required no
heavy work had an Incidence rate three times as high as a
heavy worker.

Similarly, Bruner and Manells (5) found

that those In sedentary occupations In an Israeli kibbutz
had three times the mortality and three times the
Incidence of Ml as did those In active occupations.
Kahn (16) In 1963 did similar work to that of
Morris from the standpoint that he looked at Washington,
D.C. postal clerks and carriers.

He found that the

•carriers generally lived longer than the more sedentary
clerks.

The risk was found to be 1.4 - 1.9 times higher

for clerks than It was for carriers.

It was speculated

that physical activity must be a positive factor.

Fox and

Haskell (9) summarized that for those Individuals who were
more active displayed a lower Incidence of CHD.

Also

If exerctse Is to elicit decreased mortality levels It
must be performed on a continual

basis I.e., It cannot be

"stored-up" over time.
Taylor, et.al., (62) In 1962 also confirmed much
of this Information by looking at death rates among active
and sedentary railroad employees.

The highest death rate

was observed among the clerks who displayed 11.83 deaths
per 1000.

Switchmen, who were Intermediate In terms of

activity, displayed 10.29 deaths per 1000, and section
men, the most active, showed a death rate of 7.62 per

12

1000.

Paffenbarger, (43) In one of his earlier studies,

looked at characteristics In youth which were predisposing
to fatal stroke In later years.

He Identified seven

factors: cigarette smoking, high blood pressure, lower
3 ___
reciprocal of the ponderaI Index (ht./ /wt.), shorter body
stature, early parental death, heart consciousness, and
non-partIcIpatIon In sports.

Kannel (17) went further and

stated that heart dIsease was due to sedentary 11vIng,
obesity, and excessive cigarette smoking.

Frank, et. al.

(10) noted that Incidence of fatal Ml among sedentary
Individuals who smoked was nine times that of age-matched
physically active non-smokers.

These studies all helped

to solidify the Idea that sedentary living was Indeed a
negative factor when related to longevity.
Pa Imore (45) In 1969 stated that a healthy and
well functioning person had a better chance of surviving
stress and trauma than a sick or weak person.

He found

that actuarial 11fe expectancy, physical functioning, work
satisfaction, and performance Intelligence were the four
best predictors of longevity.

His subjects were volun­

teers between 60 and 94 years of age from North Carolina.
After evaluating varied activities no association was
found between Increased activity and decreased mortality.
This could have been due to the fact that the original
sample (n=268) was small and that only a small number of
Individuals died during the study. Also a bias was

13

Introduced Into the study since volunteers were only
utlIIzed.
In 1979 Belloc (4) sent questionnaires to 6,982
men and women living In Alameda County, CA.
mortality over a 5.5 year period.

She looked at

Her findings showed

that men who reported that they often engage In active
sports had the lowest mortality.

Also the average life

expectancy of men who reported six or seven "good”
practices was 11 years more than those reporting fewer
than four.

Bassler <3) agreed with the Idea that exercise

Is beneficial and stated, after working with the American
Medical Joggers Association, "that pathologists hope to
see a decrease In the Incidence of CHD but also a decrease
In cirrhosis, lung cancer, emphysema, and athero­
sclerosis".

In 1978 Paffenbarger, et. al. (39) worked

with longshoremen and categorized workers Into high and
low expenditure ratings.

When they looked at cause of

death from ail causes there was a 46% added risk
associated with low energy levels.

Myocardial Infarction,

sudden death, and stroke all Increase with a concomitant
decrease In energy expended.

This group also Identified

smoking and elevated blood pressure as prime Indicators
and predictors of Ml, stroke, and sudden death.

Thus the

major risk factors surface when dealing with the mortality
of Individuals.

14

MenottI and Seccareccla (21) looked at 99,029
Italian railroad employees.

They observed mortality based

on physical activity and Job responsibility and found that
activity and Job responsibility were Independent predic­
tors of mortality.

They found that Individuals who were

sedentary and had high Job responsibilities had the
highest Incidence of Ml.

Generally the sedentary Indivi­

duals had the highest Incidence of deaths In the groups
Independent of age.
One study performed by Rose and Cohen (55) In 1977
looked at activity both on and off the Job. They found
that off-Job activity was a good predictor of longevity
while vocational activity was not.

Those Individuals who

were "high" In the avocatlonal activity and low In
vocational activity lived 3.8 years longer than those low
In both avocatlonal and vocational activity.
Tabje 2-1 summarizes the studies performed on the
general population groups.

Most studies looked at physi­

cal activity and Its association with cardiovascular
disease.

Also most of the work Involved vocational

activity only.

Nevertheless It Is apparent that the In­

vestigators all favored activity as a positive Influence
on longevity.

fable 2-1. Summary of General Population L o n gevity Studies.

Author

Pearl

(47)

Date

Activity
Type

1924

Vocational

Parameters
Studied

Mor t a l i t y

Findings

Light activity
favored over heavy

Morris

(31,32)

1953,
1956

Vocational

Cause of
death

Activity favored

Morris

(30)

1958

Vocational

Coronary
Heart disease

Ac t i v i t y favored

Morris

(29)

1959

Vocational

Coronary
Heart disease

Activity favored

Morris

(34)

1966

Vocational

Ischemic
Heart disease

Activity favored

Morris

(33)

1953

Vocational

Coronary
Heart disease

Activity favored

1959

Vocational

Myocardial
Infarction

Activity favored

1960

Vocational

Myocardial
Infarction

Activity favored

Zukel

(63)

Brunner

(5)

Table 2-1.

Kahn

Cont.

(IS)

Pox and
Haskell

1963

Vocational

Coronary
Heart disease

Activity favored

1968

Review

Coronary
H eart disease

Activity favored

(9)

Taylor

(51)

1962

Vocational

Cause of
death

Activity favored

Kannel

(17)

1967

Vocational

Coronary
H eart disease

Activity favored

1966

Vocational/
Avocational

Coronary
H e a r t disease

Activity favored

1969

Vocational/
Avocational

Cause of
death

M o relationship
between activity and
d e creased mortality

1973

Avocational

Mo rtality

Activity favored

P affenbarger
(39)

1978

Vocational

Myocardial
Infarction

Activity favored

Menotti and
Seccareccia
(21)

1985

Vocational

M o r tality

Activity favored

Prank

(10)

Palmore

Belloc

(45)

(4)

Table 2-1. Cont.

Rose and
Cohen (55)

1977

Vocational/
Avocational

Cause of
death

Avocational activity
is a good predictor
of longevity

18

Non-Cohort Athletic Studies

The early studies dealt with college athletes who
were generally compared to an Insured group of men.

These

are Investigations along actuarial lines Into the afterhlstorles of sportsmen so that longevity may be deter­
mined.

Probably the earliest study was conducted by Dr.

John Morgan In 1873.

He looked at the health of oarsmen

who rowed In the Oxford-Cambridge boat race between 1829
and 1859.

He observed age at death of the oarsmen and

compared that with Dr. Farris EnglIsh Life Tables. Morgan
(28) found that the rowers tended to live two years longer
than that expected from Dr. Farr's tables.

Although this

paper was a major contribution at the time It had some
limitations.

Among these Is the fact that the population

was small (n=200).

Also Dr. Farr's life tables were based

on the general population with both healthy and unhealthy
Individuals.

This was not a good comparison group for a

population of oarsmen.
Meylan (24) also published Information regarding
oarsmen on the Harvard

crew teams from

found that the oarsmen

IIved 2.88 years longer than the

general population.

1852-1892.Meylan

Again, criticism can be placed upon

this paper In a similar manner to
In 1906 Gaines

that

of Morgan.

and Hunter (11)found that Yale

athletes who graduated before 1905 experienced deaths only

19

49JJ as that which would be expected by Insurance tables.
Anderson’s data from a 1916 study (1) Is shown
in Table 2-2.

Two Insurance populations were compared

with 808 Yale Athletes.

The athletes were favored In

terms of longevity.

Table 2-2.

Sport

Track
FootbalI
Baseba11
Crew
Total

Comparison of Actual to Expected Deaths Among
Yale University Athletes (From Anderson, 1916)

Number
of
Letter
Winners

276
213
148
171
808

Number
of
Deaths

13
16
11
18
58

Percent of
Actual to
Expected
Deaths,
ActuarIa 1
Society Table

62
58
47
45
52

Percent of
Actual to
Expected
Deaths,
American
Table

52
52
42
41
46

Year
of
Earl Iest
Data

1868
1872
1865
1855

HIM (14) In 1927 studied British cricket players and
again found an Increased longevity among the athletes.
Dublin (8) in 1928 published research complied
from ten Eastern American Universities Involving 4,976
baseball, football, track and field, and rowing athletes.
Athletes graduated prior to 1905. The athletes were com­
pared to two different insurance tables.

The Medico-

20

Actuarial Table of Mortality displayed an actual to
expected death ratio of .932.

The slightly more recent

American Men Table had a ratio of .915.

Therefore,

regardless of which table Is used the athlete Is favored
by at least a margin of 6.8JS-8.5?.

Dublin noted the

problems associated with utilizing an Insured population
(I.e., the Insured population Is of a different physical
and economic grade than that of the athlete) and stated
that It was used only because there was nothing better to
use as a comparison.

The following tables (2-3, 2-4, 2-5)

look at mortality ratios when broken Into sport, date of
birth, and colleges.
Table 2-3 shows the actual to expected death
ratios among the different sports.

It should be noted

that those Individuals engaged In two or more sports had a
very favorable mortality when compared with letter winners
of Just one sport.
Table 2-4 shows the breakdown by date of birth
with those born later showing a more favorable mortality.
Finally table 2-5 shows the mortality breakdown by college
with Amherst and Brown showing the best ratios.

21

Table 2-3. Percent of Actual vs. Expected Deaths According
to the American Men Table (From Dublin, 1928)

Sport

Al 1
Classes
Comb Ined

C 1asses
Prior
to 1880

Classes
1880-89

Classes
1890-99

Classes
1900-05

All sports

91.5

94.1

94.6

93.6

72.6

BasebalI
Crew
Footba11
Track
Two or more
sports

98.0
94.1
88.3
91.8

98.6
92.2
87.6
---

97.4
72.1
94.7
121.7

103.1
124.0
91.6
86.6

81.4
113.4
63.4
73.0

78.3

85.8

80.8

81.0

62.9

Table 2-4. Mortality by Birth Decade of Athletes of Ten
Colleges Compared with Expected Deaths by
American Men Table (From Dublin, 1928)

Class Group

Actual
Deaths

Expected
Deaths by
American Men
Table

All classes

1,202

1,314

91.5

454
322
310
116

483
340
331
160

94.1
94.6
93.6
72.6

Prior to 1880
1880-1889
1890-1899
1900-1905

Percent
Actual of
Expected
Deaths

22

Table 2-5. Mortality of Athletes of Ten Colleges, Compared
with the Expected Mortality According to the
American Men Ultimate Table. Specified Class
Groups Experience on Classes 1905 and Prior
(From Dublin, 1928)

Co 11ege
All
co11eges
comb Ined

Al 1
Classes
Comb Ined

Classes
Prior to
1880

Classes
1880-89

Classes
1890-99

C 1asses
1900-05

91.5

94.1

94.6

93.6

72.6

Amherst
74.7
Brown
74.1
Cornel I
94.6
Dartmouth 113.4
100.1
Harvard
Mass.
AgrlcuIt. 84.4
Tulane
94.2
Wes 1eyan
85.3
Wi11 lams
79.5
Yale
89.2

91.1
80.4
99.5
112.4
107.5

62.9
99.5
104.1
113.8
99.2

73.6
59.8
97.9
127.1
94.9

56.2
51.7
70.0
80.0
85.0

98.6
---

---

93.4
---82.0

----

94.0
75.7
73.6
61.9
108.6

--120.3
61.2
101.1
71.1

Rate not specified

84.2
93.7

23

Dub 11n cone Iuded that the athIetes showed a
favorable mortality but was surprised that It was not even
more favorable.

His final opinion was that athleticism

with "loose supervision" In the earlier periods may have
been harmful.
Reed and Love (53) studied West Point athletes
compared with West Point officers and Army officers
against the general population.

They found that both the

officers and the athletes had an Increased longevity over
the control populations.
Cooper, et. al., (6) In 1937 observed that 24
Australian oarsmen (n=100) of Ormond College had died
between an Investigation period of 1885 and 1905.

The

expected mortality was 31.8 Individuals producing an
actual to expected percentage of 75.4$.

This may be

biased due to the low numbers of rowers Initially studied.
Hartley and Llewellyn (13) used Oxford and Cambridge
rowers (n=767) and divided them Into 4 groups based on
age.

Table 2-6 Is from the HartIey-LI ewe Ilyn study and

contains mortality data from the, at the time up to date,
1924 - 1929 standard table.

From these figures It appears

that for ages up to 50 In periods 1 through 3 that the
athletes were not as favored as the general population.
After age 50 though the figures seem to display a trend
toward Increased longevity.
Wakefield (62) used high school athletes as the

24

Table 2-6. Actual versus Expected Deaths by Age Group.
(From Hartley and Lewwllyn, 1939)

Period

Age
Group

1
(18291862)

Up to 50
51 to 70
Over 70

22
1
—

A 11 Ages

2
(18631893)

3
(18941923)

4
(19241928)

Actual
Deaths

Expected Deaths
by the A 19241929 Table

Actual as
Percentage
of Expected

8.7
0.5
--

252.9
200.0
----

23

. 9.2

250.0

Up to 50
51 to 70
Over 70

53
39
18

24.7
40.8
19.9

214.6
95.6
90.5

AlI Ages

110

85.4

128.8

Up to 50
51 to 70
Over 70

32*
85
108

23.3
81.1
120.2

137.3
104.8
89.9

Al1 Ages

225

224.6

100.2

Up to 50
51 to 70
Over 70

3
13
20

3.4
13.2
21.9

88.2
98.3
91.3

A 11 Ages

36

38.5

93.5

* Excluding 37 Great War Deaths.

25

primary research group In 1944.

He found that there were

123 actual deaths compared to an expected value of 181.1.
He also found that the younger players, 14,15, and 16
years old, had an Increased longevity as compared to
17,18, and 19 year old boys (54.2$ vs 78.9$).
Schmid (56) In 1952 reported on 400 deceased
CzechosIavakIan athletes.
supplied In Table 2-7.

A summary of the data Is

Upon analysis the athletes again

are favored In terms of longevity.

Table 2-7. Longevity of Athletes versus Non-Athletes.
(From Schmid, 1952)

Year of Birth

1861-1870
1871-1880

Mean Age (yrs)
of Non-Athletes

58.2
60.3

Mean Age (yrs)
of Athletes

66.9
61.7

Karvonen’s 1959 paper (18) pertained primarily to
the training of the cardiovascular system but also looked
at the length of life of 388 pre-1930 champion skiers.

He

concluded that training of the cardiovascular system over
a period of several years does not appreciably shorten
life but may even prolong It.

Also, the cholesterol

levels of trained athletes was lower than that of the
general population.

He called training programs "proven-

26

five rehabilitation" regimens If significant training of
the cardiovascular system was enhanced.
Pyorala, et.al. (52) studied long distance
runners (n=40) and skiers (n=53) and a control group.

It

was found that Irrespective of age and absence or presence
of CHD the average degree of physical activity was higher
In the athletes than the control group.

Mortality ratios

were not presented.
Schnohr (58) performed a Danish study on 297 male
athletic champions born between 1880 and 1910 compared to
the general population.

The data Indicated that male

athletic champions under the age of 50 had a significantly
lowered mortality, 61Jf, than the general population.
Above the age of 50 though no significant difference was
found I.e., age 50-64 the ratio was 108J& and at ages 65-80
the ratio was 102JJ.

In 1972, Schnohr (57) reported that

mortalIty after the age of 50 was unaffected by the degree
of past athletic performance,

instead the difference In

any Increased athletic longevity was due more to socio­
economic status than sport performed.
Karvonen (20) In 1974 again looked at the
longevity of endurance Finnish skiers and the general
population.

The median age for the skiers was 73.0 years.

During 1931-1935 the median age for Finnish men was 68.9,
1946-1950 was 68.7, and during 1956-1960 the median age
was 70.2.

As compared to men In the 40's the skiers lived

27

4.3 years longer but this was reduced to 2.8 years In the
1950’s.

Table 2-8 shows the number of surviving men In

the general population versus the skiers.

It Is apparent

that the largest difference Is In the 65-69 age group.
Thus It can be concluded as Karvonen states In his

1976

paper (19) that Finnish skiers tend to live longer than
the general population of Finnish males.

This was

associated with fewer risk factors, fewer signs of re­
tarding the aging process, and healthier life habits.
The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (22,23)
performed studies on major league baseball players and
used a white male population as the control group.
Table

2-9

shows

that pre-1900 players had

a

mortality

ratio of 103/6 while post 1900 players had a ratio of
This

was

further

broken

down by

batting

71J6.

average

and

position played.
Finally Table 2-10 summarizes the studies which
have compared athletes versus a general population control
group I.e., non-cohort studies.

Most studies Indicate

that athletes lived longer. As previously stated, however,
many of these studies have pitfalls.

Usually an Insured

group of Individuals Is far different than an athletic
group.

They usually reflect healthy, prosperous Indivi­

duals who can afford life Insurance policies.

General

population tables Include both healthy and unhealthy

28

Table 2-8. Number of Surviving Men In the Cohort of Skiers
and In the Total Male Finnish Population During
Three Periods. (From Karvonen, 1976)

Total Male Population
Age (Yrs)
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85-89
90-94
95-99

Skiers

1931-1935

1946-1950

1000
1000
982
963
945
917
872
847
800
738
672
527
397
224
113
38
38

1000
981
953
928
901
871
836
793
738
666
578
478
372
273
203
164
--

1000
988
967
946
925
901
870
826
765
685
583
465
341
238
144
100
--

1956-1
1000
995
987
976
964
946
923
887
832
753
646
515
368
228
120
63
43

29

Table 2-9. Mortality of Major League Baseball Players
Compared with White Males In the United States
Population. (From Metropolitan Life Statistical
Bulletin, 1975)

Players Who Had Careers Beginning
1876-1900

Deaths

1901-1973

Morta11ty
Ratio

Batting Avg.
.300 or more ....77
.250-.299...
.200-.249...*
less than
.200..... .
All........ .1,060

109
103

Position Played
Pitcher........242
Catcher......,.118
First Base....,
Second Base...,
Third Base.
Shortstop....
Outfield.......221

105*
108
100
105
103
90
95

88*
99
107

Deaths

102
547
558
588
1,795

594
184
96
104
88
94
342

Morta11ty
Ratio

71*
74
65
75
71

79*
69
79
68
55
67
72

Source of basic data: The Baseball Encyclopedia, 2nd ed.,
New York, Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1974.

30

individuals which are far unlike an athletic group.

Use

of these tables will provide a certain bias to the re­
sults.

Also In many studies the population studied was

too small for accurate analyses.
Other studies have been performed which attempt to
alleviate some of these biases by looking at an athletic
group and matching It with a control group which was
usually In school at the same time as the athlete.
studies were termed cohort studies.

These

Fable

2-10.

Author

Summary of Non-Cohort Athletic L o ngevity Studies.

year

E x a mined
Population

Nu m b e r

Comparison
Population

Fi n dings

Comments

Morgan
(28)

1873

1829-1859
O x f o r d and
Cambridge
Univ e r s i t y
Oarsmen

251

Dr. Farr's
E n g l i s h Life

Athletes
favored

By 2.0
years

Meylan
(24)

1904

1852-1892
Harv a r d
U niv e r s i t y
Oarsmen

152

S t a ndard
Mo r t a l i t y
Tables

Athletes
favored

By 2.88
years

Gaines
and
Hunter
(11)

1906

Pre-1905
Yale
University
Athletes

Mot
S tated

Insurance
F ables

Athletes
favored

Mo r t a l i t y
R atio 49%

Anderson
(1)

1916

1855-1905
Yale Univ.
Athletes

808

Actuarial
Athletes
favored
Society
T a b l e (AST)
and Am. Fable
(AD

AST Mort.
R atio 52%
AT Mort.
Ratio 46%

Hill

1927

1800-1888
British
Cricket

(14)

3,424

E n g l i s h Life
Table # 4
and t 8

Athletes
favored

Signif.
at All
ages

rable

2-10.

Cont.

Dublin
(8)

1928

1890-1905
Athletes
from Ten
Eastern
American
Colleges

Reed
and
Love
(53)

1931

1901-1916
West Point
Military
Academy

4,976

Wot
Stated
(Total
M=4,991)

MedicoAthletes
Actuarial
favored
(MA) Table
American
Men fable
of Mort. (AMTM)

MA Mort.
R atio 93%
AMTM
Mort.
R atio 91%

American Men
Table of
Mort. and
West Point
Officers

Athletes
favored

By .251.25 Yrs.

Cooper,
1937
0 1S u l l i v a n ,
and Hughes(6)

Or m a n d
College
Oarsmen

100

Australian
Insurance
Table

Athletes
favored

Mort.
R a t i o 75%

Hartley
and
Llewellyn
(13)

1939

1829-1928
O x f o r d and
Cambridge
Oarsmen

767

4 Standard
Mort.
Tables

Athletes
favored

#1=87.8%
#2=76.7%
#3=85.1%
#4=93.5%

Wa k efield
(52)

1944

1911-1935
Indiana
High School
Basketball
Players

2,919

U.S. Bureau
of Census
Life Tables

Athletes
favored

Mort.
Ratio 68%

Sc h m i d
(56)

1952

1851-1880
Czech. Ath.

400

General Pop.
Mon-Ath.

Athletes
favored

By 1.448.55 Yrs.

Cable

2-10.

Cont.

388

Karvonen
(18)

1959

P r e - 1930
Finnish
Champion
Skiers

1931-1940
Athletes
and 1951favored
1955 General
Male Finnish
Pop. and 19491953 Ins. Pop.

By 6-7
Yrs. over
1931-1940
M o diff.
with Ins.
group

Pyorala,
et.al.,
(52)

1967

Finnish
Long Oist.
Runners and
Skiers

93

Randomly
S e l ected
Finnish
Pop.

Athletes
favored

Ratio not
calc.
Activity
greater.

S chnohr
(59)

1971

1880-1910
Danish
Champion
Athletes

297

General
Male Pop.

Athletes
favored

Mort.
R atio to
age 50=
61%, post
age 50=
108-109%

Metro­
politan
Lite
(22,23)

1975

1876-1973
6 ,753
Major League
Baseball
Players

General
Pop. (Nhite
Males) of
the U.S.

Athletes
favored

1876-1900
Mort.
Ratio=
103%,
1901-1973
Ratio=
71%

34

CphPLt A.thlsi.e Studies

The following studies utilize, what Is thought
to be, a more defined and uniform control group.

Athletes

are compared to non-athletes who attended the same school
or university at the same time as the athletes.

That Is,

both groups come from a similar population and statistics
may be applied over a wide variety of variables such as
age at death, cause of death, as well as specific activity
ratings.
Greenway and Hlscock (12) were probably the first
to utilize this method.

They obtained records of 686

former Yale athletes and compared them with 9,421 Yale
non-letter winners.

When compared to Insured lives the

athletes were favored but when compared to classmates the
death rate among non-letter graduates was 4.59 per 1000
and that of the letter winners was 5.61 per 1000.

It was

reported that a large percentage of athletic deaths were
due to accidents and war casualties.

Special considera­

tion In this study must be given due to the small numbers
of athletes.
In 1932 Dublin (7) compared his 4,976 letter
wtnners from Eastern American Universities with 38,269
graduates.

Two-thirds of the graduates came from Harvard,

Yale and Cornell and 6,500 were honor students.
2-11 summarizes the findings.

Table

It can be seen that honors

35

men lived longer than the athletes by an average of two
years and this was maintained throughout life.

Moreover,

the athletes closely approximated the life expectancy of
college graduates and held a slight advantage when
compared with data obtained from the Amerlcan-Men Table.

Table 2-11. A Comparison of Expectation of Life In Years.
(From Dublin, 1932)

Age
22
27
32
37
42
47
52
57
62
67
72
77
82
87
92

General Col lege
Graduates
(38,269)

45.71
41.68
37.59
33.51
29.44
25.37
21.43
17.78
14.48
11.47
8.81
6.52
4.56
3.01
1.92

Col lege
AthIetes
(4,976)

45.56
41.41
37.25
33.09
28.92
24.80
20.85
17.34
14.09
11.06
8.41
6.15
4.24
2.77
1.75

Co 11ege
Honor Men
(6,500)

47.73
43.61
39.48
35.30
31.07
26.85
22.79
19.03
15.56
12.36
9.50
7.06
4.98
3.30
2.11

American
Men Tab 1e
(1900-1915)
44.29
40.18
36.03
31.83
27.66
23.62
19.79
16.25
13.06
10.28
7.91
5.96
4.41
3.21
2.30

In 1954, Sir Alan Rook (54) published Information
regarding Cambridge athletes.

The athletes Included men

who, during a certain period, had represented Cambridge In
contests against Oxford University.

The sportsmen (n =

834) Included track and field athletes, cricket athletes,

36

rowers and rugby footballers.

Two control groups were

selected; Intellectuals (n=382) and random (n=379)
Individuals.
12.

The breakdown data Is presented In Table 2-

Table 2-13 displays the survival rates of the

sportsmen compared to the two control groups.

Rook found

no significant difference In age at death when comparing
the groups but found that the Intellectuals lived
approximately 2 years longer than the control group and
1.5 years longer than the sportsmen.

The major cause of

death was cardiovascular disease (Table 2-14) formulating
approximately 40% of all deaths In the control groups.
The sportsmen displayed lower percentages In cause of
death from cardiovascular disease In all athletic groups
except the rugby football players (.42%).

There was little

evidence to support the statement that sportsmen are more
likely to die from cardiovascular disease or that they are
affected at an earlier age.
Michigan State University has looked extensively
Into the question of athleticism and longevity.

Montoye

and associates (27) not only reported age at death and
cause of death but also vocational and recreational post
college activity.

A 1952 questionnaire was sent to 2,258

Individuals broken equally Into an athletic group (letter
winners at Michigan State University) and a randomly
selected control group obtained from the registrar’s

37

Table 2-12. Total Numbers Under Investigation. (From
Rook, 1954)

Group

Number

Dead

Alive

252
187
178

206
162
155

15
15
16

31
10
7

217

180

23

14

834

703

69

62

Controls:
Intellectuals 382
Random Group 379

332
293

42
43

8
43

Sportsmen:
AthIetes
Cricketers
Rowing Men
Rugby
Footballers

Total

Lost To Study

Total

761

625

85

51

Grand Total

1,595

1,328

154

113

38

Table 2-13. Survival Rates of Sportsmen and Controls
Excluding Deaths Due to War and Accidents.
(From Rook, 1954)

No. of Survivors at Each Age
Age

Sportsmen

20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90

1,000
996
982
963
934
898
870
825
763
673
523
377
186
82
23

Intellectuals

Random Group

1,000
987
962
948
937
910
888
841
791
738
597
434
231
92
26

1,000
985
964
949
913
889
867
837
754
634
532
364
193
82
23

No. In group..

362

325

Avg. age at
death....

69.41

67.43

Variance of
estimate of
avg. age at
death....

0.61

0.74

39

Table 2-14. Causes of Death In Percentages. (From Rook,
1954)

Groups
Ath.

Crick.

Row.

Rugby

Intel 1ac­
tuals
Random

Disease:
Infection
Pneumonia
Bronchitis
Cardio­
vascular
Conditions
Neop 1asms
Gen ItoUrlnary
DIseases
Accidents
and War
Deaths
Sen 111ty
Suicide
MlscelIan.

11.8

14.1

14.6

16.0

11.7

16.2

6.4

13.1

8.4

8.0

8.2

10.5

36.4
13.6

37.2
10.1

31.5
18.4

42.0
12.0

39.9
12.3

41.5
12.8

5.5

7.0

4.6

4.0

8.2

7.1

13.6
3.9
0.9
7.9

9.1
5.1
1.0
3.3

10.8
3.8
--7.9

8.0
3.0
3.0
4.0

4.7
6.4
4.1
4.5

7.0
2.8
--2.1

40

office.

A total return rate of 52.4JK was observed.

The

Initial return showed that 67 out of 625 athletes had died
while 55 out of 557 non-athletes were deceased.

Also, In

regards to vocational and recreational activity It was
found that prior to age 45 the athletes were more active
than the non-athletes but this was reversed after age 45.
The non-athletes tended to be more active than the
athletes.

These data should be Interpreted with caution

due to the low return rate, although It seems plausible
that the Increased activity among the non-athletes was
beneficial and may be a reason why fewer non-athletes were
deceased at the time of the questionnaire.
In 1962, Montoye, et.al., (26) reported seven-year
follow-up analyses of the original questionnaire.

Figure

2-1 shows the mean age at death which was not signifi­
cantly different among the groups.

It can be seen In

Figure 2-2 that athletes tend to die more often from
cardlovascular disease than do the non-athletes.

Also

from Figure 2-3 It can be seen that when subjects who died
from cardiovascular disease were compared with living
subjects (data obtained when subjects were alive) the
living subjects performed more physical activity.

There­

fore living subjects were much more active than deceased
subjects when they were alive Irrespective of whether they
were athletes or non-athletes.

41

B. MEAN
Violent

Violent

Deaths

AGE AT

DEATH

Only

Deaths Excluded

Total Deaths

20

so
Agi

40
at

SO

(0

Death

Figure 2-1. Mean Age at Death of Michigan State University
Athletes and Non-Athletes. (From Montoye,1962)

C. PERCENTAGE
■

OF DEATHS

Cnrdin.aiculgr P itta x M

FROM CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES

Cordiovosculor Diseoses
40

SO

Athlete

"

|

.

20

|

-----------

SO

Other

70

00

Non-Athlete L

Other

Cnusts -----

Causes

00

90

100

I

Figure 2-2. Percentage of Deaths from Cardiovascular
Diseases of Michigan State University Athletes
and Non-Athletes. (From Montoye, 1962)
Vigorous

Moderate

Mod
hflp«r
2 *oy

L=LIvtng
D=Deceased

A. NON-SPORTS PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
AT TIM E OF FIRST CONTACT

Figure 2-3. Physical Activity of Individuals Within the
Michigan State University Longevity Study.
(From Montoye, 1962)

42
Again, In 1967, Montoya's group (25) updated the
status of the study.

It was reported that the mean age at

death for the athlete was 62 years while that for the non­
athlete was 64 years.

This was not considered significant

but It was noted that the "amount of physical activity was
significantly greater among the subjects who survived the
seven years."
Paffenbarger and his group (42) presented a paper
Involving approximately 45,000 college students from the
University of Pennsylvania and Harvard.

A questionnaire

was utilized with an 85J6 response rate.

Paffenbarger

found an Inverse relationship between participation In
varsity athletics and coronary heart disease.

A

significantly smaller percentage of varsity athletes was
found among future coronary decendents than among control
subjects (11Jf to 16/8).

The data did not distinguish any

protective effect afforded by vigorous physical exertion.
Harvard University was the site of Polednak and
Damon's study (50).

They reported on 2,090 men and were

divided Into three groups; major athletes (those that won
a varsity letter In a major sport), minor athletes (those
that did not win a letter or won a letter In a minor
sport), and the non-athletes.

The data, summarized In

Table 2-15, showed that the minor athletes
longest In each decade studied.
and non-athletes did not differ.

lived the

Major athletes
Age at death (Table 2-

43

Table 2-15. Harvard Athletes, Alive or Dead of Natural
Causes; Percentage of Men Reaching Ages 70
and 75, by Birth Decade. (From Polednak
and Damon, 1970)

Reaching Aga 13.

Reaching Age 70
Birth
Decade

1860-69 1870-79 1880-89 1860-69
N
*# N
** N **
N
**

1870-79
1880-89
N
** N
**

Major
Ath.
26
46.4 52 59.7 14 60.9 21 37.5 42 48.3 12 52.2
Minor
Athlete 29
58.0 86 63.2 55 76.4 21 42.0 72 52.9 48 66.7
NonAth.
239 57.2 444 60.7 255 62.9 186 44.5 333 45.5 201 49.6
* Percent of men In each
decade who reached the
athletes alive or dead
decade 1860-69, 26, or

athletic category In each birth
specified age. Thus, of 56 major
of natural causes In the birth
46.4*, reached age 70.

Table 2-16. Harvard Athletes: Mean Age at Death for Men
Dead of Natural Causes. (From Polednak and
Damon, 1970)

Age at death
(yrs.)

Major Ath.
Minor Ath.
Non-Ath.

N

1860-69
Mean S.D.

55 67.3
49 67.9
416 69.3

16.8
18.0
17.4

N

1870-79
Mean S.D.

84 69.8
119 70.8
699 70.1

15.9
14.7
15.0

N

1880-89
Mean S.D.

16 66.2
43 67.2
308 67.7

14.2
16.8
12.5

Note: Percentage of deaths among original cohort In each birth
decade: 1860-69, 99.3*; 1870-79; 94.6*, 1880-89, 75.7*.
Differences among athletic categories within each birth
decade are not significant.

44
16)

shows that major athletes did not live as long as

the other two groups.

It was postulated that body build

may have been a pre-dIsposIng factor.
Polednak (48,49), In a 1972 study, reported on the
longevity of 6,303 Harvard athletes and classmates.
Groups were categorized Into major and minor athletes and
a non-athletlc control group.
shown In Table 2-17.

The mean age at death Is

The findings were small and Incon­

sistent but It can be seen that major athletes were the
shortest lived In respect to the other two groups.

It was

expected that since a greater percentage of minor athletes
were still alive In the latter two decades studied that
they would eventually Improve their longevity when com­
pared to the other two.

Two possible explanations were

afforded for this Increased longevity among the minor
athletes; "that they are a select group In terms of
general health or that they continue their habitual
activity later In life and benefit from this".

Table 2-17. Mean Age at Death for Harvard Athletes and
Their Classmates Dead of Natural Causes.
(From Polednak, 1972)

N
Major Ath.
Minor Ath.
Non-Ath.

1860-69
Mean S.D.

N

1870-79
Mean S.D.

N

1880-89
Mean S.D.

139 65.7 17.1
184 67.8 17.1
214 64.2 13.8
228 68.6 16.5
287 67.9 15.1
592 64.5 14.2
842 67.8 16.9 1,259 68.5 15.4 1,186 65.2 14.6

45

Olson (36) reported on the Michigan State
University data with respect to vocational and avocatlonal
activity patterns.

Among subjects studied between 1960

and 1968 those that were living performed more physical
activity prior to the study period than those deceased.
This was Irrespective of athletic status.

In terms of

avocatlonal activity It was found that the former athletes
were more active than the non-athletes.

However, age at

death (Table 2-18) favored the non-athletes but this was
not significant.

In 1978, Olson et.al., (37,38) showed

that non-athletes lived longer than former athletes (70.17
years vs. 68.13 years).
Prout (51) diverted from the results of most of
the succeeding studies by reporting an age at death ad­
vantage for the athlete.

He observed 172 total crew-

members from the Harvard and Yale teams.

The athletes

were favored by 6.35 years at Yale and 6.24 years at
Harvard.

Apart from the small numbers this was an un­

expected and unexplained result (Table 2-19).
Stephens (61) looked at activity ratings among
Individuals In the Michigan State University study.
Avocatlonal ratings were subjectively analyzed and sub­
jects were placed In either sedentary, light, or mediumheavy activity categories.

Athletes and non-athletes did

not differ In terms of percentages deceased, percentages

46

Table 2-18. Mean Age at Death of Athletes and NonAthletes. (From Olson, 1972)

1952-1960

N

Athletes
Non-Ath.

Mean Age
at Death

46
30

67.32
69.81

1960-1968

N

62
57

Mean Age
at Death

72.29
72.46

Total 1952-1968

N

Mean Age
at Death

108
87

70.17
71.57

Table 2-19. Comparison of Average Life Span of Crew
Members and Controls at Harvard and Yale.
(From Prout, 1972)

Group

No. of
Subjects

Average
Life Span

t-test

P

Harvard crew
Harvard controls

90
90

67.79
61.54

2.41

<.05

Yale crew
Yale controls

82
82

67.91
61.56

2.37

<.05

172
Combined crew
Combined controls 172

67.85
61.55

3.39

<.01

47

In birth decades, or percentages In specific activity
categories.

There was a general trend Implicating those

Individuals who died towards 1976 having a higher activity
rating than those Individuals dying shortly after 1960.
There were no energy expenditure ranges stated for each
category therefore It Is difficult to determine how much
activity may have produced the trend toward Increased
longevity.
Paffenbarger, et.al., (44) looked at physical
activity as an Index of heart attack risk In 16,936
Harvard alumni who entered college between 1916-1950.
Questionnaires were utilized In 1962 and 1966 with
sponse rates of 71$ and 82$ respectfully.

re­

Activity was

computed In kllocalorles (kcal) for flights of stairs
walked, city blocks walked, and light and strenuous
sports.

Paffenbarger used 2000 kcal/week as a cutoff

point and found that Individuals below this were at a 64$
Increased risk of heart attack over their classmates
(Figure 2-4).

From Table 2-20 It can be seen that Indivi­

duals showing a higher Incidence of Ml were relatively
Inactive, did not participate in strenuous or light
sports, walked fewer city blocks and climbed fewer stairs
than those Individuals with a low Incidence of Ml.

From

Table 2-21 It can be seen that varsity athletes maintained
their Increased longevity only If activity was maintained.

Table 2-20. Age-adjusted Rates and Relative Risks of
First Heart Attack (H.A.) Among Harvard Male
Alumni. (From Paffenbarger, 1978)

Physical
Activity

Stairs
Cl Imbed
<50
50+

Person years
of
observation

No. with H.A.
per 10,000
person-years of
observation

Relative
Risk of
H.A.

P

37,946
76,064

56.5
45.1

1.25

.008

City Blocks
Walked
<5
24,996
5+
85,345

57.8
45.7

1.26

.016

Light Sports
Play
No
50,606
Yes
16,032

59.8
55.3

1.08

.505

Strenuous
Sports
Play
No
Yes

66,638
45,724

54.1
39.3

1.38

.001

Physical
Activity
Index
(kcal/week)
<2000
56,459
2000+ 38,027
Unknown
23,194

57.9
35.3
47.6

1.64

<.001

49

Table 2-21. Age-adjusted First Heart Attack (H.A.) Among
Harvard Athletes and Non-Athletes Based on
Physical Activity. (From Paffenbarger, 1978)

AJumnl Physical Activity Jlld.ex Jte&l/tf.eeJO
<500
No,.* Rate**

500--1999
Rate
No.

2000+
No.
Rate

Varsity
Athlete

*

No

92

70.7

183

53.3

98

35.3

Yes

12

92.7

20

45.2

24

35.2

Number with H.A.

** Number with H.A. per 10,000 person-years of
observation.

50

"Student athleticism Is unrelated to heart attack risk
later In life".

Paffenbargerfs study made a strong case

for physical activity but was criticized for Its evalua­
tion of activity and the utilization of 2000 kcal/week as
the main criterion for evaluation.
In an effort to respond to critics, Paffenbarger,
et.al. (41) did an update on his original Harvard Alumni
study.

He categorized his subjects Into three energy

expenditure ranges; less than 500, 500-1,999, and 2000+
kcals/week.

This represented 15$, 45$, and 40$ of the

population.

His findings supported his original paper,

I.e., vigorous sports play by alumni Is Important for
CHD health but sports play during school had little effect
on longevity.

Also, ex-varsity athletes who were active

(2000+ kcal/week) had half the CHD risk of less active
classmates.

Inactive students becoming active were at as

low a risk as that of active ex-varsity athletes.

Less

active alumni were at a 49$ greater risk than males who
were more active.

Also, conversion from a sedentary to an

active life style could reduce CHD risk by 33$.

The

stereograms In Figure 2-5 depict the relative risk of a
first CHD attack.

Paffenbarger concluded that "we do not

know the specific types and amounts of exercise likely to
achieve cardiovascular health but CHD risk is decreased
substantially In those Individuals who expend 2000+
kcal/week In walking, climbing, and sports play.

51

>

UK

60

2SJ
is
gs
22 40

•—
TOTAL
HEART ATTACKS: — —-NONFATAL
— - — FATAL

t o

*J2

2 S.'

20

i*o'
f
<500 500 - 1000999 1999

2000 2990

3000 3999

4000 <

PHYSICAL ACTIVIIY INOIX IN KCAI PFII WCLK

Figure 2-4. Heart Attack Incidence Among Harvard Alumni
Based on Physical Activity. (From
Paffenbarger, 1978)

RR

< !

1.00 ' '

*>■
0.7S
0 .6 0 '

■C*7
(^1

0.50
0.25

' "

0 . 0 0 '" " “
Alumnus
Vigorous Sports Play

Figure 2-5.

College Student
Sports Play

''600 •

Alumnus Physical
Activity Index

College Student
Sports Play

Relative Risk of First Heart Attack Based on
Activity and College Sports Play. (From
Paffenbarger, 1984)

52

In 1986, Paffenbarger, et.al., (40) reported
another follow-up to his original study.
presented In Table 2-22.

The data are

From Figure 2-6 the relative

risks are shown In specific age groups as per activity
expended In kcal per week.

The following results were

reported:
1. Vigorous sports had an Inverse
relationship with mortality but this reversed when the
activity was performed 3 or more hours per day.
2. Men with an activity Index of 2000+
kcal/week had a 28$ lower all cause death rate than those
less active.

This was seen most readily In cardiovascular

and respiratory diseases.
3. Former varsity athletes who exercised
less than 500 or greater than 2000 kcal/week had higher
death rates than those In the 500-1999 kcal/week range.
Figure 2-7 Is a stereogram depicting physical activity
Index versus college student sports play.
4. Men expending < 2000 kcal/week had a 31$
higher risk of death than more active men.
5. Sedentary men who Increased their
activity might reduce their risk by 24$.
6. Longevity among Harvard alumni has been
Influenced to an appreciable extent by both the total time
and Intensity of habitual physical activity engaged In
adult life.

53

Table 2-22. Age-adjusted Rates and Relative Risks of Death
Among Harvard Alumni Based on Physical
Activity. (From Paffenbarger, 1986)

Physical
Activity
(weekly)

MIles walked
<3
3-8
>8

PrevaIence
(Man-Years,J)

Deaths Per
10,000
Man-Years

Re 1at Ive
Risk of
Death

P of
Trend

26.0
44.2
29.8

78.1
66.7
61.8

1.00
0.85
0.79

.0009

Stairs cl Imbed
34.4
<350
50.0
350-1049
>1049
15.6

74.0
62.7
68.0

1.00
0.85
0.92

.0646

Light sports
played (hr) *
None
77.0
1-2
6.2
3 or more
16.8

81.2
61.4
56.7

1.00
0.76
0.70

<.0001

Vigorous sports
played (hr)*#
None
61.4
1-2
18.4
3 or more
20.2

75.4
49.1
55.9

1.00
0.65
0.74

<.0001

Physical activity
Index (kcal)###
<500
15.4
500-999
20.9
1000-1499
15.2
1500-1999
10.4
8.1
2000-2499
2500-2999
6.9
3000-3499
5.0
18.1
3500+

93.7
73.5
68.2
59.3
57.7
48.5
42.7
58.4

1.00
0.78
0.73
0.63
0.62
0.52
0.46
0.62

<.0001

*
Excludes subjects who played vigorous sports.
** With or without light sports play.
##* Summation of above measures equated to kllocalorles.

All-Cause D eath R a te s
per 10.000 M an-Years
O bservation
500
400

R e la tiv e R isk s
a b o v e Plot P o i n t s

1.00

300

,

7?

1.00

ii A9«

200

'•

70-84

.63
,53
- •

100
BO

60 -6 9

1.00

.86

60

,64

50-59

40
1.00

,97
,79

20

••35-49

2000+
<500
5 0 0 -1 9 9 9
P h y s ic a l A ctivity in K iloealories p e r W e e k

Figure 2-6. Relative Risks of Mortality Among Harvard
Alumni According to Physical Activity Levels.
(From Paffenbarger, 1986)

Figure 2-7. Relative Risks of Mortality Among Harvard
Alumni Based on Physical Activity and College
Sports Play. (From Paffenbarger, 1986)

55

7. Exercise Is protective against all-cause
mortalIty.
Cohort athletic studies do Indeed seem to be the
most effective method of looking at the varsity athlete
and comparing him to a peer group.

But, again, that Is

not to say that these studies do not have discrepancies.
Many studies had small numbers of subjects (12,36,37,38,
50,54) or the number of deceased Individuals was small
(25,26,27,38,54) so that comparisons are difficult.

Also

the selection of the peer group Is often a select group
Itself as In Polednak's study (49,50) who chose controls
from a group of Individuals who had applied for lockers at
Harvard University.
A summary of the papers Is presented In Table
23.

2-

Most of the advantages favored the non-athlete, the

minor athlete, or the honor students.

Exceptions were

Prout's (51) and Paffenbarger’s paper (42).

It Is

apparent from the work of Montoye, et.al., (27) and
Paffenbarger, et.al. (40,41,44) that post college activity
Is an Important variable when determining longevity.

rable 2-23. Summary o£ Cohort Athletic Longevity Studies.

Author

Yr.

Gr e e n w a y 1926
and
Hisc o c k
(12)

E x a mined
Population

Post 1904
Yale Univ.
Lettermen

Mo.

Comparison
Population

No.

Findings

Comments

686

1905-1923
9,421
Yale Univ.
N o n-Letter

C o n trols
favored

Actual to e x p ected
deaths (%)
Contr o l s 83%
MY" Men
93%

Ho n o r s
Men
favored

G e n e r a l l y by 2 yrs
Ov e r both ath.
and other students

Dublin
(7)

1932

1870-1905 4976
Eastern
American
College
Lettermen

1870-1905 38,259
Eastern
American
College
Lettermen

Rook
(54)

1941

1860-1900
Cambridge
Univ. Ath.

1860-1900
374
Honors
Cambridge
( H o n ) Men
336
Univ.
favored
Hon o r s
(Rand)
and Random
Graduates

G e n e r a l l y by 1.5
yrs. over both
ath. and other
students ( N . S . )

Pre-1938
563
M i c higan
State Univ.
Students

122 deceased

Montoye,
et.al.
(27)

772

1957 Pre-1938
628
Michigan
State Univ.
Lettermen

M o diff.
in age at
death

Cable 2-23. Cont.

Montoye,
et.al.
(26)

1962

Pre-1938
628
Michigan
State Univ.
Lettermen

Pre-1938
563
Michigan
State Univ.
Students

M o diff.
in age at
death

206 deceased

Montoye,
e t .al.
(25)

1967

Pre-1938
628
Michigan
State Univ.
Lettermen

Pre-1938
563
Michigan
State Univ.
Students

Mon-Ath.
favored

By 2 yrs. ( M . S . )
206 deceased

Paffen­
barger,
et.al.
(42)

1967

1921-1950
63
Univ. of
Penn, and
H a r v a r d Univ.
Vars. Ath.

1921-1950
590
Univ. of
Penn and
H a r v a r d Univ.
Vars. Ath.

Athletes
favored
in CHD

M o r t a l i t y ratio=.6

Polednak
and
Damon
(50)

1970

1880-1916
Harvard
Univ.
Lettermen
(Major)

177

1880-1916
275
Harvard
Minor
Univ.
1638
Students
Mon
(Minor &
non-ath.)

Minor
Athletes
favored

Major athletes
shortest lived

Polednak 1972
(48,49)

1830-1915
Harvard
Univ.
Lettermen
(Major)

568

1880-1916 1501
Minor
Harvard
Minor Athletes
Univ.
4134
favored
S t u dents
Mon
(Minor &
non-ath.

By 1-3 years

Table 2-23. Cont.

Olson
(36)

1972

Pre-1938
628
Michigan
State Univ.
Lettermen

Pre-1938
563
Michigan
State Univ.
Students

NonA t h letes
favored

By 1.4 y ears

Prout
(51)

1972

1882-1902
172
Harv a r d
and Yale
Univ. C r e w s

1882-1902
172
Harvard
and Yale
Univ. Stud.

A t h letes
favored

B y 6.24-6.35 years

Olson
(37,38)

1978

Pre-1938
628
M i c higan
State Univ.
Athletes

Pre-1938
563
Mi c higan
State Univ.
Students

NonAthletes
favored

By
1.86
(N.S.)

Stephens 1978
(60)

Pre-1938
628
Michigan
State Univ.
Athletes

P re-1938
563
M i c higan
State Univ.
Students

No diff.
between
a t h . and
stud.

Slight trend
implicating
a c t ivity as a
p o s itive factor
for inc. longevity

Paffenbarger
(44)
1978

1916-1950
16936
H arv a r d
U niv e r s i t y
M a l e Alumni

Examined
Pop. used
as own
control

Active
Individ.
<2000 kcal= 64%
favored
greater risk of
H.A.
regardless
<2000 kcal= 49%
of ath.
status
greater risk of
H •A
<2000 kcal= 31%
greater risk of
H.A.

(41)

1984

(40)

1986

years

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODS

Relatively little research has been conducted which
pertains to the relationship between caloric expenditure
and longevity of athletes and non-athletes.

Also, few

studies have related body build to caloric expenditure
ratings.

It would be Interesting to determine If there are

specific somatotypes associated with Increased caloric
expenditure and/or an Increased longevity.

Therefore this

study was designed to answer the following main questions:
1. Did athletes, non-athletes, or both groups
exercise aerobically an average of 2000 kllocalorles (kcal)
per week In 1976 or 1984?
2. Is there a relationship between aerobic
exercise-Induced caloric expenditure In t976 and status of
life (living versus deceased) in 1984?
3. Are certain body types associated with higher
exercise caloric expenditures?
4. Is a high exercise caloric expenditure related
to the frequency of ailments?

59

60

Background Information

This research Is based upon a 1952 questionnaire
which was sent to athletes and a control population
enrolled at Michigan State University prior to 1938.

An

athlete was defined as a student who earned a varsity
letter In any sport while attending MSU.

A non-athlete

(control) was selected from the college student directory
In the same year that the athlete won an award.

If the

athlete won letters In more than one year then the last
year was used and a control was selected from that year
accordingly.
utilized.

A stratified random sampling techlque was

The total study population consisted of 1,129

athletes matched with 1,129 control subjects.
The 1952 questionnaire (see Appendix A) was mat led
via first class mall to the population group with a stamped
return

envelope.

questionnaires.

Cover

letters

accompanied

all

Two follow-up letters were sent and the

final response rate for the athletes was 55.6jf and that for
the controls was 49.9%.

Information was coded and punched

on 80 column IBM cards and stored on tape.

Of the 628

athletes and 563 non-athletes who responded 122 subjects
were deceased. Deceased Individuals had the questionnaire
filled out by another family member and death certificates
were obtained to determine cause of death.

61

A follow-up study was conducted In 1960.
Questionnaires were sent to 1060 Individuals who were alive
and responded to the Initial questionnaire.

A return rate

of 92.1$ of the athletes yielding 514 subjects and 91.4$ of
the non-athletes showing 458 subjects was recorded In the
same manner as the original.

Of these, 52 athletes and 32

non-athletes had died at some time between 1952 and 1960.
A second follow-up In 1968 showed 96.1$ of the
athletes and 97.3$ of the non-athletes had responded.
Sixty six athletes and 62 non-athletes had died during this
period.
In 1976 the third follow-up was sent to 751
subjects.

Again a high percentage was returned (93.8$

athletes and 92.8% non-athletes) yielding 89 athletes and
78 non-athletes deceased.
The fourth follow-up was undertaken In 1984.
Ninety-three athletes and 78 non-athletes were deceased
with a return rate of 90.5% athletes and 90.2$ non­
athletes.
Table 3-1 summarizes the original and follow-up
questionnaires listing the number of subjects surveyed,
returned and the number deceased and living.

62

Table 3-1. Overview of The Michigan State University
Longevity Study. (Adapted from Olson, et.al
1978)

Ath1etes

Non-AthIetes

Total

1952

Surveyed
Returned
% Returned
Deceased
LIvIng

1129
625
55.4
67
558

1129
557
49.3
55
502

2259
1182
52.4
122
1060

1960

Surveyed
Returned
% Returned
Deceased
Living

558
514
92.1
52
462

502
458
91.4
32
426

1060
972
91.7
84
888

1968

Surveyed
Returned
% Returned
Deceased
Living

490
471
96.1
66
405

452
440
97.3
62
378

942
911
96.7
128
783

1976

Surveyed
Returned
% Returned
Deceased
L 1vIng

392
368
93.8
89
279

359
333
92.8
78
255

751
701
93.3
167
534

1984

Surveyed
Returned
% Returned
Deceased
L 1vIng

243
220
90.5
93
199

214
193
90.2
78
176

457
413
90.4
171
375

63

Design

q± ±h£ Study

The current study only considered subjects who had
either responded to both the 1976 and 1984 follow-up
questionnaires or had responded to the 1976 questionnaire
and were declared deceased at the time of the 1984
questionnaire.

The reason for selecting this group of

respondants was that these questionnaires provided detailed
data on recreational activity patterns.

Also, during this

8 year period 93 athletes and 78 non-athletes had died and
thus mortality Information could be obtained and compared
to age at death and activity patterns.

Calculation Q± Activity

Rating

Activity was calculated In kcal/week by adapting
the work of Bannister and Brown (2), How ley and Glover
(15), and Passmore and Durnln (46).

A table was formed

that lists the caloric standards In kcal/mln/lb for each of
the activities presented In the 1976 and 1984 question­
naires and may be found In Appendix B.

The activities

selected were only those which had an aerobic component
associated with them.

This study attempted to look only at

caloric expenditure from aerobic activities. Aerobic
activity In this study was considered acttvlty which
utilized the major muscle groups and was performed at an

64

Intensity considered appropriate for conditioning.

The

activities selected are marked with an asterisk In Appendix
B.
Caloric expenditure was calculated by multiplying
the subjects weight by the amount of time which the
activity was performed per month (time was converted to
minutes).

This calculated Information was then multiplied

by the activity standard for each activity.
caloric expenditure per month.

This yielded

The 12 months were then

summed together and an average per month was calculated.
The average monthly total was then divided by 4.2 to
establish the average weekly caloric expenditure for each
subject. These calculations were computer-generated and an
example Is displayed In Table 3-2.

Table 3-2.

Example of caloric expenditure calculations.

Subject £

Year.

00053

76

Caloric Expend Iture

Jan.
10560

Feb.
10560

Mar.
10560

Apr.
03900

May. Jne.
01950 01950

Jly.
01950

Aug.
01950

Sep.
01950

Oct.
03900

Nov. Dec.
03900 03900

Total yearly kcal expenditure = 57,030 kcal/year
Average monthly kcal expenditure = 4,752 kcal/month
Average weekly kcal expenditure = 1,131 kcal/week

65

Somatotype Determinations

The method for predicting somatotype utilized the
work of Sheldon, et.al., from Atlas of Men (59).

Eighty

eight different somatotypes were determined from over
46,000 men.

For each somatotype a curve was plotted

with the reciprocal of the ponderaI Index (RPI) on the
abscissa and age on the ordinate (Figure 3-1).

These 88

curves were then used to predict somatotype within the
Michigan State University population. Three Independent
raters were used. Each subject had an RPI calculated for
each survey.

The determined RPI was plotted versus age and

a curve was fit to the data. The specific procedures used
have been described by Wilson (64). Comparisons of these
curves with Sheldon*s, et. al., (59) curves yielded a
specific somatotype.

Subject Group Ings

Subject groups were based upon the following
categories:
1. Athlete - Letter winners attending Michigan
State University prior to 1938.
2. Non-athlete - non-letter winners matched to the
athletes during the same time period.

/

66

Ht/i'wi

SOMATOTYPE 444

12.40
15.45
12.30
12.33
12.60
12.63
12.70
12.73

12.(0
t2.83
17 .(0

12«3
12.00
12.03

12.10
12.13
12JO

23

ACE

*«

.

Figure 3-1.

33

53

58

63

53
220
212
204
195
187
179
172
165
157
150
143
137
131
124
119

58
221
212
204
196
187
180
172
165
158
151
144
137
131
124
119

63
221
212
204
196
187
180
172
165
158
151
144
137
131
124
119

W eight
jor A ge
©
'
6 and Height
O

«

H e ig h t
( in c h e s )

75
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61

28

Age

18
183
176
169
163
155
149
143
137
131
125
119
114
109
103
99

23
192
184
177
170
163
156
150
143
137
131
125
119
114
108
103

28
198
190
183
176
168
162
155
148
142
135
129
123
118
112
107

33
206
198
190
183
175
168
161
154
147
140
134
128
122
117
111

38
212
204
196
189
180
173
166
159
152
145
138
132
126
120
114

43
219
210
202
194
185
178
170
163
156
149
142
135
129
123
117

48
220
211
203
195
187
179
172
165
157
150
143
137
131
125
119

An exenple of one of the soma+o+ype curves
In A-. las of Men. (From Sheldon, et. al.,
1954).

67

3. Caloric expenditure 0 -

500 kcal/week

501 - 1999 kcal/week

- 2000 - max

kcal/week

4. Somatotype - Endomorph

-high degree of fat component.

- Mesomorph

-high degree of muscular
component.

- Ectomorph

-high degree of

- Balanced

-no difference between the three
components.

lean component.

Statistical Analyses

different statistical analyses were utilized where
appropriate In this study.

To test the difference between

means of athletes and non-athletes when comparing caloric
expenditure a Student’s t-test was utilized (60).

A Median

test was utilized to test differences where parametric
analysis procedures were Inappropriate (35).

Analysis of

covariance was performed with year of birth as the con­
founding variable (60).

Subjects were divided Into three

caloric expenditure groupings, as previously designated,
and to consider somatotype rating In conjunction with
caloric expenditure a univariate one-way analysis of
variance was performed (60). Analysis of variance was also

68

used to test for differences between the subjects' three
caloric expenditure ratings In terms of year of birth.

In

an effort to predict death from activity and age a multiple
regression analysis was performed (35).
Specific ailments were considered In this study as
well.

A two-way cross tabulation which used the non-

parametrlc Kendall's Tau-b was performed to determine
differences between Individuals reporting the ailment and
activity ratings (35). To further consider this problem tt
was speculated that age may be a confounding factor In
these analyses.

Therefore, analysis of covariance was

performed with blrthyear acting as the covarlate (60). When
It was determined that the covariance analysis was not
valid a discriminate analysis, controlling for age, was
performed (60).
In all analyses an alpha level of .05 was selected
to Indicate statistical significance.

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The main purpose of this study was to determine
the effects of aerobic activity as rated from questionnaire
responses on longevity.

Secondary purposes were to deter­

mine If there were any relationships between activity
ratings and somatotype or the Incidence of various ali­
ments .
The data presented were derived from the
aerobic activity responses of Michigan State University
athletes and non-athletes (age= 56-86 years) who took part
In the longevity study which was originated In 1952.

The

specific caloric calculations were tabulated from the 1976
and 1984 follow-up surveys.

ResuIts

The results have been organized for presentation
Into four main categories:

a. the sample description and

group activity levels, b. activity versus longevity,
c. activity versus somatotype, and d. activity versus
a IIments.

69

70

SampIe Description and Group Activity LeveIs

Figure 4-1 shows the year of birth with the number
ofsubjects born In

each respective year.

Using this

Information and utilizing 1976 as the year when all
subjects In this sample were alive the mean age was 68.9
years.

In 1984 the mean age was 76.9 years.
Figure 4-2 displays the weekly aerobic exercise

caloric activity for all subjects from the 1976 survey. In
Table 4-1 the descriptive measures for subjects per week,
month, and year (total) are presented for both the 1976 and
1984 surveys. Figure 4-3 shows the percentage of subjects
comprising each caloric activity category.

As can be seen

approximately 22% of the population exercises at a level of
2000 kcal per week or more.
Weekly caloric expenditure was the main Indepen­
dent variable used throughout this study.

Therefore Figure

4-4 compares the athlete and non-athlete In terms of weekly
caloric expenditure during 1976 and 1984.

In 1976 It can

be seen that the athletes exercised. In an aerobic fashion,
approximately 1558 kcal/week compared to 1216 kcal/week for
non-athletes. This was significantly different at the .05
level. This same trend can be seen In 1984, 1289 kcal/week
expended by the athletes versus 1056 kcal/week by the non­
athletes, but the 1984 differences were not statistically
significant at the .05 level.

71
To consider If there was a difference In age
between the athletes and non-athletes In the study Figure
4-5 was compiled.

It can be seen that the athletes and

non-athletes did not differ In year of birth (1907.3 for
the athletes, 1906.9 for the non-athletes, p = .5719).
There Is a statistically significant difference tn
year of birth when one considers the subjects alive versus
the subjects who are deceased within this sample.

Figure

4-6 displays that the mean year of birth for those
Individuals who were deceased In 1984 was 1902 whereas for
those still living It was

1908 (p <.05).

In summary, the previously described figures show
that:
1. The sample selected for study consisted of 256
athletes and 239 non-athletes.
2. Twenty-two percent of the combined sample exer­
cised aerobically an average of 2000 kcal. The athletes
tended to exercise, aerobically, more than the non-athlete
but neither group maintained an average of 2000 kcal/week.
(Question 9 1).
3. There was no difference In year of birth
between the athlete and non-athlete. There was a
difference In year of birth when considering subjects
deceased versus subjects alive. The deceased subjects, as
would be expected, were btrn at earlier dates.
4. The subjects comprise an older population base
which Is unique to the study.

40 r
36

35

SUBJECT

31

30

28
26

26
23

25

21

21

20

31
’29

18
IS)

i
A5
14*

15

14
12

10

9

10
9 «
O f9

44

5
1
0

T

1880

iilLl

2

1r 1

1

T

T

T

1885

1890

1895

—

I-------- 1--------1—

1900

1905

1910

1915

1920

YEAR
Figure 4-1.

J

J-I.f

Year of Birth Among Michigan State University
Longevity Study Sample

1925

1926

EXPENDITURE M ID PO IN TS
CALORIC

'j
Ol

NUMBER OF S U B JE C T S
Figure 4-2.

Caloric Expenditure Per Week For Sample - 1976.

74

Table 4-1. Descriptive Caloric Measures for Subjects per
Week, Month, and Year In 1976 and 1984.

Variable

Number
of
Subjects

Minimum
kcal
Expend.

Maximum
kcal
Expend.

Mean
kcal
Expend.

Standard
Dev.

Week- 76

495

0

8,784

1,393.5

1,499.9

Month-76

495

0

38,065

6,038.4

6,499.0

Year- 76

495

0

456,780

Week- 84

330

0

7,855

1,177.5

1,283.5

Month-84

330

0

34,040

5,102.6

5,561.9

Year- 84

330

0

408,480

72,460

61,230

77,996.0

66,743.0

75

100
90
CO

80

hO
LU
“D

70

CD
D

60

CO
LL
O
1“

z
LLI
o
QC

50
42%
40

7a

30

111

CL

20
10
LE 500

TO 1999 GE 2000

C A LO RIC G R O U P S

Figure 4-3.

Percent of Population Within
Each Caloric Category

76

1558 *

CALORIES

* p < .0 5

1289
1216

ATH

I

NON-ATH

1 9 7 6 ------ 1

Figure 4-4.

ATH

NON-ATH

ATH

|------ 1 9 8 4 ------- 1 YEAR

Weekly Exercise Caloric Expenditure
Comparison of Athletes and Non-Athletes
in 1976 and 1984.

77

YEAR
1908

P=N.S.
1907.3
1906.9

1907 -

1906 -

1905 -

1904 -

1903

ATHLETE

N O N -A TH LETE

STATUS
Figure 4-5.

Year of Bir+h Comparison of
A+hle+es and Non-A+hIetes.

78

CALORIES
1500
1908.9
1450140013501300 1250 1902.8
1200

1150

-

DECEASED

LIVING

STATUS
Figure 4-6.

Year of Birth Comparison
Among Subjects Deceased
Versus Alive Within the
Study.

79

Activity versus Longevity
It was postulated, at the onset of this study,
that activity may have a positive effect upon longevity.
To assess this hypothesis on a two sample t-test and median
test were utilized comparing weekly caloric activity In
1976 among those deceased and alive in 1984.

Statistical

significance was not obtained (p=.1255) but there Is a
developing trend as seen In Figure 4-7.

Among those

subjects living In 1984 more aerobic activity was performed
In 1976 (1458 kcal/week) as compared to those deceased In
1984 who performed 1220 kcal/week of aerobic activity In
1976. Year of birth was thought to be confounding In these
analyses and, therefore, an analysis of covariance was
performed.

Although year of birth was significant

(p=.0007) It was found that the regress Ion-11ne slopes of
energy expenditure on blrthyear were significantly
different between the two groups (alive and deceased).
Therefore the analysts of covariance was Invalid.

To

elaborate on this trend seen In Figure 4-7 subjects were
grouped Into three categories of activity based upon
aerobic caloric expenditure.

The categories selected were

as follows:
1. Less than or equal to 500 kcal/week (LE 500).
2. Between 501 and 1999 kcal/week (TO 1999).
3. Greater than or equal to 2000 kcal/week
(GE 2000).

80

To assess activity and Its relationship to longevity an
analysis of variance was performed using these three
categories and year of birth.
Figure 4-8 displays the three activity ratings.
There was a significant between-group difference (p <.05)
In year of birth between those Individuals In the LE 500
category and those In either the TO 1999 or GE 2000
categories.

This trend was consistent regardless of

athlete/non-athlete status.

The results were not

surprising In that older Individuals exercise aerobically
less than their younger counterparts.
In an effort to establish the effect of the 1976
activity ratings on whether Individuals were alive or
deceased a two-way cross tabulation was performed.

Figure

4-9 shows that of those Individuals who were deceased In
1984 (n=131) more Individuals exercised within the lower
activity (LE 500) activity group In 1976.

Conversely, of

those individuals alive In 1984 (n=325) a greater number
were In the higher activity groups (TO 1999 and GE 2000) In
1976.

Of those Individuals deceased 47$ exercised at a

caloric expenditure rating of less than or equal to 500
kcal/week while only 22$

exercised aerobically within the

highest caloric output rating.

Conversely of those

Individuals alive In 1984 30$ were In the lowest activity
rating (LE 500), 46$ exercised up to 1999 kcal/week, and

81
25$ performed at least 2000 kcal/week. This was significant
at the .05 level (ps.0006).

When athletes were separated

from the non-athletes It can be seen that the athletes
demonstrated this trend significantly more than the non­
athletes (Figure 4-9 A & B).

Greater than 15$ of the

11vIng athIetes comprIsed the TO 1999 and GE 2000
groupings.

Conversely, 65^ of the non-athletes comprised

these two groupings.
To further consider this Issue a least squares
dlsclmlnate analysis was attempted to predict death while
controlling for year of birth.

Upon analysis It was found

that neither activity nor athlete/non-athlete status were
significant factors (p >.05) for the prediction of death.
Therefore further analysts was not warranted.

Discussion

ef Activity

versus

Longevity.

Those Individuals who were deceased In 1984 per­
formed less aerobic activity In 1976 than those still
living tn 1984.

When subjects were grouped Into the three

activity ratings It was found that those Individuals who
performed the highest amount of aerobic activity In 1976
were still living In 1984 (Question #2).

These results are

In agreement with those of Paffenbarger (40,41,44). This
would further support the Importance of aerobic acttvlty
upon status of life (living vs. deceased) and, possibly,

82

* p < .05

YEAR
1910

*

1458

1908 -

1906 -

1904-

1902 -

1900

DECEASED
(1372)

LIVING
(1399)

STATUS
Figure 4-7.

Caloric Expenditure
(1976) Comparison Between
Deceased and Living Subjects
in 1984.

83

1910 •

1909.5

p < .05

B
1909

1909 ■

p < .05
1 9 0 18 2 .

1908.0

1908 ■

1908.1

1908

1907 ■

1907

1906 ■

1906
1905

1905 ■

1904.5

1904.4

1904

1904 ■

1903

1903 L E 500

T O 1999 G E 2000

»

L E 500

T O 1999

NON -ATHL ETES

ATHLETE

1908.9
p < .05
1908.1

1904.4

LE 500

T O 1999 GE2000

ACTIVITY L E V E L S - T O T A L

Figure 4-8.

G E 2000

Year of Birth of A. Athletes,
B. Non-Athletes, and C. Total
Subjects Among the Three Caloric
Activity Ratings in 1976.

84

Ph
P * N.S.

p < 0.001

LIVING
n « 170
54.8
n * 40
DECEASED
n« 69

78.0

LIVING
n * 155

78.8
n * 52

65.1
n * 54

67.4
n * 31

79.5
n = 70

OECEASEO
n « 62
45.2
n *33
LE 500

22.0
n » 22
TO 1999

21.2

34.9
o«29
LE 500

n * 14
GE 2000

ACTIVITY LEVELS - T O T A L

20.5
a * 18
TO 1999

32.6

n *IS
GE2000

NON-ATHLETES

rj\

p < .05

STATUS
LIVING

DECEASED
n = 131
LE 500

TO 1999

GE 2000

ACTIVITY LEVELS - TOTAL
Figure 4-9-

Percentage of A. Athletes, B. Non-Athletes,
and C. Total Subjects Oeceased and Alive in
1984 Per The Three Activity Groups in 1976.

85

longevity In a population of this type.

It Is Interesting

to note the differences between the athletes and nonathIetes. More athIetes who were a 11ve exercIse In the
higher activity groupings than the non-athletes.
would be expected from Figure 4-4.

This

It Is difficult to

suggest reasons for this but It may be possible that an
athletic background Is helpful for the pursuance and main­
tenance of an aerobic exercise regimen.

Activity versus Somatotype

One purpose of this study was to determine If
there was a relationship between specific body types and
aerobic activity levels In this former athIete/non-athIete
population.
Figure 4-10 displays the mean caloric output In
metabolic equivalents per week (METS) for the three
major somatotype groups. An additional group which was
termed "balanced" was tncluded due to the fact that In some
Instances the three major groups all had the same numerical
value such as 4-4-4 or 5-5-5.
Although statistical significance was not found
(p=.64) It can be seen that endomorphs exercise slightly
more than mesomorphs (1229 METS/week versus 1103 METS/week)
and ectomorphs (994 METS/week).

86

15001400 *

\a

1300

■

1247.7

1229.1

1103.4

I

ENDO. MESO. ECTO.
n * 66 n = 297 n = 39

Figure 4-10.

( /if I i

BAL.
n = 61

Comparison of Weekly
Caloric Expenditure (METS)
Among the Four Somatotype Groups.

87

D.is,CUSS ton £f Act.lyJty versus Somatotype

The quantity of aerobic physical activity per­
formed by the former athletes and non-athletes In this
population was Independent of somatotype (Question #3).
Although not statistically significant (p=.64) the ecto­
morphs exercise aerobically approximately 120-260 METS/week
less than the mesomorphs and endomorphs.

The small number

of subjects (n=41) within the ectomorph group prevents
specific conclusions.

Act.IyJ.ty versus AI Iments

The effect of activity on various ailments was
also considered In this study.
Figure 4-11 shows the 1976 activity ratings versus
cardiovascular disease (CVD) reported In 1976.

Cardio­

vascular disease was a conglomerate of hypertension,
angina, myocardial Infarction (Ml), and cerebral-vascular
accidents (CVA).

Approximately 39|f of the subjects

reported CVD In 1976 while 61? did not report the ailment.
No statistically significant differences were found among

88

the three activity groupings and the reporting of any CVD
^=.19). When the athletes and non-athletes are separated
It can be seen that a trend develops among the non-athletes
toward those reporting CVD comprising the higher activity
groupings.

Athletes did not display this (Figure 4-11 A &

B).
Figure 4-12 displays hypertension reported In 1976
versus activity of 1976.

Approximately 23$ of the

population reported hypertension while 77$ did not.
Statistical significance was not obtained (p=.44) In either
the athlete breakdown, non-athlete breakdown, or pooled
comparisons.
Only 19 subjects reported cancer as an ailment and
there was no difference In activity rating among those
subjects.
When all 1976 ailments reported were grouped
together statistical significance was obtained among the
former athletes and the pooled former athlete/non-athlete
data, p<.001, but not among the non-athlete data alone
(Figure 4-13 A-C). The majority of Individuals within the
population (80$) report at least one ailment while
approximately 20$ report no 1976 ailments.
To further consider this Issue 1984 ailments were
analyzed with 1976 activity data on subjects who were known
to be a 11ve In 1984.

89

Figure 4-14 shows the CVD reported In 1984. A
significantly greater number of those Individuals reporting
CVD exercise In the two higher activity ratings (p <.01).
Among those not reporting CVD more Individuals fall Into
the lower activity ratings (p <.01).

This occurs

regardless of athlete/non-athlete status.
Figure 4-15 displays hypertension reported In
1984. A significant difference (p <.001) Is observed
similar to that associated with CVD.

Both athletes and

non-athletes displayed this relationship.
New CVD In 1984, that Is CVD reported In 1984 but
not reported In 1976 or any previous year, was analyzed and
compared to the 1976 activity ratings.

When subjects were

pooled It was found that more of those Individuals who
report the aliment tend to exercise aerobically within the
higher activity groupings (Figure 4-16).

Those who do not

report the new CVD tend to fall In the lower activity
group.

This was determined to be significant (ps .01).

Non-athletes displayed this trend more readily than
athletes as can be seen In Figure 4-16 A & B.

90

£71
£71
P = N.S

p < .05
NO
n * 114

n • 57

69.4
n * 43

n * 30

64.9
n * 48

56.1
n « 23

YES
n *63
LE 500

32.1 /
45.5
n « 27 /
n * 25
TO 1999
GE 2000

30.6
n * 19
LE 500

35.1
n « 26
TO 1999

43.9
n » 18
GE 2000

NON-ATHLETES

ATHLETE

P = N.S.

66.5
= 105

55.2
n = 53

n = 144
44.8
n = 43
LE 500

TO 1999

GE 2000

ACTIVITY LEVELS - TOTAL
Figure 4-11.

Percentage of A. Athletes, B. Non-Athletes,
and C. Total Subjects Reporting CVD in 1976
Per Activity Group in 1976.

91

O

o

P * N.S.
NO
n • 146

77.4
n » 65

73.3
n « 4'

P * N.S.
NO
n * 145

67.3
n » 37

82.3
n * 51

82.4
n » 61

80.5
n » 33,

YES
n » 32

YES
n * 53
26.7
n « 16
LE 500

22.6
n » 19
TO 1999

17.7

32.7
n « 18

LE 500

GE 2000

ATHLETE

17.6
n * 13
TO 1999

19.5
n* 8
GE 2000

NON-ATHLETES

rj\

£71

rj\

P = N.S.

HBP
NO
n = 291

77.9
n = 95

72.9
n = 70

YES
n = 85
22.1
n = 27
LE 500

20.3
n = 32
TO 1999

GE 2000

ACTIVITY LEVELS - TOTAL
Figure 4-12.

Percentage of A. Athletes. B. Non-Athletes, and
C. Total Subjects Reporting Hypertension in 1976
Per Activity Group in 1976.

LE 500

T 0 1999

GE 2000

LE 500

ATHLETE

T 0 1999

GE 2000

NON-ATHLETES

n

AILMENT

/

9

NO
n = 73

p < .0001

26
n = 25/

YES
n = 303
n = 71
LE 500

TO 1999

GE 2000

ACTIVITY LEVELS - TOTAL
Figure 4-13.

Percentage of A. Athletes, B. Non-Athletes, and
C. Total Subjects Reporting Any Ai Intent in 1976
Per Activity Group in 1976.

93

O

CJ\

P7\
p < .001

p<.01

NO
n = 128

68.3
n = 41

54.5
n =30

67.9
n * 57

NO
(1 = 124

63.5
n = 47

85.5
(1 = 5 3

58.5
n = 24

YES
n = 53

YES
n * 71
31.7
n = 19

32.1
n = 27
T O 1999

L E 500

14.5

45.5
(1 = 2 5

LE 500

G E 2000

41.5
n = 17

36.5
(l = 27
T O 1999

G E 2000

NON-ATHLETES

ATHLETE

p < .001

n = 54

n = 124

LE 5 00

TO 1999

GE 2000

ACTIVITY LEVELS - TOTAL
Figure 4-14.

Percentage of A. Athletes, B. Non-Athletes, and
C. Total Subjects Reporting CVD in 1984 Per Activity
Group in 1976.

94

£71

p < .001

p < .001

NO
n = 151

76.2
n * 64

83.3
n = 50

67.3
n*37,

NO
n = 141

82.4
n = 61

90.3

75.6
n =31

YES
0 * 48
16.7
n * 10

LE 500

23.8
n = 20
TO 1999

9.7

32.7
n * 18
GE 2000

LE 500

24.4

17.6
n = 13
TO 1999

n * 10

GE 2000

NON-ATHLETES

ATHLETE

p < .001

n = 68

n = 125

n = 28
LE 5 00

TO 1999

GE 2000

ACTIVITY LEVELS - TOTAL
Figure 4-15.

Percentage of A. Athletes, B. Non-Athletes, and
C. Total Subjects Reporting Hypertension in 1984
Per Activity Group in 1976.

95

a

Ph

pC.001
NO

NO
n * 141

84.6
n = 66

85.0

88.9
n * 48

28.8
n *41

64.5
n = 20,

YES
n *34

YES
n * 29
15.4
n = 12

15.0
n =6

TO 1999

LE 500

24.3
n = 17

21.2
GE 2000

LE 500

ATHLETE

TO 1999

35.5
n = 11
GE 2000

NON-ATHLETES

p < .0001

n = 61
n = 63
n = 22
LE 500

TO 1999

GE 2000

ACTIVITY LEVELS - TOTAL
Figure 4-16.

Percentage of A. Athletes, B. Non-Athletes, and
C. Total Subjects Reporting New CVD in 1984 Versus
1976 Activity Groups.

96

Discussion cl Activity

versus A.UmSJits.

When 1976 aerobic activity was compared with CVD
In 1976 It was found that non-athletes reporting CVD tended
to comprise the TO 1999 and GE 2000 categories.
athletes nor total subjects displayed this.

Neither

The fact that

non-athletes displayed this Is Inconsistent with previously
reported data (40,41,44).
could be due to chance.

One possible reason for this
Epidemiological data can yield

statistical analyses which are Inconsistent.

Another

possibility could be the fact that CVD was comprised of
hypertension, angina, Ml, and CVA.

It Is possible that

those Individuals who exercise at the higher Intensity
levels also elicit anginal responses and therefore report
this ailment more readily.

It might also be possible that

more non-athletes are aware of their ailments and the need
for exercise to control those ailments.

Therefore they

comprise the higher activity ratings.
When observing the any aliment category versus
1976 activity It was found that athletes displayed a trend
which Is consistent with Paffenbarger's findings
(40,41,44).

That Is, more athletes reporting an ailment

tend to perform the least amount of exercise.

Also, of

those not reporting an ailment more comprised the GE 2000
activity category.

This would suggest the Importance of

97

aerobic activity In the possible prevention of disease.
When 1976 activity versus 1984 CVD and
hypertension was observed both athletes and non-athletes
displayed similar trends.

This trend suggests that higher

activity levels result In the reporting of more CVD.
angina hypothesis may be accurate.

The

Another possibility

could be that those who exercise are concerned about their
physical well being and are committed to obtaining regular
physical, medical check-ups.

Therefore these Individuals

would be more aware of an aliment and report It as opposed
to someone not committed to such a procedure.
When new, 1984 CVD was compared to 1976 activity
the same trend occured.

It Is evident when looking at

specific ailments versus activity that some underlying
variable Is Interacting In the analyses.

The discriminate

analysis to predict death while controlling for year of
birth found that exercise level (p-.29) and athlete/non­
athlete status (p=.83) did not contribute to the regression
equation.

Therefore, year of birth and activity level were

compared to determine If a linear relationship existed when
the deceased percentage of the population was observed
(Figure 4-17).

When year of birth was broken Into prior to

1905, between 1905 and 1912, and 1913 and greater It can be
seen that a linear relationship exists In the prior to 1905
group.

This shows that the percentage deceased decreases

as the caloric expenditure Increases.

This would suggest

98

a \
n \

£71
<1905

YEAR
OF BIRTH

36.36

47.83
C T

ZZ7

1905-1912
16.67

25.53

31.37

1913+
21.05

TO 1999

7.02

LE 500

12.82

GE 2000

ACTIVITY GROUPS
Figure 4-17.

Percent of Population Deceased in 1984 Per
Activity Group in 1976 According to Year of
Birth.

99

the posstble advantages to the Increased caloric
expenditure In terms of longevity.

In the 1905-1912 and

1913+ year of birth groups this linearity Is not observed.
This lack of linearity may explain some of the unusual
findings pertaining to the specific ailments.
On the basis of the data presented no clear
conclusion can be drawn to Question S 4: Is a high aerobic
exercise caloric expenditure related to the frequency of
ailments?

Non-athletes In the higher activity groups

report more CVD. More athIetes reportIng allments report
the least amount of exercise.

When 1984 CVD was compared

with 1976 activity those In the higher activity groupings
reported more CVD.

This significant finding was also

observed with those subjects first reporting CVD in 1984.
It Is evident from these results that additional study of
ailments and activity levels Is warranted.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY,CONCLUSIONS,AM RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary
This study was conducted to determine the effects
of aerobic activity upon longevity and the occurrence of
various ailments among former athletes and non-athletes
attending Michigan State University prior to 1938.
The 1976 and 1984 follow-up surveys were utilized
from the original questionnaire In 1952.

Activities which

had an aerobic component were used for computation of
caloric output.

The activity standard, minutes of

activity, and Individual weight were utilized In the
computation.

Caloric output was established for 256

athletes and 239 non-athletes.

Caloric groupings were

established at less than or equal to 500 kcal/week, 501 to
1999 kcal/week, and greater than or equal to 2000
kcal/week. Subjects were categorized and subsequent
statistical analyses were applied.
It was found that 22% of the population exercised
aerobically more than 2000 kcal/week.

Former athletes

exercised significantly more than the non-athletes In 1976
(p <.05).

In the 1984 survey athletes again exercised more

100

101

than the non-athletes but the difference was not statisti­
cally significant.

Neither group exercised aerobically an

average of 2000 kcal/week.
There was a significant relationship between
status of life (alive vs. deceased) and activity.
Individuals In the higher activity groupings In 1976 were
more likely to be living In 1984 as compared to subjects In
the lower activity group (LE500).

This would suggest the

benefits of aerobic exercise on longevity.
No significant differences were observed among the
three somatotype groupings when activity was considered.
In this population there does not seem to be an Identifi­
able body type associated with higher exercise caloric
expenditure.
When any ailment reported In 1976 was considered
with the 1976 activity groups It was found that Individuals
In the higher exercise expenditure groups reported fewer
ailments than those In the lower exercise group. When CVD
and hypertension In 1984 were considered with the 1976
activity ratings more Individuals reporting these ailments
fell Into the higher activity ratings. Due to the
inconsistent results In the ailment results no conclusions
are warranted.

102

Conclusions
The following conclusions may be established from
this study:
1. The population studied consisted of older
Individuals with a mean age In 1984 of 76.9 years.
2. Athletes tended to exercise aerobically more
than non-athletes.
3. Subjects In the higher activity groupings (TO
1999 and GE 2000) In 1976 were more likely to be alive In
1984 than those In the LE 500 group.
4. Aerobic activity levels were Independent of
somatotype.
5. Aerobic activity was not a good predictor for
death In the sample.

Recommendations
The following are recommendations afforded from
this study:
1. Non-aeroblc activity should be calculated and
Implemented into this study.

Comparing non-aeroblc,

aerobic, and combined activity should be performed on these
subjects.
2. Cause of death Information should be obtained
and utilized with activity ratings.

103

3. Similar surveys should be carried out until the
entire population Is deceased.
4. Additional studies should be performed on
similar, older population groups to validate the findings.
5. More recent studies should be undertaken with
both male and female population groups.
6. Additional research Is warranted regarding
activity levels and ailments to provide Insight Into the
confounding results In the present Investigation.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRES
(1952, I960, 1968, 1976, 1984)

104

NATIONAL STUDY OF LONGEVITY AND MORBIDITY OF ATHLETES
IN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
V m i A. th is h m fc lor paduatoc teho aamod a —Hi— tatter 4a am or more *orto.
(H not M t do Ido f t a i — Omjrfteifr Mrf d w t e f r — * ■■!»/>)

ttata
Yoar of Btrth

i of Atktato (piano petal)
IT AJKUOTt B UVIMa

--

Weight te GnduaOoa from Cottafa
V ATHUETS 18 DBCSASED

. . yn.

«•)!
I n death M dd«
Win h* atirted _

H am of B»art

a *
•chad

Catkga r

Amateur
Wna TVhrnt

Jlofooteooal
jna. te
ft*, to

fit. of a««
fit. of aaa

jrra te

fit. of act

jit. ta

fifc of ao*

f n . to
yn. to

fit. of agt
yn. of aaa

Activity Dating Adnlt Life, Ifocftidfwy Playing Participation In Sport*
Am
jib.

fn .

to
te

fit.
fit.

M a i * waOonal a a i iw H n a ri actlvUta*
Ifanbor *f k m te phyalni ateM tr (daUf or alaate daOy)
V lia ia i
Madteilo
fan.
fan.

m . te
fn .

te

JIB.

y iu
fan.

fan.

fan.

fan.

fan.
fan.

fart
fan.

fan.
fan.

Military Service
i t ! Sank
datetatty

Maw jam

—Ago —
wok): Vlgw
.M U .
hrmfa of tha S anto, m i ffcaaUNnaaJ indicate thaaawu&t of phjtecal

EetK B le Statns o f Home From Early Childhood Upward
(ck«k « • )

After Cat1a«a Yaara
{chock oat)
Stetafaefey

CoRumnta

PnaU tetteoij-------(OVU)

105

MmUm I Hlsioty
AILMENT
1. h l i r t m m i Cate—lam Ptaea— (Stafta age el a

S. Ilypirtaniwi (MuHmi f
llniHiea m b m i t a l u ear»tm y fkrwnkntaa, heart fclhire* i w l a , ate, afcag wttA age

AChlMheei ib— eHM
(State, II |w M i,
el M—f i e «l MS

4 Aitatte Saliaaata
I attaek .

C*ug>.

A Aaytea X t e t a —

Sri

Stake

H ate iatecta <|tea m r e f la te a

Caaaaaty f tw a ta ta .
. 9erl»bant VmoiW THaaaaa .

A Otear Ptaaaaaa (iaaH— «rp> ar beiy f — ifriMA m A
aga a< m u n m i)*

eta).

Smoking g&A Drinking
— - Oaatebaaaa; W h ta h m

„

S w ri

Hcradluijr Hfetocy

■Lhteta ____

if
Aaa a t PaatS*

Civat el Death

(B Hypenaaeiea, Cereariy Ibw bataa ar Diabiwa p f im In teailjr, ptaaaa telteete)
Do you think thnt porticipotioo la athlatha k lairtlllti. hannia L a th a aa a tfa rt*

Olbar M aaaoli which arlU provide adriltinaal tafi—Mllaa m
year pamrfjedaB ar leek el pwidpellee te i« ta ..
ana an Imam aa naattar nthlota.* D l l a rt itrtlrijrta on
•M m a< a phjaidaa.* D l l art paiWrtpala haanaa 1 hal
la m k mr n y th rn ih aa0a«a.* 1 a a a l a r t a aa a *
‘ib 'H A i1— ’ a t,

106

NATIONAL STUDY OF LONGEVITY AND MORBIDITY OF MALE GRADUATES
OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
F n B. Iklt r m b h w t b M i i l a a i U r la ayaito
iflm m n aU lkU fW n a t Cm*r M y toto 4 nwtodyr « . f» iiiWt)
Data____________________
p ., , f . .

fr.—

Yaar af Mf1h

Watfht at Onduatian (ran Collafa

A lh lrtle an d G enera] S porU H ltto ry o f A lnm nna
yn. to

m at m

to
yn. t
o
yn.

yn. to

yn. to aft

Activity Daring Adult Life, Excluding P b y iii| Participation In SporU
t o h to yitoHtotl a d tr a ato n al aathrtttoa

Vltmmm

Am
yn. is
yn. te
in . te
yn. te

yn.
yn.
yn.
yn.

1014

M rfH t
tee.
In .

bn.
In .

tee.

In .
In .

IHI.

tea.
ten.

tee.

bn.

Military Scrriea
Sntotot to Storito----------------------------------- ««■ _ ..
7T».t o __________ /to.
Ikydaal aatlvtty tow ln d (*ack)t Vlfaraaa
H it m i l _______ laid _
B wwt ttaa a t toaifc «t t o Barton, a — Ito tolwn a d InHatn t o
«d ylytoial
aalhlly iaalaad ___________________________ _________________________

Economic Statue of Ho
^ste&JsL&slBSJSsSsisJBSBm
(ckack aa)

i Early QillJliood Upward

AFtot Colton Vwn

(aback «M)

_

leHaferteiy

(om)

107

Medical Hlclmy
AILMENT
L I d aaCaa* t * « C e U j M P ktaaaa MWH f a *» i

ioiim

M

*

«. Arkria M a ta * ,
I akaak .

•>■

M
Bm I k U

(|h * aa aaapMa a

XMabal

. Ptripharml Ta<

I Olka Maaaaaa (— all— ar y ar hady i p l i a akaafeai, aad
a*a f t a a a a a a l i ------------------------------------------at*)..

Smoking aad Drinking Habit*
Oaatakaaaat W k a lla ta * .

Hereditary ITlalnry
C«1M Ml P f th

(II Hrrnnaoaliai. Carnaary Thnimhtah ar Diabataa pcaaaat la taaally, pfcaac IndkaVa)
Aa yaa think that (artidpaliaa ia alUailat i* hanaiclal. haratM .atk a* aaaC attt
flaaaa aaaaM k II aridaal at pnaraa. daa naaaaa____

Othaa rwnmanU which will am ide addition! hdanaaiia aa
yaar *aitjrl;a>liai aa lack at pactkipatica la apaaaa
■aaa aaaa^lii: *1 played haahaihan ter Ugh achaol l a .
jw aiiw rw a. and tar a alah la tha r r ir lr a h>UM."*atd
a aa aoaaaat at

108

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
D e p a rtm e n t o f H e a l t h , P h y s i c a l E d u c a tio n an d R e c r e a t i o n
FOLLOW-UP STUDY OF LONGEVITY AND MORBIDITY OF
MALE GRADUATES OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
D a te

NAME OF ALUMNUS ( P l e a s e p r i n t )
PRESENT ADDRESS _________________
MARITAL STATUS (C heck o n e )

M a r r ie d

S in g l e

Widowed

D iv o rc e d

PRESENT WEIGHT ________ l b s . I f y o u r w e ig h t h a s c h a n g e d m o re th a n 1 5 l b s .
w ith in th e l a s t sev en y e a r s , p le a s e e x p la in
RACE

W h ite

N egro

O th e r
From 19

PRESENT OCCUPATION _______________

t o 19

ANY PREVIOUS FULL TIME OCCUPATIONS:

1.
2.

_____________________

3.

______________________________

_From
_From
_From
From

4. ____________________

19____t o
19___ t o
19____t o
19
to

19_
19_
19_
19

SMOKING HABITS:
( P l e a s e c h e c k o n ly th o s e w h ic h a p p ly )

DRINKING HABITS
( P l e a s e c h e c k o n ly t h o s e w h ic h a p p ly )

Smoke
Do n o t sm oke
( I f y o u do n o t sm oke, p l e a s e d i s r e ­
g a r d t h e re m a in in g q u e s t i o n s i n t h i s
s e c tio n )

D rin k
Do n o t d r i n k
( I f y o u do n o t d r i n k , p l e a s e ‘d i s r e ­
g a r d th e re m a in in g q u e s t i o n s i n t h i s
s e c tio n )

C ig a re tte s :
1 . L e s s th a n 1 /2 p a c k p e r d ay __
2 . 1 / 2 to 1 p a c k p e r day__
3 . O v er 1 p a c k p e r d ay __

B e e r:

C ig a rs :

W ine:

1.

2.
3.

L e s s th a n 3 p e r day_
3 t o 6 p e r day
O v e r 6 p e r day

1.
2.
3.

O c c a s io n a l b o t t l e __
1 t o 3 b o t t l e s p e r day
O v er 3 b o t t l e s p e r day

1.

O c c a s io n a l g l a s s o t h e r
th a n f o r r e l i g i o u s u s e __
D a ily b u t l e s s th a n 1 /2
b o t t l e __
O ver 1 / 2 b o t t l e p e r d ay__

2.
3.

P ip e :

1.
2.
3.

L e s s th a n 4 b o w ls p e r day_
4 t o 10 b o w ls p e r day__
O v e r 10 b o w ls p e r d ay __

1.

L e s s th a n 1 /4 p a c k p e r day_
1 / 4 t o 3 /4 p a c k p e r d a y __
O v e r 3 /4 p a c k p e r d ay

Chew:

2.
3.

W hiskey ( g i n , e t c . ) :
1.
O c c a s io n a l g l a s s _
2.
1 t o 3 s h o t s p e r day__
3.
4 to 6 s h o t s p e r d ay __
4.
O v er
6
s h o t s p e r d ay _____

109

LONGEVITY OF BROTHERS AND SISTERS: ( I f a n y o f y o u r b r o t h e r s and s l a t e r s
h a v e d ie d i n t h e p a s t s e v e n y e a r s , p l e a s e f u r n i s h In f o n a t i o n r e q u e s te d )
R e la tio n s h ip

C au se o f D e a th

B r o th e r s

Age a t D e a th

__________________________________________

___

S is te rs

MEDICAL HISTORY: What a i l m e n t s h a v e y o u h ad i n t h e l a s t s e v e n y e a r s ?
(E x am p les: C o ro n a ry T h ro m b o s is , H ig h B lo o d P r e s s u r e , C a n c e r, D i a b e t e s ,
TB, e t c . )
Age a t O c c u rre n c e

1.

2.
3.

4. _______________________________
FAMILY: Do y o u h a v e an y c h i l d r e n ?
Y es
No
( I f y o u r a n s w e r i s y e s , p l e a s e f u r n i s h i n f o r m a t io n r e q u e s te d )
S o n s:

Number l i v i n g
Number d e c e a s e d ___
Age a n d c a u s e o f d e a t h ____________________________________

D a u g h te r s :

Number l i v i n g ___ Number d e c e a s e d .
Age a n d c a u s e o f d e a th ___________

NON-VOCATIONAL ACTIVITY RECORD FOR THE PAST YEAR:
1.

Do y o u
Mow y o u r own law n ?
Do o t h e r y a r d o r h o u s e m a in te n a n c e ?
( P l e a s e d e s c r i b e ) ________________________________________________________

2.

Do y o u

3.

Do y o u
Do any s i t t i n g u p e x e r c i s e s i n th e w i n t e r ?
I n t h e summer? How lo n g d o e s e a c h s e s s i o n l a s t ? ___________
When w as t h e l a s t tim e ? ____________________ T he tim e b e f o r e t h a t ?

4.

Do y o u w a lk o r b i k e t o w o r k ? ________________ How f a r ? ____________
How o f t e n ? ____________________-

5.

Do y o u h a v e any h o b b ie s o r s n g a g e i n o t h e r n o n - v o c a t l o n a l w ork
o r r e c r e a t i o n r a g u l a r l y ? EXCLUDING SPORTS ( P l e a s e l i s t b e lo w )
Hobby o r A c t i v i t y
How O f te n Do You P a r t i c i p a t e ?
a.
____________________________________________________________________
b . ______________________________________________________________________
c.
. __________________________________
d.

Have a g a rd e n ?

W hat do y o u do i n c o n n e c t io n w i t h t h i s ?

110

6.

a.
b.
c.
d.

W hat s p o r t s d i d 'y o u e n g a g e I n r e g u l a r l y d u r i n g t h e p a a t summer
m o n th s?
( P l e a s e u s e t h e l i s t b e lo w a s a g u id e )
S p o r t___________ How O fte n ? When Was t h e L a s t Time? The Time B e fo re ?
_________________________________________________________ ~
_____________________________________________~

7.

W hat s p o r t s d id you e n g a g e I n r e g u l a r l y d u r in g th e p a s t w i n t e r
m o n th s?
( P l e a s e u s e t h e l i s t b e lo w a s a g u id e )
S p o rt
How O f te n 7 When Was t h e L a s t Tim e? The Tim e B e fo re ?

a.

__

b.
c.
d.

_____________________________ _________________________________________________

____________

____________________

__________________________________________________________ '

e. __________________ _______________________________
f.

_____________________________ ________________ ^ ______
LIST OF SPORTS ACTIVITIES

A n g lin g ( f i s h i n g )
A rc h e ry
B ad m in to n
B a s e b a ll
B a s k e tb a ll
B ic y c l in g
B lrlln g
B o b -S le d d in g
B ow lin g
B oxing
C an o ein g
C o d e b a ll
C ric k e t
C ro s s C o u n try
C u r li n g
F e n c in g
F ie ld B a ll
F o o tb a ll
G o lf
G y m n a stic s
H a n d b a ll
H ik in g
H ockey ( f i e l d )
Hockey ( I c e )
H o rse b a c k E ld in g
H o rse sh o e P i t c h i n g
H u n tin g
H u r lin g

I c e B o a tin g
J a l A la i
J u J lts u
Lawn B o w ling
M o u n ta in C lim b in g
P a d d le T e n n is
P o lo ( h o r s e )
P o lo (w a te r )
Rowing and S c u l l i n g
S a ilin g
S h u f f le b o a r d
S k a ti n g ( I c e )
S k a ti n g ( r o l l e r )
S k e e t a n d / o r T ra p S h o o tin g
S k ii n g
Snow S h o e in g
S q u a sh R a c k e ts
S w lm in g
T a b le T e n n is
T e n n is
T ra c k an d F i e l d
T ra p p in g
V o lle y B a ll
W alk in g C o m p e titiv e
W eig h t L i f t i n g
W r e s tli n g

_________

111

Serial No.______

SECOND FOLLOW-UP OF THE LONCEVITY
AND MORBIDITY OF MALE CRADUATES OF MICHICAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Name of Alumnus
'___________________________________ D a te ______
Street________________________________________ City
S ta te _
PERSONAL INFORMATION
1. Have there been any changes in your marital status since 1960 (our previous follow up)?
Yes □
No □
(If yes to question 1, answer A; if no, move on to question 2)

| A. Pl«n«»Eiplnin
2. Present weight _ _ _ _ _ _ _ lbs. A. Have you lost 15 lbs. or more since I960?
(Ifyes to question A, answer 1 and 2; if no, move on to question 3)

Yes □

No □

1. How many times did you lose this much weight? 1-2 times Q
3 or more times Q
2. Any specific reason for these weight fluctuations?_______________________________________

3. Height (in inches)________________

4. Which of these body type classification do you feel is closest to your body build?
Stocky Q
Medium Q
Slender □
OCCUPATIONAL INFORMATION
5. Are you presently working (job or self employed)? Yes □
No Q
(If no, answer A; if yes, move on to question 6)
A. Have you had a job or been self employed at any time since 1960?
(If no, skip to question 7; if yes, move on to question 6)

Yes Q

No Q

6. Answer the following questions about your present occupation or the last job you have had since 1960.
A. What kind of work (for example, engineer, teacher, doctor)___________________________________
B. About how much time on the job is spent sitting?
Practically all □
More than half □
About half □ Almost none Q
C . About how much time on the job is spent walking?
Practically all □
More than half □
About half □ Almost none □
D. About how much walking getting to and from your job? Blocks
Miles_____
E. What type of transportation do you use to and from your job (check all that apply)
Subway □
Bus O
Car Q
Bicycle Q
Others (Please describe)____________________
F. How often do you have to lift heavy weights or cany heavy things on the job?
Frequently Q
Sometimes O
Very infrequently (or never) Q
C. How many hours a week do you work on your job?
(Hours per week)
H. How much tension in your job? Great Deal □
Some □
Very Little □
None □
I. Any responsibility for supervising other workers on the Job? Yes □
No Q
(If yes, answer 1; if no, move on to J)
1. About how many on the average do you supervise?______
J. When did you start on this job? Year
_ _ _
K. Just before this job were you doing the
same typeofwork?
Yes, did the same type of work □ . I was on that j o b
years. No, this was my first job □ .
No, did different type of work Q . If you check this item, please answer the following questions,
1,2,3, and4:
1. How long did you do this different type of work?

years.

2. What kind of work was i t ? ________________________________________________________
3. On this job did you spend more or less time sitting than your present job?

More □
Less Q Same Q
4. Was there more or less walking on this earlier job than on your present (or last) job?
More □
Less □
Same □

112

LEISURE TIME ACTIVITIES
7. How often do you do the following? (For each activity listed, please check whether you do it frequently,
sometimes, or very infrequently.)
Frequently Sometimes Very Infrequently
(Or Never)
A. Take walk in good weather
□
o
□
B. Work around the house or apartment
Q
□
□
(painting, repairing, etc.)
C. Gardening inspring or summer
D
G
G
D. Take part in sports during season
G
G
G
E. If you take part in sports, please indicate what kind of sports and frequency either by the week or year.
SPO R T
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□

P er W k.

F requ en cy
o r P erY r.

A ngling (R>hing)
Archery
B adm inton
B aseball
B asketball
Bicycling
Bob-Sledding
B ow ling (exclude la w n bow ling h e r e ) .

□ Boxing
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
P

C an o ein g
C odeball
C ricket
C ross C o u n try
C u rlin g
F en cin g
F o o tb all
C o if
G ym nastics
H an d b all
H iking
H ockey (Beld)
H ockey (ice)
H orseback R iding
H orseshoe P itch in g
H u n tin g
Ice B oating
J a i A lai

F req u en cy
Per W k.
P er Yr.

or

S PO R T
□
□
□
G
□
□
Q
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□

Judo
L a w n B ow ling
M o u n tain C lim bing
P a d d le T ennis
P olo (horse)
P o lo (w ater)
R ow ing Sc Sculling
S hu fileb o ard
S k a tin g (ice)
S k atin g (roller)
S k iin g
S now S hoeing
S q u ash R ackets
S w im m ing
T a b le T ennis
T e n n is
T ra ck & F ield
T ra p p in g
V olleyball
W eig h t L iftin g
W restling
O th ers:

□.
□.
□•
□.

F. Have you been using an exercise plan at any time during or since 1960?
(If yes to question F, answer 1 and 2; if no, answer question G)
1. Please check how often you used this plan.

Frequently Q

Sometimes □

Yes Q

No □

Very infrequently Q

2. Give a brief explanation of the exercises and amounts of time spent.__________________________

C. Up till the time you graduated from high school did you live mostly on the farm? G
years?
Or did you live in the city? Q
How many years?______

How many

DIET RECALL
8. List the things you ate and drank yesterday (this should preferably be a week day). When possible, give
the specific name of the item, e.g., Fresca or Coca Cola, rather than soft drink; McDonald’s hamburger;
whole milk, sldm milk, half and half, rather than just milk. Indicate the amount you ate or drank in
terms of cups (200 ml), tablespoons, teaspoons, ounces, numbers and approximate size, e.g., small, large,
medium for fruits, vegetables, etc.
You may list meats either in ounces or size of pieces: one hamburger patty (3” diameter x 1” thick)
weighs 3 oz.; an average serving of steak (3” x 3” x V i") weighs 3 oz. Be sure to include everything you
ate or drank yesterday —candy, liquor, coffee (list sugar and cream, if used), popcorn, potato chips, etc.,
as well as your regular meals. To help you estimate sizes, a rule is marked off on the edge of this page.

113

Breakfast

M orning Snack*
A m ount or

A m ount or

A m ount or
Size

A m ount or
Size

E v en in g Snack*

D in n er
A m ount or

A m ount or

Item

J lu n -

_SiZ£_

A. Check date of diet record: Sun. □
Mon. □
Tue*. □
Wed. Q
Thurs. □ Frl. □
Sat. □
B. Did yesterday's meals include any special or unusual event, e.g., party,birthday,anniversary, picnic,
etc.?
Yes Q
No □
1. I f t w

w h a t w a s it?

C. Does the above represent your usual day's food intake? Yes G No G
1. If no, how did it differ from your usual Intake?___________________________________________
D.

Check the column which indicates the approximate frequency with which you consume each food.
D a llv

F ood

Weekly N ever

WKnla mfllr

F ood
F ish

C ream o r h a lf a n d h a lf
Ic e c re a m (not ic e milk)
£ h e e se (other th a n cottage)
b u tte r
M argarine
S our cream
S alad dressing* (not low calorie)
E ass
C raw

Do you drink coffee?
A.

Yes G

W eekly Never

C rea m o r cu sta rd Dies
C ream B id d in g s
S u g ar: in coffee, te a . etc.
Sugar: o n cereal
Sugar: o n fruits, vegetables
F ro ste d cak es, brow nies,
sw eet rolls, etc.
S oft d rin k s (o th e r th a n
low o r non-calorie)
H oney
le llv . lam . oreserves. m arm alade
S y ru p s (on p an cak es, w affles, etc.)
M olasses
S w eeten ed firuit Juices, syrups, etc.

Pork
Veal
French-fried p o ta to es
f r ie d m e at, fried o o ta to es. etc.
O th er deep*fat fried food*

9.

D aily

No G

(If yes, answer question a; if no, go on to question 10)

What is the average number of cups per day?

1-3 G

W Q

7-9 G

more G •

SMOKING HABITS

10. Do you smoke at the present time?

Yes G

No G

(If yes to question 10, answer A and B)

A. About how old were you when you first began to smoke?
rig o rs
B. What is the average number of cigarettes,
(continue on to question 11)
(If no to question 10, answer C)
C.

Did you ever smoke regularly?

Y e sG

No G

(Ifyes to C, answer 1, 2, and 3; if no, move on to question 11)

Yrs. nM.

.. ,. pipefuls

__ you smoke per day.

114

Y rs. o ld .
1. About how old were you when you started smoking? _
Yr*. o ld .
2. About how old were you when you stopped smoking? .
3. When you were smoking, what was the average number of cigarettes
that you smoked per day?

rig a n

p ip e fu ls

DRINKING HABITS
11. Doyou drink at the present time? Yes Q
No Q
(If yes to question 11. answer A)
A. Please check the amounts you usually drink.
W ine

Beer
□ O ccasional b o ttle
□ 1 to 3 b o ttle s p er d a y
□ over 3 b o ttle r per d ay

W hiskey (gin. etc.)

P I O ccasional a l a r t o th e r th a n for reliaious u se
f~l D aily , b u t less th a n V4 b o ttle
n O ver Hi b o ttle per d ay

( 1 O ccasio n al glass
□ 3 to 6 shots p er d ay
P I over 6 shots p er d ay

(continue on to question 12)
(If no to question 11, answer B)
B.

Did you ever drink regularly?

Yes Q

No □

(If yes to question B, answer 1 and 2; if no, go on to question 12)
1. Please give the number of years that you drank regularly before you quit

Y rs , a n d w h y

v n u m ilt-

2. Please check the amounts you usually drank.
W ine

Beer

W hiskey (gin. etc.)

□ O ccasional glass o th er th a n for religious use
O D ally , b u t lew th a n W b o ttle
□ O ver '.'2 b o ttle p er d ay

□ O ccasional b o ttle
□ 1 to 3 b o ttle s p er d a y
□ over 3 b o ttle s p er day

□ O ccasio n al glass
□ 3 to 6 shots p er d ay
1 1over 6 sh o ts p er d ay

HEREDITARY HISTORY
12. If there are any changes in this history since 1960, will you please bring this information up to date, and
make any additions or corrections in the data listed below.
RELATIONSHIP
Age

If Living
Ailment, if any

Age at Death

If Deceased
Cause of Death

Father
Mother
Brothers
Sisters

A. Father’s occupation_____________________________________________________________ _____ ____
MEDICAL HISTORY
13. If you have had any of these diseases since 1960, will you please bring this information up to date.
Make any correction or addition in the data we listed below.
Ailm ent

A rc at
O nset

A re you still
tro u b led w ith
th is co n d itio n ?
Yes

H igh Blood P ressure
A ngina Pectoris
S troke (C erebral T hrom bosis)
H eart A ttack (Coronary Throm bosis)
R h e w m tic H eart D isease
C an cer
D iab e tes
T uberculosis
Ulcer
Liver A ilm ent
A rthritis
G out
O th er

No

Are you tak in g
m edication or
treatm en t for it?
Yes

No

115

Serial No.

TH IRD FOLLOW-UP O F TH E LONGEVITY
AND MORBIDITY OF MALE GRADUATES OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
D ate____________

N am e of A lum nus_________

S treet_________________________________ C ity_________________________ S ta te ____________
Social Security Number _________________________
P E R S O N A L IN F O R M A T IO N
I . H ave there been an y changes in your m arital statu s since 1968 (our previous follow-up)?
Yes □
No □
(If yes to question 1, answ er A; i f no, move on to question 2)
A.

Please E xp lain __________________________________________________________

2. P resent w eight

lbs. A. H ave you lost 15 lbs. or more since 1968?

O C C U P A T IO N A L IN F O R M A T IO N
3. Are you presently w orking (job o r self employed)?
(If no, answ er A; if yes, move on to question 4)

Yes □

Yes □

No □

Yes □

No □

No □

A. H ave you h ad a job o r been self employed a t any tim e since 1968?
(If no, skip to question 5; i f yes, move on to question 4)

4. Is th is th e sam e job you reported on the 1968 questionnaire?
Yes □
No □
(If yes, move on to question 5; if no, answ er the following questions A through J .
A. W hat kind of work (for exam ple, engineer, teacher, doctor)
'_________________________
B. About how m uch tim e on th e job is spent sitting?
Practically all □
More th a n h a lf □ About h a lf □
A lm ost none □
C. About how much tim e on th e job is spent walking?
P ractically all □
More th a n h a lf □ About h alf □
A lm ost none □
D. Do you ever w alk to or from work?
Yes □
No □
I f yes, how fa r do you w alk? Blocks
Miles
How m any tim es a year___________________
Do you ever bicycle to an d from work?
Yes □
No □ If yes, how far do you cycle (both wayB)?
Blocks
Miles
N um ber of tim es per y ea r_____________________________________________
E. W hat type of transportation do you use to an d from your job (check all th a t apply)?
Subway □ Bus □ C ar □ Bicycle □ W alking □ O thers (Please describe)_____________________
F. How often do you have to lift heavy weights or carry heavy th in g s on th e job?
Frequently □
Sometimes □
Very infrequently (or never) □
G. How m any hours a week do you work on your job?
(Hours per week)
H. How much tension in your job?
Great deal □
Some □
Very little □
None □
I. A ny responsibility for supervising other workers on the job?
Yes □
No □
(If yes, answ er 1; if no, move on to J)
1. About how m any on th e average do you supervise?__________
J . When did you s ta rt on th is job?

Y ear_________

L E IS U R E T IM E A C T IV IT IE S
5. How m any hours a m onth do you do the following activities and w hich m onths? (List
num ber of hours involved in each activity under the month(s) you participate. Leave
blank where not involved.)

116

ACTIVITY
Fishing - bank, boat, ice
Fishing - wading
Archery, target
Badminton__________________
Baseball - hard, soft
Basketball
Bicycling • pleasure
Tobagganing, sledding_______
Bowling, including lawn
Canoeing or rowing
Jogging
Curling_____________________
Fencing
Gardening
Lawn mowing - riding
Lawn mowing - power m ow er_
Lawn mowing - hand mower
Snow shoveling
Golf - walking
Golf • power c a r t ____________
Handball, including paddleball,
racket and aquash
Walking - back packing
Walking - cross country ____
Walking • mountain climbing
Walking - pleasure
Home workshop (carpentry)
Horseback riding____________
Horseshoe pitching
Hunting - bow and gun
Sailing • ice and water
Judo, including karate_______
Paddle tennis
Rowing, skulling
Shufflsboard (not hand)
Skating - ice, roller---------------Skiing • downhill
Skiing - cross country
Skiing • water
Snow shoeing_______________
Dancing - ballroom
Dancing • square
Swimming • pleasure
Swimming - exercise________
Table tennis
Tennis - singles
Tennis • doubles
Volleyball__________________
Weight lifting
Calisthenics - home
Calisthenics - Health C lub____
Others;

5

S’ *

1 * 1

f f f

3

I

3

6. I f you have been routinely exercising under a home exercise p lan or H ealth Club plan (commercial,
Y.M.CA., A thletic Club, etc.) answ er th e following questions:
A. Number of hours per m onth
.which m onths (circle): Ja n ., Feb., Mar., Apr., May, June, July,
Aug., Sept., Oct., Nov., Dec.
B. W hat type o f exercises?__________________________________ ____ _____________________________
D IE T R E C A L L
7. Lost th e things you ate an d d ran k yesterday (this should preferably be a week day). When possible, give
th e specific nam e of th e item, e.g., Fresca or Coca Cola, rath e r th a n soft drink; McDonald’s ham burger;
whole milk, skim milk, h a lf an d h alf, ra th e r th a n ju st milk. Indicate the am ount you a te or drank in terms
o f cups (200 ml), tablespoons, teaspoons, ounces, num bers an d approxim ate size, e.g., sm all, large, medium
for firuits, vegetables, etc.
You m ay list m eats either in ounces or size of pieces: one ham burger p atty (3” diam eter x 1” thick)
w eighs 3 oz.; a n average serving o f steak (3” x 3” x V4”) weighs 3 oz. Be sure to include everything you ate or
d ran k yesterday—candy, liquor, coffee (list su g ar an d cream, if used), popcorn, potato chips, etc., as well as
your regular m eals. To help you estim ate sizes, a rule is marked off on th e edge o f th is page.
Breakfast

Morning Snacks

Amount or
Item

Size

Lunch
Item

Amount or
Size

Afternoon Snacks
Amount or
Size

Dinner
Item

Item

Item

Amount or
Size

Evening Snacks
Amount or
Size

Item

Amount or
Size

A. Check date of diet record: Sun. □
Mon. □
Tues. □
Wed. □
Thurs. □
Fri. □
Sat. □
B. Did yesterday’s m eals include a n y special or unusual event, e.g., party, birthday, anniversary, picnic,
etc.? Yes □
No □
1. I f yes, w h at w as i t ? _________________________________________________
C. Does th e above represent your u su al day’s food intake?
Yes □
No □
1. I f no, how did i t differ from your usual intake?_______________________________________________
D. Check the column which indicates th e approxim ate frequency w ith w hich you consume each food.
Food
Dally Weekly Never
Whole milk
Cream or half and half
Ice cream (not ice milk)
Cheese (other than cottage)
Butter
Margarine
Sour cream
Salad dressings (not low calorie)
Eggs
Gravy
Fat around meat
f>ork
Veal
French-fried potatoes
Fried meat, tried potatoes, etc.
Other deep-fat fried foods

Food
Fish
Beef
Cream or custard pies
Cream puddings
Sugar: In coffee, tea. etc.
Sugar: on cereal
S u g a r on fruits, vegetables
Frosted cakes, brownies,
sweet rolls, etc.
Soft drinks (other than
low or non-calorie)
Honey
Jelly, jam, preserves, marmalade
Syrups (on pancakes, waffles, etc.)
Molasses
Sweetened fruit iuicas. svruos. etc.

Dally Weekly Never

118

E.
A.

Do you drink coffee?
Yes □
No □ (If yes, answ er questionA; if no, go on to question 8)
W hat is th e average num ber of cups per day?
1-3 □ 4-6 □
7-9 □
more □

S M O K IN G H A B IT S
8. Do you smoke a t the present tim e?
Yes □
No □ (If yes to question 8 answ er A and B; if no,
answ er C )_______________________________________________________________________________ ____
A. W hat is the average num ber o f cigarettes
, cig ars
a n d /o r pipefulls— you smoke per day?
B. H ave you stopped a t any tim e between 1968 an d now?
Yes □
N oD
If yes, how long did
you s to p ? ----------------------------------C. Did you smoke regularly an y tim e between 1968 and now? YesD N oD If no, go on to question 9.
I f yes, how long?________How m an y cigarettes___ _ cigars___ _ pipefulls____did you smoke per day?
D R IN K IN G H A B IT S
9. Do you drink alcoholic beverages a t th e present time?
A a n d B: if no, answ er C)
A. P lease check th e am ounts you usually drink.
Beer

Y esD
'

N o D (Ify es to question 9, answ er
_______
________

Wine

Liquor

D Occasional bottle
D Occasional glass other than for religious use
D Occasional glass
D 1 to 3 bottles per day
D Daily, but lesa than 'h bottle
D 3 to 6 shots per day
D over 3 bottles per day
D Over V4 bottle per day
D over 6 shots per day
B. H ad you stopped drinking a t an y tim e between 1968 an d now? Yes D N oD If no, go on to
question 10. I f yes, for how long a period did you stop?_______________________
C. Did you drink regularly a t any tim e between 1968an d now? Y esD
N oD
Ifn o ,g o o n to q u estio n 10. If yes, for how long a period did you d rin k ?______________________
How m uch? (Please check the am ounts.)
B eer

Wine

Liquor

D Occasional bottle
D Occasional glass o ther than for religious use
D Occasional glass
D 1 to 3 bottles per dsy
D Daily, but less than Vi bottle
D 3 to 6 shots per day
D over 3 bottles per day
D Over Vi bottle per day ______________________ D over 6 shots per day
H E R E D IT A R Y H IST O R Y
10. A s o f 1968, th e individuals listed were still alive. Will you please bring th is inform ation up-to-date.
RELATIONSHIP

Ace

If Livlno
Ailment. If any

Age at Death

If Deceased
Cause of Death

A. F ath e r’s occupation (when w orking)__________________________________________
M E D IC A L H IS T O R Y
11. In 1968 you indicated you h ad th e following conditions. Will you please bring this
inform ation up-to-date. Make any correction or addition in the d a ta we listed below.
Aliment
High B lood P re ssu re

Angina Pectoris
.stroke (C erehrsl T hrom bosis)
H e e d A ttack (C oronary Throm bosis)
R h eum atic H eart D isease

C ancer
D iabetes
T u b ercu lo sis
IJIcer

Liver Ailment
Arthral*
flo u t
O th er

Age a t
Onset

Are you still
troubled with
this condition?
Yes
No

n
□
n
n
□
D
n
n
n
□
n
□
n

D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D

Are you taking
medication or
treatm ent for it?
No
Yes

D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D

D
D
D
D
D
D
D
□
D
D
D
D
D

119

Serial No.

FOURTH FOLLOW -UP O F THE LONGEVITY
AND MORBIDITY O F MALE GRADUATES OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
N am e of A lum nus___________________________________________________ n» t»
S treet_________________________________C ity_________________________ S ta te ____________
Social Security Number

!____________________

P E R S O N A L IN FO R M A T IO N
1. Have there been any changes in your m arital status since 1976 (our previous follow-up)?
Yes □
No □
(If yes to question 1, answ er A; if no, move on to question 2)
A. P le a s e F .yplain

2. Present w eight

lbs. Have you lost 15 lbs. or more since 1976?

O C C U P A T IO N A L IN FO R M A T IO N
3. Are you presently working (job or self employed)?
(If no, answ er A; if yes, move on to question 4)

Yes □

Yes □

No □

Yes □

No □

No □

A. Have you had a job or been self employed at any time since 1976?
(If no, answer A: if yes, more on to question 4)

4. Is this the same job you reported on the 1976 questionnaire?
Yes □
No □
(If yes, move on to question 5; if no, answ er the following questions A through J.
A. W hat kind of work (for example, engineer, teacher, doctor)__________________________________
B. About how much time on th e job is spent sitting?
Practically all □
More th a n h a lf □ About h a lf □
A lm ost none □
C. About how much time on th e job is spent walking?
Practically all □
More th a n h a lf □
About h a lf □
Almost none □
Yes □
No □
D. Do you ever walk to or from work?
If yes, how far do you walk? Blocks
Miles
How m any tim es a year___________________
Do you ever bicycle to and from work?
Yes □
No □ If yes, how far do you cycle (both ways)?
Blocks
Miles
Number of tim es per y e a r_____________________________________________
E. W hat type of transportation do you use to an d from your job (check all th a t apply)?
Subway □ Bus □ C ar □ Bicycle □ W alking □ Others (Please describe)_____________________
F. How often do you have to lift heavy w eights or carry heavy th in g s on the job?
Frequently □
Sometimes □
Very infrequently (or never) □
G. How m any hours a week do you work on your job?
(Hours per week)
H. How much tension in youT job?
G reat deal □
Some □ Very little □
None □
I. Any responsibility for supervising other workers on the job?
Yob □
N oD
(If yes, answ er 1; if no, move on to J)
1.

About how m any on the average do you supervise?________

J. When did you sta rt on th is job?

Year_________

L E IS U R E TIM E A C T IV IT IE S
5. How m any hours a m onth do you do the following activities and which m onths? (lis t
num ber of hours involved in each activity under the month(s) you participate. Leave
blank where not involved.)

120

ACTIVITY
Fiihing - bank, boat, ica
Fishing - wading
Archery, target
Badminton _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Baseball • hard, soft
Basketball
Bicycling - pleasure
Tobagganing, sledding _
Bowling, including lawn
Canoeing or rowing
Jogging
Curling.
Fencing
Gardening
Lawn mowing • riding
Lawn mowing • power m ow er.
Lawn mowing - hand mower
Snow shoveling
Golf • walking
Golf - power c a r t ___________
Handball, including paddleball,
racket and squash
Walking • back packing
Walking • cross c o untry______
Walking • mountain climbing
Walking - pleasure
Home workshop (carpentry)
Horseback riding
■
_______
Horseshoe pitching
Hunting • bow and gun
Sailing - ice and water
Judo, Including karate__
Paddle tennis
Rowing, skulling
Shuffleboard (not hand)
Skating • ice, roller-------Skiing • downhill
Skiing • cross country
Skiing - water
Snow shoeing.
Dancing - ballroom
Dancing • square
Swimming • pleasure
Swimming - exercise Table tennis
Tennis - singles
Tennis • doubles
Volleyball__________
Walght lifting
Calisthenics - home
Calisthenics - Health C lu b .
Others:

* ii a

<

s

4

4 * 3

o x o

6. I f you have been routinely exercising under a home exercise plan or H ealth Club plan (commercial,
Y.M.C.A., A thletic Club, etc.) answ er the following questions:
A. Number o f hours per m onth
.which m onths (circle): Jan ., Feb., Mar., Apr., May, June, July,
Aug., Sept., Oct., Nov., Dec.
B. W hat type of exercises?------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------D IE T R E C A L L
7. List the things you ate and d ran k yesterday (this should preferably be a week day). When possible, give
the specific nam e o f th e item, e.g., Fresca or Coca Cola, rath er th an soft drink; McDonald’s hamburger;
whole milk, skim milk, h a lf an d half, rath e r th a n ju st milk. Indicate the am ount you ate or drank in terms
of cups (200 ml), tablespoons, teaspoons, ounces, num bers an d approxim ate size, e.g., sm all, large, medium
for fruits, vegetables, etc.
You m ay lis t m eats either in ounces or size of pieces: one ham burger p atty (3” diam eter x 1” thick)
weighs 3 oz.; a n average serving o f steak (3” x 3" x V4”) w eighs 3 oz. Be sure to include everything you ate or
d rank yesterday—candy, liquor, coffee (list su g ar and cream, if used), popcorn, potato chips, etc., as well as
your regular m eals. To help you estim ate sizes, a rule is marked off on the edge of th is page.
Morning Snacks

Breakfast
Item

Amount or
Size

Lunch
Item

Amount or
Size

Afternoon Snacks
Amount or
Size

Dinner
Item

Item

Item

Amount or
Size

Evening Snacks
Amount or
Size

Item

Amount or
Size

A. Check date of diet record: Sun. □
Mon. □
Tues. □
Wed. □
Thurs. □
Fri. □
Sat. □
B. Did yesterday’s m eals include an y special or unusual event, e.g., party, birthday, anniversary, picnic,
etc.? Yes □
No □
1. If yes, w hat w as i t ? _________________________________________________
C. Does th e above represent your usual day ’s food intake?
Yea □
No □
1. I f no, how did it differ from your usual intake?______________________________________________
D. Check the column which indicates the approxim ate frequency w ith which you consume each food.
Food
Whole milk
Cream or halt and half
Ice cream (not ice milk)
Cheese (other than cottage)
Butter
Margarine
Sour cream
Salad dressings (not low calorie)
Eggs
Gravy
Fat around meat
Pork
Veal
French-fried potatoes
Fried meat, fried potatoes, etc.
Other deep-fat fried foods

Dally Weekly Never

Food
Fish
Beef
Cream or custard pies
Cream puddings
Sugar: in coffee, tea, etc.
Sugar: on cereal
Sugar: on fruits, vegetables
Frosted cakes, brownies,
sweet rolls, etc.
Soft drinks (other than
low or non-calorie)
Honey
Jelly, jam, preserves, marmalade
Syrups (on pancakes, waflles, etc.)
Molasses
Sweetened fruit iuices. svruos. etc.

Dally Weekly Never

122

E. Do you drink coffee?
Yea □
No □ (If yes, answ er questionA; if no, go on to question 8)
A. W hat is th e average num ber of cups per day?
1-3 □ 4-6 □
7-9 □
more □
SM O K IN G H A B IT S
8. Do you smoke a t th e present time?
Yes □
N o □ (If yea to question 8 answ er A and B; if no,
answ er C )
A. W hat is th e average num ber of cigarettes
cig ars
a n d /o r pipefulls__you smoke per day?
B. Have you stopped at any tim e between 1976 and now? Yes □
N oD I f yes, how long did
you s to p ? _______________________
C. Did you smoke regularly any time between 1976 and now? YesD N oD If no, go on to question 9.
If yes, how long?________How m any cigarettes___ , cigars___ _ pipefulls___ did you smoke per day?
D R IN K IN G H A B IT S
9. Do you drink alcoholic beverages a t th e present time?
A a n d B: if no, answ er C)

Yes □

No □ (If yes to question 9, answer

A. Please check the amounts you usually drink.
Beer
□ Occasional bottle
□ 1 to 3 bottles p er day
□ over 3 bottles per day

Wine
□ Occasional glass other than for religious use
O Dally, but less than 'A bottle
□ Over Vi bottle per day

Liquor

D Occasional glass
D 3 to 6 shots per day
D over 6 shots per day

B. Had you stopped drinking at any time between 1 9 7 6 and now? Yes□ NoD
question 10. If yes, for how long a period did you stop?______________________

If

no, go on to

C. Did you drink regularly a t any tim e between 1976 and now? Y esD
N oD
Ifno.goontoquestion 10. I f yes, for how long a period did you d rin k ?_________
How much? (Please check th e am ounts.)
Baer

Wine

Liquor

D Occasional bottle
D Occasional glass other than for religious use
□ 1 to 3 bottles per day
□ Dally, but less than 'A bottle
D over 3 bottles per day
O Over 'A bottle per day______________________
H E R E D IT A R Y H IS T O R Y
10. As of 1976, the individuals listed w ere still alive. W ill you please bring
RELATIONSHIP

Aoe

If Llvlno
Ailment, if any

D Occasional glass
D 3 to 6 shots per day
D over 6 shots per day
this inform ation up-to-date.

Age a t Death

f Deceased
Cause of Death

A. F ather’s occupation (when working)_______________________________________________ — —
M E D IC A L H IS T O R Y
11. In 1976 you indicated you had the following conditions. Will you please bring this information
up-to-date. Make any correction or addition in the data we listed below.________________________
Ailment
High Blood Pressure
Angina Pectoris
Stroke (Cerebral Thrombosis)
Heart Attack (Coronary Thrombosis)
Rheumatic Heart Disease
Cancer
Diabetes
Tuberculosis
Ulcer
Liver Ailment
Arthritis
Qout
Other

Age at
Onset

Are you still
troubled with
this condition?
No
Yes

D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D

D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D

Are you taking
medication or
treatm ent for 117
No
Yes

D
D
D
D
D
□
D
D
D
D
D
D
D

D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D

APPENDIX B

CALORIC EXPENDITURE STANDARDS FOR THE MICHIGAN STATE
UNIVERSITY LONGEVITY STUDY ACTIVITIES **

Caloric Standards for the Michigan State University
Longevity Study Activities

1. Fishing (bank, boat, Ice)...............020 kcal/mln/lb
2. Fishing (wading)....................... 028 kcal/mln/lb
3. Archery................................029 kcal/min/lb
4. Badminton.............................. 040 kcal/mln/lb
5. Baseball (hard,soft)................... 031 kcal/mln/lb
6. Basketball............................. 043 kcal/mln/lb
7. Bicycle (pleasure,

5mph)*..............029 kcal/min/lb

8. Tobagganlng (sled)

025 kcal/mln/lb

9. Bowling

.029 kcal/mln/lb

10. Canoeing (rowing,leisure)*.............. 020 kcal/mln/lb
11. Jogging*............................... 074 kcal/min/lb
12. Curling................................ 020 kcal/mln/lb
13. Fencing................................ 033 kcal/mln/lb
14. Gardening

.039 kcal/min/lb

15. Lawnmowing (riding)

017 kcal/mln/lb

16. Lawn mowing (power mower)*

051 kcal/mln/lb

17.

055 kcal/mln/lb

Lawn mowing (hand mower)*

18. Snow shoveling

039 kcal/mln/lb

19.

039 kcal/mln/lb

Golf (walking)*

123

124

20. Golf (power cart)...................... 020 kcal/mln lb
21. Handball

080 kcal/mln/lb

22. Walking (backpackIng)*

050 kcal/mln/lb

23. Walking (cross country)*............... 044 kcal/mln/lb
24. Walking (mountain climbing)*

055 kcal/mln/lb

25. Walking (pleasure)*.................... 036 kcal/mln/lb
26. Home workshop (carpentry).............. 023 kcal/mln/lb
27. Horseback riding (trotting)

.045 kcal/mln/lb

28. Horseshoe pitching..................... 023 kcal/mln/lb
29. Hunting (bow and gun).................. 040 kcal/mln/lb
30. Sailing (Ice and water)................ 020 kcal/mln/lb
31. Judo...................................089 kcal/mln/lb
32. Paddle tennis.......................... 033 kcal/mln/lb
33. Rowing (sculling)*..................... 029 kcal/mln/lb
34. Shuffleboard

020 kcal/mln/lb

35. Skating (Ice, roller)*................. 038 kcal/mln/lb
36. Skiing (downhill)...................... 064 kcal/mtn/lb
37. Skiing (cross country)*................ 080 kcal/min/lb
38. Skiing (water)......................... 052 kcal/mln/lb
39. Snowshoelng (2.3 mph)*................. 060 kcal/mln/lb
40. Dancing (ballroom)*

.029 kcal/mln/lb

41. Dancing (square)*...................... 045 kcal/mln/lb
42. Swimming (pleasure)*................... 045 kcal/mln/lb
43. Swimming (exercise)*................... 058 kcal/mln/lb
44. Table tennis........................... 031 kcal/mln/lb
45. Tennis (singles)....................... 050 kcal/mln/lb

125

46. Tennis (doubles)

045 kcal/mln/lb

47. Volleyball............................. 022 kcal/mln/lb
48. Weight lifting......................... 049 kcal/mln/lb
49. Calisthenics (home)*................... 033 kcal/mln/lb
50. Calisthenics (health club)*............ 040 kcal/mln/lb

*

**

Activities utilized In the aerobic caloric expenditure
calculations.
Standards computed from the work of Passmore and
Durnln (46).

APPENDIX C
STATISTICAL ANALYSES

126

Com Ini11'-'

'rf<TU»Lri'»' V<=21 0=V2
Two-somrlfi t-te&ts
VARIABLE

ATHLETE YES

21.
MEAN
WCFK76
VAR
( IOTAL= 3 183 > N

1558.5
.24946 +7
256

NO

TEST STATISTIC

DF

SIGNIF

1216.7
T= 2.5471
493
.19363 +7 F= 1.2884
255.238
239
PROBUST MEAN>2NU !DATA)*

.0112
.0239
.9945

Two-vanple t-tasts
VARIABLE

ATHLETE YES

24.
MEAN
UEEK84
VAR
<TOTAL* 1183)
N

1289.3
.20126 +7
173

NO

TEST STATISTIC

DF

SIGNIF

1056.5
T- 1.6508
328
.0997
.12234 +7 F- 1.6450
172rl56
.0008
157
P R O B U S T MEAN>2ND (DATA)- .9516

127

Comm and
7STUDENT V=62 S«V2 C = V 9 3 3 * V 7 3 : 1*2

Two-sample t-tests
VARIABLE

CASES«PICK21*DXSTAT:DEAD»ALIVE

ATHLETE YES

62.
MEAN
BRTHYR2
VAR
(TOTAL*5 456)
N

907.32
50.001
239

NO

TEST STATISTIC

DF

906.94
56.545
216

.5719
T° .56565
453
F* 1.1309
215r238
.1772
P R O S (1ST MEAN>2ND SDATA)1 .7130

SIGNIF

Command
7STUDENT V*=62 S-V73.C*5*

Two-sample t-tests
VARIABLE

CASES«PICK21*DXSTATJDEAD»ALIVE

DXSTAT DEAD

62.
MEAN
BRTHYR2
VAR
(TOTAL*5 456)
N

902.82
64.807
131

ALIVE
908.88
37.850
324

TEST STATISTIC

DF

SIGNIF

T=-8.6663
453
.0000
F» 1.7122
130.323
.0001
PR0B ( 1 S T MEAN<2ND !D A TA)551.0000

128

Univariate 1-way ANOVA

CASES=TQDATASYES

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 62.BRTHYR2
SOURCE

DF SUM OF SQRS

UITHIN
TOTAL

2
491
493

ETA*

.2538

1798.2
26126.
27924.

ETA-SQR* .0644

U76CAT

N

MEAN

LE500
T01999
GE2000

168
204
122

GRAND

494

F - S T A T I S T I C SIGNIF

899.12
16.898
.0000
53.209
(RANDOM EFFECTS STATISTICS)

VARIANCE

STD DEV

904.43
908.08
908.93

75.277
46.319
34,310

8.6762
6.8058
5.8574

907.05

56.640

7.5260

Twoway Cross-Tabulation

N=
TOTAL*
COLX

MEAN SQR

(VAR COMP* 5.2460

/

73.
DXSTAT

N= 494 OUT O F 495

ZVAR AMONG* 8.97)

CASES=TGDATA:YES*DXSTAT:DEADrALI VE

31.M76CAT
MISS
L E500 T01999 GE2000
456
481

25

156

188

112

DEAD
COLX

131
28.7

1

62
39.7

40
21.3

29
25.9

ALIVE
COLX

325
71.3

24

94
60.3

148
78.7

83
74.1

TESTS OF INDEPENDENCE
MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD
CHI-SQUARE .

STATISTIC
14.544
14.783

SIGNIF
.0007
.0006

DF* 2

N* 456

CRAMER'S PHI*
CONTINGENCY COEFF*

.1801
.1772

129

Univariate 1-uav ANOVA

CASES-TODATAJYEStATHLETESYES

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 62.BRTHYR2
SOURCE

DF SUN OF SORS

BETWEEN
UXTHIN
TOTAL
ETA- .2812

2
253
255

1056.9
12309.
13366.

ETA-SQR- .0791

N« 256 OUT OF 256
MEAN SOR

520.43
10.B61
.0000
48.653
(RANDOM EFFECTS STATISTICS)

(VAR COMP- 5.7071
VARIANCE

STD DEV

904.38
907.97
909.49

73.106
44.561
28.809

8.5502
6.6754
5.3674

907.32

52.416

7.2399

W76CAT

N

MEAN

LESOO
T01999
GE2000

77
106
73

GRAND

256

F-STATISTIC SIGNIF

ZVAR tAMONG- 10.50)

Coaaand
TANOVA V-62 S-» C-V2811*V212
Univariate 1-uav ANOVA

CASES-TODATA:YESKATHLETE *NO

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 62.BRTHYR2
SOURCE

DF SUM OF SORS

BETUEEN
WITHIN
TOTAL
ETA- .2290

2
235
237

ETA-SQR- .0524

W76CAT

N

MEAN

LE500
T01999
GE2000

91
98
49

904.48
908.19
908.10

GRAND

761.33
13757.
14518.

238

906.76

N- 238 OUT OF 239
MEAN SQR

F-STATISTIC SIGNIF

380.67
6.5029
.0018
58.538
(RANDOM EFFECTS STATISTICS)

(VAR COMP- 4.2173
VARIANCE

STD DEV

77.941
48.673
42,094

8.8284
6.9766
6.4880

61.257

7.8267

ZVAR AMONG- 6.72)

130

Unlvarlata 1-uav ANOVA

CASES-TQDATAJYES

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 401.MLKG
SOURCE

DF SUN OF SORS

BETWEEN
WITHIN
TOTAL
ETA* .0598
SONAT

3
459
462

.27757 +8
.82809410
.83107410

ETA-SQR* .0036
N

NEAN

ENDO
ME SO
ECTO
BALANC

66
297
39
61

4302.1
3862.0
3478.1
4367.4

BRAND

463

3959-0

N- 463 OUT OF SOS
NEAN SOR

F-STATISTIC SIGNIF

.99191 47
.549(30
.6485
.18041 48
<RANDON EFFECTS STATISTICS)

(VAR COMP* -96786.

VARIANCE
.26060
.16745
.13823
.18419

-VAR AMONG* -0.

STD DEV
48
48
48
48

5104.9
4092.1
3717.9
4291.7

- .17988 48

4241.3

Coaund
TCOVARIANCE V-21.62 C-* S-*
1-waw Covarlanca Modal

CASES*TQDATA1YES

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 21.UEEK76. N- 4SS OUT OF 481
SOURCE

DF

SUM SQRS

MEAN SOR

F-STAT

SIGNIF

BETWEEN MEANS
COVARIATES
ERROR

1
1
452

.53966 47
.25553 48
.99075 49

.25553 48
.21919 47

11.658

.0007

REGRESSION
EQUAL ADJ MEANS
ERROR

1
1
452

.30889 48
60127.
.99075 49

60127.
.21919 47

.27431 -1

.8685

OVERALL REGRESSION
EOUAL REGRESSIONS
EQUAL ADJ MEANS
EOUAL SLOPES
ERROR(EACH REGR)

1 .30889 48
2 .11455 48
1 60127.
1 .11395 48
451 .97936 49

.57275 47

2.6376

.0726

.11395 40
.21715 47

5.2474

.0224

4S4

.10217410

131

C o m m a net

‘‘
•’STUDENT V=21 S=V73:d»2
Two-samele 1-tests
UAR1ADLE

DXSTAT DEAD

ALIVE

TEST STATISTIC

DF

SIGNIF

.1255
21.
MEAN 1220,3
1458.0
1=-1.5349
454
.1907
WH i:K7d
VAR .24446 +7 .21584 47 F= 1.1326
130.324
(TOTAL- 1052) N
131
325
PROD(1ST MEAN<2ND !DATA)= .9314

Command
TREGRESSION V = 7 3 f 317>318>62 C=«

Least Seuares Regression

CASES=TGDATAJYES*DXSTAT!DEAD.ALI VE

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 7 3 . DXSTAT
SOURCE

DF

REGRESSION
ERROR
TOTAL

3
476
479

MULT R= .38941

N= 480 OUT OF 481

SUN SORS

MEAN SQR

F-STAT

SIGNIF

14.512
81.188
95.700

4.8372
.17056

28.360

.0000

T-STAT

SIGNIF

2.4557
-7.3211
.49707 -1 -1.7273
.46518 -1
.56002
.27012 -2
8.0472

.0848
.5757
.0000

R-SQR= .15164 SE= .41299

VARIABLE

PARTIAL

COEFF

CONSTANT
317.DUM176
318.DUM276
62.BRTHYR2

-.07893
.02566
.34605

-17.978
-.85860 -1
.26051 -1
.21737 -1

STD ERROR

.0000

132

C o n in a n d

TRE8RESSI0N V«73»317»31B»62»2 C-V282 1 * V 7 3 J 1.2
Least Sauares R e g r e s s i o n

CASES=TQDATAS Y E S * D X S T A T 2DEAD.ALIVE

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 73.DXSTAT
DF

SOURCE

4
475
479

REBRESSION
ERROR
TOTAL
MULT R« .38952

N= 480 OUT OF 481

SUM SQRS

MEAN SQR

F-STAT

SIGNIF

14.520
81.180
95.700

3.6300
.17091

21.240

.0000

T-STAT

SIGNIF

-7.3170
-1 -1.7386
.54878
-1
-2 8.0399
.22032
-1

.0000
.0828
.5834
.0000
.8257

R-SOR= .15172 SE=' .41341

VARIABLE

PARTIAL

COEFF

CONSTANT
317.DUM176
318.DUM276
62.BRTHYR2
2. ATHLETE

-.07952
.02517
.34610
.01011

-17.992
-.86883
.25580
.21739
.83682

STD ERROR
-1
-1
-1
-2

2.4589
.49972
.46613
.27039
.37981

133

Co m

iim

I

▼REGRESSION BYSTRATA V-21.62 S-V7311'2 O *
■

Least Sauaras Rearession

<1> DXSTAT1DEAD

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 21.UEEK76
SOURCE
REGRESSION
ERROR
TOTAL
MULT R» .32682

CASES-TQDATA!YES

N« 131 OUT OF 132

DF SUN SORS

MEAN SOR

F-STAT

SIGNIF

1 .33943 90
129 .20385 99
130 .31779 99

.33943 98
.22004 97

15.426

.0001

T-STAT

SIGNIF

-3.0430
3.9276

.0002
.0001

R-SQR- .10681 SE- 1483.4

VARIABLE

PARTIAL

COEFF

CONSTANT
62.BRTHYR2

.32682

-56085.
63.474

Laast Sauaras Rasrassion

STD ERROR
14591.
16.161

<2> DXSTATSALIVE

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 21.UEEK76

CASES-TODATA:YES

N- 324 OUT OF 349

SOURCE

DF: SUM SORS

MEAN SOR

F-STAT

SIGNIF

REGRESSION
ERROR
TOTAL

1 .30044 97
322 .69551 99
323 .69851 9?

.30044 9 7
.21600 97

1.3910

.7 3 9 1

MULT R- .06558

R-SOR- .00430 S£- 1469.7

VARIABLE

PARTIAL

COEFF

CONSTANT
62.BRTHYR2

.06558

-12787.
15.676

STD ERROR
12081.
13.292

T-STAT

SIONir

-1.05R4
1.1794

.2906
.2391

134

Twowaw Cross-Tabulation
201.
HBP76

CASES-TQDATASYES

31.U76CAT
HISS LE500 T01999 6E2000
376
522

19

122

158

96

MISS
COLZ

119

8

46

47

26

(1)
COLZ

85
22.6

4

27
22.1

32
20.3

26
27.1

(2)
COLZ

291
77.4

15

95
77.9

126
79.7

70
72.9

TOTALCOLZ

TESTS OF INDEPENDENCE
MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD
CHI-SQUARE

STATISTIC

SIGNIF

1.582S
1.6156

.4533
.4458

DF- 2

N- 376

CRAMER'S PHICONTINGENCY COEFF=

.0656
.0654

ORDINAL MEASURES
nnnnMAU-ifPliqkai nAMHA
KENDALL'S TAU-B

- -.0768
tSTANDARD ERROR "t. 103£j
-.0371 (STANDARD ERROR -.0239)

Coasand
TTUOUAY V-31»201 C-V28:i*V251 O-QOLUMNZ.ORDINAL.TESTS
Tuouav Cross-Tabulation
201.
HBP76
NTOTALCOLZ

CASES-TODATAJYESBATHLETE:YES

31.U76CAT
HISS LE500 T01999 GE2000
'199
273

13

60

84

55

MISS
COLZ

57

4

17

22

18

(1)
COLZ

53
26.6

3

16
26.7

19
22.6

18
32.7

(2)
COLZ

146
73.4

10

.44
73.3

65
77.4

37
67.3

TESTS OF INDEPENDENCE
MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD
CHI-SQUARE

STATISTIC
1.7179
1'.7381

SIGNIF

DF- 2

N- 199

.4236 CRAMER'S PHI.4194 CONTINGENCY COEFF=

ORDINAL MEASURES
GOODMAN-KRUSKAL GAMMA
KENDALL'S TAU-B

- -.0902
(STANDARD ERROR -.1348)
-.0462 (STANDARD ERROR -.0349)

.0935
.0931

135

Command
7TW0UIAY V=31r425 0 = C 0 L 2 »TESTS C«*

Twowaa Cross-Tabulation
425.
CVD76

CASES=TQIiATAS YES

31.U76CAT
MISS
LE500 T01999 GE2000
N=

376

TOTAL®
COL%

522

19

122

158

96

MISS
COLZ

119

a

46

47

26

YES
COLZ

144
38.3

4

48
39.3

53
33.5

43
44.8

NO
COLZ

232
61.7

15

74
60.7

105
66.5

53
55.2

TESTS OF INDEPENDENCE
MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD
CHI-SQUARE

STATISTIC
3.2763
3.2805

SIGNIF
.1943
.1939

DF= 2

N= 376

CRAMER'S PHI=
CONTINGENCY COEFF®

.0934
.0930

Twouav Cross-Tabulation
201.
HBP76

CASES=TQDATA1YES4ATHLETESNO

31.U76CAT
MISS LE500 T01999 GE2000

NTOTALCOLZ

177
249

6

62

74

41

MISS
COLZ

62

4

29

25

8

<1>
COLZ

32
18.1

1

11
17.7

13
17.6

8
19.5

<2>
COLZ

145
81.9

5

51
82.3

61
82.4

33
80.5

TESTS OF INDEPENDENCE

STATISTIC

SIGNIF

MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD
CHI-SQUARE

.73684 -1
.74687 -1

.9638
.9633

DF- 2

N- 177

CRAMER'S PHI*
CONTINGENCY COEFF'

.0205
.0205

ORDINAL MEASURES
GOODMAN -KRUSKAL GAMMA
KENDALL 'S TAU-B

- - .0318
- - .0140

(STANDARD ERROR -.1630)
(STANDARD ERROR -.0310)

Coaaand
TTUOWAY U-12S425 C-V28:i*V2:i 0=C0LUHNX.ORDINAL.TESTS
Tuowaw Cross-Tabulation
425.
CVD76 '
NTOTALCOLZ

CASES-TQDATA1YES*ATHLETE1YES

31.W76CAT
MISS LE500 T01999 GE2000
199
273

13

60

84

55

MISS
COLZ

57

4

17

22

18

YES
COLZ

81
40.7

3

29
48.3

27
32.1

25
45.5

NO
COLZ

118
59.3

10

31
51.7

57
67.9

30
54.5

TESTS OF INDEPENDENCE
MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD
CHI-SQUARE

STATISTIC
4.5568
4.5121

SIGNIF
.1024
.1048

DF- 2

N- 199

CRAMER'S PHI*
CONTINGENCY COEFF*

ORDINAL MEASURES
GOODMAN-KRUSKAL GAMMA
KENDALL'S TAU-B

-

.0465 (STANDARD ERROR =.1205)
* .0266 (STANDARD ERROR =.0387)

.1506
.1 4 8 9

137

Command
7TU0WAY V=31*206 0=C0LX.TESTS C=*

Twowaa Cross-Tabulation
206.
CA76

CASES=TGDATAJYES

31.W76CAT
LE500 T01999 GE2000
MISS

N=
TOTAL=
COL%

376
522

19

122

158

96

MISS
COLX

119

8

46

47

26

(1)
COLX

19
5.1

1

6
4.9

8
5.1

5
5.2

<2)
COLX

357
94.9

18

116
95.1

150
94.9

91
94.8

TESTS OF INDEPENDENCE
MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD
CHI-SQUARE
Command
7TWOWAY 0 = 3 1 »221

S IGNIF

.94865 -2
.94947 -2

.9953
.9953

DF= 2

N= 376

CRAMER'S PHI*
CONTINGENCY COEFF=

.0050
.0050

0=C0LX»TESTS C=*

Tuowaa Cross-Tabulation
221.
ANY76

STATISTIC

CASES=TQDATA*YES

31.U76CAT
MISS
LE500 T01999 GE2000

N=
TOTAL=
COLX

376
522

19

122

158

96

MISS
COLX

119

8

46

47

26

<1>
COLX

303
80.6

7

106
86.9

126
79.7

71
74.0

(2)
COLX

73
19.4

12

16
13.1

32
20.3

25
26.0

TESTS OF INDEPENDENCE
MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD
CHI-SQUARE

STATISTIC
5.9723
5.8606

SIGNIF
.0505
.0534

DF= 2

N= 376

CRAMER'S PHI**
CONTINGENCY COEFF=

.1248
.1239

138

Twowaw Cross-Tabulation

31.W76CAT
HISS LESOO T01999 6E2000

NTOTALCOLZ

199
273

13

60

84

55

HISS
COLZ

57

4

17

22

18

o
o~
r
Hv

221.
ANY76

CASES-TQDATA1YESftATHLETEtYES

167
83.9

6

57
95.0

70
83.3

40
72.7

(2)
COLZ

32
16.1

7

3
5.0

14
16.7

15
27.3

TESTS OF INDEPENDENCE
HAXIMUH LIKELIHOOD
CHI-SQUARE

STATISTIC

SIGNIF DF* 2

11.547
10.586

N- 199

.0031 CRAHER'S PHI*
.0050 CONTINGENCY COEFF=

.2306
.2247

ORDINAL HEASURES
GOODHAN-KRUSKAL GAHHA
XENDALL'S TAU=B

*

r«446
.2179

<STANDARD ERROR -.1527)
(STANDARD ERROR =.0265>

Coaaand
TTUOWAY V-31.301 C*U28:i*V2:i 0*C0LUHN%rORDINAL.TESTS
Twowaw Cross-Tabulation
301.
HBPS4

CASES*TQDATA1YESSATHLETEIYES

31.U76CAT
HISS LESOO T01999 GE2000

NTOTAL*
COLZ

199
273

13

60

84

55

HISS
COLZ

57

4

17

22

10

(1)
COLZ

48
24.1

5

10
16.7

20
23.8

10
32.7

(2)
COLZ

151
75.9

8

50
83.3

64
76.2

37
67.3

TESTS OF INDEPENDENCE
HAXIHUH LIKELIHOOD
CHI-SQUARE

STATISTIC
4.0579
4.0518

SIGNIF
.1315
.1319

DF* 2

N- 199

CRAHER'S PHI*
CONTINGENCY COCFr=

ORDINAL HEASURES
GOODHAN-KRUSKAL GAHHA
KENtrSLL'3 TAU-B

* -.2711
(STANDARD ERROR *.1290)
*
-.1343 (STANDARD ERROR *103227

.1427
.1413

139

Command
7TU0WAY V - 3 1 r 426 O-COLX.TESTS C - V 2 8 J 1*073?2

Twowaa Cross-Tabulation
426.
CVD84

CASES-TQDATAJYES*DXSTATSALIVE

31.U76CAT
MISS
LE500 T01999 GE2000

N=
TOTALCOLX

259
349

19

72

119

68

MISS
COLX

66

5

22

29

15

YES
COLX

122
47.1

9

28
38.9

52
43.7

42
61.8

NO
COLX

137
52.9

10

44
61.1

67
56.3

26
38.2

TESTS OF INDEPENDENCE

STATISTIC

MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD
CHI-SGUARE

SIGNIF

8.4122
8.3704

.0149
.0152

DF= 2

N= 259

CRAMER'S PHICONTINGENCY COEFF*

.1798
.1769

Command
7TWOUAY 0-31*301 O-COLX.TESTS C=*

Twowaa Cross-Tabulation
301*
HBP84

'

CASES-TQDATA?YES*DXSTAT?ALIOE

31.W76CAT
MISS LE500 T01999 GE2000

N=
TOTALCOLX

259
349

19

72

119

68

MISS
COLX

66

5

22

29

15

(1)
COLX

76
29.3

6

16
22.2

32
26.9

28
41.2

<2>
COLX

183
70.7

13

56
77.8

87
73.1

40
58.8

TESTS OF INDEPENDENCE
MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD
CHI-SQUARE

STATISTIC
6.5203
6.6987

Command
7TW0WAY 0=31.306 O-COLX.TESTS C=*

SIGNIF
.0384
.0351

DF- 2

N- 259

CRAMER'S PHICONTINGENCY COEFF*

.1608
.1588

140

427.
NEUCV84
N=
TOTAL*
COLX

31.W76CAT
MISS LESOO T01999 GE2000
171
186

15

47

84

40

YES
COLX

63
36.8

6

12
25.5

29
34.5

22
55.0

NO
COLX

108
63.2

9

35
74.5

55
65.5

18
45.0

TESTS OF INDEPENDENCE

STATISTIC

MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD
CHI-SQUARE

SIGNIF

B.3533
8.4457

.0133
.0147

DF= 2

N= 171

CRAMER'S PHI*
CONTINGENCY COEFF*

.2222
.2169

Command
TTWOWAY V = 3 1.427 O-COLX.TESTS C-V28J1*V73:2
Twowaa Cross-Tabulation
427.
NEUCV64
N=
TOTAL*
COLX

CASES=TQDATAJ YESitcDXSTAT!ALIVE

31.W76CAT
MISS LE500 T01999 GE2000
325
349

24

94

148

83

YES
COLX

63
19.4

6

12
12.8

29
19.6

22
26.5

NO
COLX

262
80.6

18

82
87.2

119
80.4

61
73.5

TESTS OF INDEPENDENCE
MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD
CHI-SQUARE

STATISTIC
5.4038
5.3329

SIGNIF
.0671
.0495

DF* 2

N= 325

CRAMER'S PHI*
CONTINGENCY COEFF*

.1281
.1271

141

Twowaw Cross-Tabulation
427.
NEUCV84
NTOTAL=
COLZ

CASES-TQDATA1YES*ATMLETESNO

31.U76CAT
MISS LESOO T01999 GE2000
1SS
249

9

54

70

31

MISS
COLZ

84

1

37

29

18

YES
COLZ

34
21.9

2

6
11.1

17
24.3

11
35.5

NO
COLZ

121
78.1

7

48
88.9

53
75.7

20
64.5

.

TESTS OF INDEPENDENCE
MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD
CHI-SQUARE

STATISTIC
7.4807
7.2437

SIGNIF
.0237
.0267

DF= 2

N= 155

CRAMER'S PHI=
CONTINGENCY COEFF=

ORDINAL MEASURES
GOOfiflAN=KRUSKAL— GAttt(A, . ■ -.41248
* -.21052
''KENDALL 'S TAU- B

(STANDARD ERROR =.1365)
:STANDARD ERRG r = .0341)' •

.216
.211

142

31.U76CAT
MISS LE500 T01999 GE2000

“73.
DXSTAT
NTOTALCOLZ

456
481

25

156

188

112

DEAD
COLZ

131
28.7

1

62
39.7

40
21.3

29
25.9

ALIVE
COLX

329
71.3

24

94
60.3

148
78.7

83
74.1

TESTS OF INDEPENDENCE

STATISTIC

MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD
CHI-SQUARE

SIGNIF

14*544
14.783

.0007
.0004

DF* 2

N* 456

CRAMER'S PHI*
CONTINGENCY COEFF*

.1801
.1772

ORDINAL MEASURES
OOODMAN-KRUSKAL GAMMA
KENDALL'S TAU-I

»

.2415 (ST6Nnapn FRAPP -.OPSm
.1277 (STANDARD ERROR *.0237)

Coaaand
7TU0UAY V-31,73 C-W28:i*U73J1»2*V2:1 O-COLUMNX.ORDINAL.TESTS
Tuowaw Croas-Tabulat ion
73.
DXSTAT

CASES-TODATA<YESUDXSTATJDEAD.ALIVE*ATHLETE 5YES

31.U76CAT
MISS LESOO T01999 GE2000

NTOTAL*
COLX

239
254

DEAD
COLZ
ALIVE
COLX

15

73

100

66

69
28.9

0

33
45.2

22
22.0

14
21.2

170
71.1

IS

40
54.8

78
78.0

52
78.8

TESTS OF INDEPENDENCE
MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD
CHI-SQUARE

STATISTIC
13.151
13.649

SIGNIF
.0014
.0011

DF* 2

N* 239

CRAMER'S PHI*
CONTINGENCY COEFF-

ORDINAL MEASURES
GOODHAN-KRUSKAL GAMMA
KENDALL'S TAU-B

-

*3447
■ .195b

(STANDARD ERROR *.1093)
(STANDARD ERROR -.03221

.2392
.2326

143

Coaaand

Toes *BYSTRATA V-73 S-* C«V28!1*V73!1.2
Daseriptiva Haaauras
VARIABLE
73.DXSTAT

<1> BRTHCATS!1*U74CATiLESOO
MINIMUM

MAXIMUM

MEAN

71

1.0000

2.0000

1.400S

Daseriptiva Haaauras
VARIABLE
73.DXSTAT

<2> BRTHCATS:2*U74CAT!LESOO

73.DXSTAT

MAXIMUM

MEAN

47

1.0000

2.0000

1.7447

<3> BRTHCATSI3*U76CAT1LESOO

73.DXSTAT

VARIABLE
73.DXSTAT

VARIABLE
73.DXSTAT

MAXIMUM

MEAN

38

1.0000

2.0000

1.7895

<4> BRTHCATS!1*U74CAT1T01999

VARIABLE
73.DXSTAT

MAXIMUM

MEAN

44

1.0000

2.0000

1.5217

<3> BRTHCATS!2*U74CAT1T01999

73.DXSTAT

MAXIMUM

MEAN

84

1.0000

2.0000

1.3333

<4> BRTHCATS!3*U74CAT!TO1999

73.DXSTAT

STD DEV

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM

MEAN

57

1.0000

2.0000

1.929S

STD DEV
.25771

CASCS*TQDATA!YES1DXSTAT!DEAD.ALIVE

N

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM

MEAN

22

I.0000

2.0000

1.4344

STD DEV
.49237

CASCG-TGDATA!YEStDXSTAT!DEAD.ALIVE

N

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM

MEAN

51

1.0000

2.0000

1.4043

<9> BRTHCATS!3*U74CAT!GE2000

.37492

CASES“TQDATA!YES*DXSTAT!DEAD.ALIVE

N

<B> BRTHCATS!2*U76CAT!GC2000

.50505

CASES-TODATAJYES*DXSTAT!DEAD.ALIVE

MINIMUM

Daseriptiva Haasuras
VARIABLE

STD DEV

N

<7> BRTHCATS!1*U74CAT!GC2000

.41315

CASES*TQDATA!YES*DXSTAT!DEAD.ALIVE

MINIMUM

Oascriptiva Haasuras
VARIABLE

STD DEV

N

Daseriptiva Haasuras

.4407S

CASES“TQDATAiYES*DXSTAT!DEAD.ALIVE

MINIMUM

Daseriptiva Haasuras

.49303

STD DEV

N

Daseriptiva Haaauras

DEV

CASES-TODATA!YES*DXSTAT!DEAD.ALIVE

MINIMUM

Daseriptiva Haaauras
VARIABLE

STD

N

Daseriptiva Haaauras
VARIABLE

CASES-TQDATA!VES*DXSTAT!DEAD.ALIVE

N

STD DCV
.44842

CASCS-TODATA!YES*DXSTAT!DEAD.ALIVE

N

MINIMUM

MAXIMUM

MEAN

39

1.0000

2.0000

1.3710

STD DEV
.33049

LIST OF REFERENCES

REFERENCES

1. Anderson, W.G. Further studies In the longevity of
Yale athletes. Medical Times 44;75P 1916.
2. Bannister, W.E. and S.R. Brown. The relative energy
requirements of physical activity. In H.B. Falls (Ed.)
ExercIse Physiology. New York: Academic Press,
1968.
3. Bassler, T.J. Life expectancy and marathon running.
Am. J. Cardiol. 36:410. 1975.
4. Belloc, N.B. Relationship of health practices and
mortality. Preventive Medicine 2:67, 1973.
5. Brunner, D. and G. Manells. Myocardial Infarction among
members of communal settlements In Israel. Lancet
2:1049, 1960.
6. Cooper, E.L., J. O'Sullivan, and E. Hughes. Athletes
and the heart:An electrocardiographic and radiologic
study of the responses of the healthy and diseased
heart to exercise. Med. Jj. Austral la 1:569, 1937.
7. Dublin, L.l. College honor men long-lived. Stat. Bui I.
MgJrfipflJ-t Ll.f.e JLqSjl 13:5, 1932.
8. Dublin, L.l. Longevity of college athletes.
Monthly Magazine 157:229, 1928.

Harper's

9. Fox, S.M. and W.L. Haskell. Physical activity and the
prevention of coronary heart disease. Bui I. N.Y. Acad.
Med. 44:950, 1968.

144

145

10. Frank, C.W., E. WInblatt, S. Shapiro, and R.V. Sager.
Physical activity as a lethal factor In myocardial
Infarction among men. Circulation 34:1022, 1966.
11. Gaines, J.M. and A. Hunter. Transactions. Actuarial
Soc. Am. 9:47. 1905.
12. Greenway, J.C. and J.V. Hlscock. Yale Alumni Week Iy
June, 1926.
13. Hartley, P.H.S. and G.F. Llewllyn. The longevity of
oarsmen. Brit. Med.. JL*. 1:657, 1939.
14. HIM, B. Cricket and Its relation to the duration of
IIfe. Lancet 2:949, 1927.
15. Howley, E.T. and M.E. Glover. The caloric cost of
running and walking one mile for men and women.
Medicine and Science la Sport 6:235, 1974.
16. Kahn, H.A. The relationship of reported coronary heart
disease mortality to physical activity of work.
1*. Public hteaJlil 53:1058, 1963.
17. Kannel, W.B. Habitual level of physical activity: Risk
of coronary heart disease: The Framingham Study.
Can. Med. Assoc. J. 96:811f 1967.
18. Karvonen, M.J. Problems of training of the cardio­
vascular system. Ergonomics 2:207, 1959.
19. Karvonen, M.J. Sports and longevity. Adv. Cardiol.
18:243, 1976.
20. Karvonen, M.J., H. Klemola, J. VlrkaJarvI, and
A. Kekkonen. Longevity of endurance skiers. Medicine
and Science JLn Sports 6:49, 1974.
21. Menottl, A. and F. Seccareccla. Physical activity at
work and Job responsibility as risk factors for fatal
coronary heart disease and other causes of death.
jL u Epidemiol. Comm. Health 39:325, 1985.
22. Metropolitan Life. Characteristics of major league
baseba11 players. 5±a±». Bull-. MstrpppJ.. Life Ins.
56:6, 1975.
23. Metropolitan Life. Longevity of major league baseball
players. Stat. Bu11. MetropoJ-. Lite Ins. 56:2, 1975.

146
24. Meylan, G.L. Harvard University Oarsmen. Physical
Education Rev. 9:552, 1904.
25. Montoye, H.J. Participation In athletics. Can. Med.

ASSOC*. Jj. 96:813, 1967.
26. Montoye, H.J., W.D. Van Huss, J.W. NevaI. Longevity
and morbidity of college athletes: A seven year
fol low—up study.
Sports MsiL s M Phys. E-Ltnfiss.
2:133, 1962.
27.

Montoye, H.J., W.D. Van Huss, H.W. Olson, et.al.The
Longevity C M Morbidity q ± CflUggg Athletes.,
Indianapolis: Phi Epsilon Kappa, 1957.

28. Morgan, J. University Oars. Macmillan, London.
29. Morris, J.N. Occupation and coronary heart disease.
A.M..A. Arch., lid^ Msd*. 104:903, 1959.
30. Morris, J.N. and M.D. Crawford. Coronary heart disease
and the physical activity of work. Brit. Med. Jj.
2:1485, 1958.
31.

Morris, J.N. and J.A. Heady. Mortality In relation to
the physical activity of work. Brit. J. Industr..
Med. 10:245, 1953.

32. Morris, J.N., J.A. Heady, and P.A.B. Raffle.
of London busmen. Lancet 2:569, 1970.

Physique

33. Morris, J.N., J.A. Heady, P.A.B. Raffle, C.G. Roberts,
J.W. Parks. Coronary heart disease and physical
activity of work. Lancet 2:1053, 1953.
34. Morris, J.N., A Kagan, D.C. Pattlson, M.J. Gardner,
P.A.B. Raffle. Incidence and prediction of Ischemic
heart disease In London busmen. Lancet 2:553, 1966.
35. Nle, N.H., C.H. Hull, J.G. Jenkins, et.al.Statistical
Eackfl&e ion ±hs Social Sciences - Second Edition.
McGraw-HI11 Book Company, New York, 1975.
36. Olson, H.W. A comparison of longevity and morbidity
of athletes and non-athletes. Unpublished Ph.D.
Thesis, Health, Physical Education, and Recreation
Department, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan, 1972.
37. Olson, H.W., H.J. Montoye, H. Spraque, et.al. The
longevity and morbidity of college athletes.
Ihe Physician and Sportsmedlclne 6:62, 1978.

147

38. Olson, H.W., H. Teltelbaum, W.D. Van Huss, and H.J.
Montoye. Years of sports participation and mortality
In col lege athletes. JL Sports Med., and Phys.
Fitness 17:321, 1977.
39. Paffenbarger, R.S.Jr., R.J. Brand, R.L. Shoitz, and
D.L. Jung. Energy expenditure, cigarette smoking, and
blood pressure level as related to death from specific
diseases. Am. J. Epidemiol. 108:12, 1978.
40. Paffenbarger, R.S.Jr., R.T. Hyde, A.L. Wing, and
C.C. Hsleh. Physical activity, all cause mortality,
and longevity of col lege alumni. New Eng Iand JL*.
Med. 314:605, 1986.
41. Paffenbarger, R.S.Jr., R.T. Hyde, A.L. Wing, and
C.H. Stetnmetz. A natural history of athleticism and
cardiovascular health. J.A.M.A. 252:491f 1984.
42. Paffenbarger, R.S. Jr., J. Notkln, D.E. Krueger,
et.al. Chronic disease In former college athletes. II.
Methods of study and observations on mortality from
coronary heart disease. Am. Jj. Pub IIc Health 56:962,
1966.
43. Paffenbarger, R.S.Jr., and A.L. Wing. Characteristics
In youth predisposing to fatal stroke In later years.
Lancet 1:753, 1967.
44. Paffenbarger, R.S.Jr., A.L. Wing and R.T. Hyde.
Physical activity as an Index of heart attack risk In
col lege alumni. Am. J. Epidemiol. 108:161f 1978.
45. Palmore E.B. Physical, mental, and social factors In
predicting longevity. Geront. 9:103, 1969.
46. Passmore, R. and J.V.G.A. Durnln. Physiological
Reviews,. 35:801.
47. Pearl, R. Hard labour shortens human life.
Opinion 77:633, 1924.

Current

48. Polednak, A.P. Longevity and cardiovascular mortality
among former college athletes. Circulation 45:649,
1972.
49. Polednak, A.P. Longevity and cause of death among
Harvard co11ege athIetes and theIr cIassmates.
Geriatrics 27:53. 1972.

148

50. Polednak, A.P. and A. Damon. College athletics,
longevity, and cause of death. Human Biology 42:28,
1970.
51. Prout, C. Life expectancy of college oarsmen. J.A.M.A.
220:1709, 1972.
52. Pyorala, K., M.J. Karvonen, P. Tasklnen, et.al.
Cardiovascular studies on former endurance athletes.
Am. J. Cardiol. 20:191. 1967.
53. Reed, L.J. and A.G, Love. Longevity of army officers
In relation to physical fitness. The Ml IItary
Surgeon 69:379. 1931.
54. Rook, A. An Investigation Into the longevity of
Cambridge sportsmen. Br. Med., J. 1:773, 1954.
55. Rose, C.L. and M.L. Cohen. Relative Importance of
physical activity for longevity. An. N.Y. Acad. Sc I.
301:671, 1977.
56. Schmid, Von L. Contributions to the study of the
causes of death of sportsmen. Sportarzt und
SportmedIzIn 10:411, 1967.
57. Schnohr, P. Athletic activity and longevity. Lancet
2:605, 1972.
58. Schnohr, P. Longevity and causes of death In male
athletic champions. Lancet 2:1364, 1971.
59. Sheldon, W.H., C.W. Dupertuls, and E. Mcdermott.
Atlas at Men. New York: Harper and Brothers
Publishers, 1954.
60. Sokal, R.R. and F.J. Rohlf. Biometry. San
Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1981.
61. Stephens, K.E. The effects of activity patterns on
longevity of athletes and non-athletes. Unpublished
Master's Thesis, Health, Physical Education, and
Recreation Department, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan, 1978.
62. Taylor, H.L., E. Klepetar, A. Keyes, et.al. Death
rates among physically active and sedentary employees
of the railroad Industry. Am.
Pub IIc Health
52:1697, 1962.

149

63. Wakefield, M.C. A study of mortality among the men
who have played In the Indiana high school state
final basketball tournaments. Res. Quart.
A.A-.H.P.E.R. 15:2, 1944.
64. Wilson, B.R.A. Somatotype, mortality, and morbidity of
former Michigan State University athletes and
nonathletes. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Department
of Health Education, Counseling Psychology, and
Human Performance, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, Michigan, 1986.
65. Zukel, W.J., R.H. Lewis, P.E. Enter line, et.al. A
short term community study of the epidemiology of
coronary heart disease - A preliminary report on the
North Dakota study . M l Jj. Pub IIc Hea lth 49:1630, 1959.