Can’t Stand the Heat?

Early last week the Energy Star program people released recommendations on home heating and cooling. The reaction was swift and negative.

I could not find a date on this posting, but I know that for many years the recommended residential temperature setting has been the same as presented there. “The U.S. Department of Energy recommends that home temperature be set to 68 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter and 78 degrees Fahrenheit in the summer. When no one is home, adjust temperatures to cooler settings in the winter and warmer settings in the summer.” For a long time it was no big deal. Many utilities have been subsidizing the cost of a programmable thermostat to facilitate meeting this pattern of adjustment.

But for some reason when Energy Star, a program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy, last week came out with the idea of setting the summer temperature at 78 degrees to save energy during the spring and summer, ABC news said it “surprised” the Internet. They went on to post numerous tweets protesting 78 degrees as too hot.

MSN expanded on the story. “The Energy Star program recommends that people increase their air conditioning by seven degrees when they are not at home and by four degrees when they are sleeping, depending on what temperature makes them comfortable.” That translates to 85 degrees when you are out and 82 degrees when you are sleeping, or trying to sleep. The story explains how it went “viral,” in a negative way, and included another set of Twitter examples.

One says: “WHO CAN STAND 80+ DEGREES WHEN THEY'RE SLEEPING I WOULD MELT TO DEATH.” Another is concerned about the dog’s comfort if the temperature is set up during the day. One example on both sites asks, “You know how hot 78 degrees is?” 

Well, the answer is yes, I do know how hot 78 is – and so do many other people. It was not that long ago that home air conditioning was not all that common. The number of houses with central air conditioning rose from 19% in 1973 to 72% in 2009. I could not find numbers for the 1960s, but a reasonable guess would be about 10% or less. According to Consumer Reports, today “more than 75 percent of U.S. homes use air conditioning, and 90 percent of new homes are equipped with central air.” 

Most of the complainers are not old enough to remember the days of no air conditioning when city folks sat out on the fire escapes at night, and others set up mattresses in the cooler basements, when breaks from the summer heat consisted of opening a fire hydrant or going to the pool or to one of the few air conditioned buildings in town, the movie theater. 

That was reality only a couple of generations ago! Somehow the majority of people struggled through. No one melted to death. Dogs weren’t dying at home while everyone was at school or work. If it was hot at night, too bad. It’s true that 82 degrees is not nearly the ideal temperature for sleeping, but having to sleep at that temperature or higher in the past, because there was no other choice, did not result in mass extinction!

Several news outlets that released the Energy Star guidelines mentioned also that July was the hottest month ever recorded on Earth. This links the renewed recommendation with climate change efforts, where everyone is expected to do their share – except they don’t want to. It’s the Al Gore philosophy – express a ton of concern about the planet, then go about business as usual.

This entire episode shows why perspective is so important. Without it, gratitude is lost. Technology is moving ahead so fast that everyday life of a few generations ago seems like ancient history. Minor inconveniences become major hardships. People don’t stop to think how lucky we are to have air conditioning almost everywhere. Instead they fly to Twitter to rail on about the injustice of it all.

Driving, The Third Option

Several years ago I was listening to a feature on NPR talking about how people could not trust the fuel efficiency numbers published by the EPA. There were all kinds of moaning and complaining about how the sticker did not match real world experience.

At the time I had kept complete records over an eight-year period and found that my mileage was at least as good as the EPA rating, even though I did far less highway driving than the 45% standard. I ended up giving a brief interview on a later program.

That was a long time ago, and since then the EPA has adjusted their ratings in response to public pressure. But the distress continues.

This Edmunds post asks: “So why doesn't your fuel economy match the EPA rating?” It explains that since those changes, applied to the 2008 model year, “ratings aren't really all that far off the real-world mpg that consumers get….While there are lots of people who cannot under any circumstances get their vehicles to come close to the official ratings, there are also lots who regularly meet or exceed them.” The only exceptions were some poorly run tests by Ford, Mercedes-Benz and Hyundai-Kia that resulted in government-ordered adjustments to the ratings and fines to the companies. (The companies rather than the EPA do their own tests and submit the results.)

So if it was possible to match the standards before 2008, and since then there are “lots of people who regularly meet or exceed them," why is it still an issue? Other factors like weather, terrain and congestion do come into play, but Edmunds explains, “calm drivers, those motorists who don't accelerate constantly and who avoid unnecessary lane changes, get 35 percent better fuel economy than other drivers.”

My idea of the third option expands on that definition of calm drivers. I can tell just by watching brake lights of cars ahead of me and the drivers who pass me on the way to a red light that many drivers seem to think they have only two choices with their right foot: keep it on the accelerator or press on the brake. As a result they try to drive the speed limit as close to the intersection as possible before braking to a stop.

The third option is to simply lift your foot when approaching a red light or approaching a vehicle that is already braking. This allows your car to slow down gently (and likely causes the person following too close behind you to apply the brake.) It only requires someone to look ahead while driving to anticipate problems. That person following too close does not have the time to anticipate and is forced to react immediately to any speed variation of the car in front. This is easy to observe on any road or highway in the country as the brake lights flash on and off.

The physics is simple. It takes fuel to accelerate and maintain speed. Each time the brake is applied it undoes some of that work. In effect some gasoline has been used to produce heat cause by friction at the brakes instead of producing motion. It’s pure waste. Critical thinkers hate waste.

Consumer Protection Gone Crazy

Last time I wrote about a lawmaker introducing a bill to protect Americans from Internet addiction, a condition that has no formal definition or diagnosis. Whenever a problem or “epidemic” arises, someone in power decides that there is a government solution to change the conditions or behavior. (Even when the government was the original source of the problem.)

People are not trusted to solve their own problems, in part because often they do not. In the end everyone gives up some free choices because a few of us made some bad decisions. It’s about critical thinking to identify the root of the problem and personal responsibility to own the solution, instead of passing it off to a higher power.

This dynamic was reinforced a few days ago when a package arrived in the mail. It was an order from one of those catalogs that frequently appear in the mailbox. In the package was a gift pen, similar to those used by various companies as a promotional item. It was an ordinary retractable ballpoint similar to those in a dentist’s office or at a job fair but with one difference. It came in a plastic sleeve with the words, “WARNING: Cancer and Reproductive Harm” followed by a web address.

The address led to the California Proposition 65 page. “The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment is establishing this website to provide the public with information on chemicals, products and locations often associated with Proposition 65 warnings.  These warnings inform Californians about their exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.” 

Notice that the above statement reads, “cause cancer” not “may cause cancer,” implying that they have studies to definitively prove a direct causal link. Since the list includes over 900 chemicals, that is a doubtful assertion. Looking at one random example: “The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) lists coconut oil diethanolamine condensate (cocamide DEA) as an IARC Group 2B carcinogen, which identifies this chemical as possibly carcinogenic to humans. [Emphasis added] Apparently it only takes possibly to make the list. 

The full list includes a large number of arcane-sounding chemicals, e.g., Amikacin Sulfate and Zalcitabine, but it also includes alcoholic beverages, aspirin, tobacco smoke, nicotine and oral contraceptives.  

How helpful is this? Is tobacco smoke or nicotine a surprise? Why do Californians need the information and not everyone else? Coffee contains acrylamide, which is on the list, so last year a judge decided, "coffee sellers in the state should have to post cancer warnings.” But in “2016, the cancer agency of the World Health Organization moved coffee off its ‘possible carcinogen’ list.”

This isn’t science; it’s judges deciding what should or should not be on a list. It’s “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” gone crazy. People don’t have time to be careful about 900 chemicals and all the products they go into. I have no idea which part of the promotional pen I should be concerned about or how it might hurt me. Tanning beds and sunlight are not on the list, but they are not chemicals. It is so bad that my seven-year-old granddaughter upon returning with her parents from a vacation in San Diego commented about how silly it was seeing all the warning signs everywhere coffee was sold.

Not only is this not helpful, it adds cost. The extra warning labels and signs cost money. It is costly to reformulate products to avoid having to post warnings, or worse, to avoid the threat of lawsuits from lawyers, “some of whose businesses are built entirely on filing Proposition 65 lawsuits” on behalf of “straw man plaintiffs." The cost of these nuisance consequences comes back on all of us. (Economic understanding reminds us there is no magic money tree to make up the difference. It all get passed along to the end consumer.)

Does the list ever shrink or become reasonable, or do we get to the point where everything needs a progressively more meaningless label. I’m sure many people thought this was a really good idea back in 1986 not realizing that they may have created such a monster.

Internet Addiction

The subject of Internet addiction as a serious problem came to my attention earlier this month with the headline: “Lawmaker Aims To Curb Social Media Addiction With New Bill.” A US Senator from Missouri introduced a bill to ban addictive social media features. It would address such things as infinite scrolling, tracking of streaks, constant loading and auto-play on video sites, while requiring time limits on apps. He accuses the media companies of “using psychological tricks that make it difficult to look away.”

Many questions came to mind: What is the definition of Internet addiction?; Is it real?; and How big is the problem?

In another article NPR asks the question of whether it is real. One expert that they interviewed said, “Addiction begins with intermittent to recreational use, then progresses into daily use, and then progresses into consequential use, which in some cases will progress to life-threatening use," such as insomnia, dysfunctional relationships and absenteeism. It is the opinion of many experts that Internet addiction fits this pattern. NPR’s introductory story told how it led a young girl to experience depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts. 

China and South Korea have recognized Internet addiction as a mental disorder, but that is not yet the case in the US. Despite many suggestions dating back to 1996, it has not been included in the latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), therefore, it is not officially a mental health disorder and mental health professionals don’t have a standard way to assess and diagnose it.

This answers my first two questions. Some experts in the US consider it real and a major problem, but it has not yet qualified as an official diagnosis. That leaves the definition open to individual interpretation. As a result the question of the size of the problem is fuzzy, at best.

This can be seen by the fact that one website from 2012 cites a survey putting the problem at between 1.5 and 8.2% of the population. Another source from last May says that the rate of addiction is estimated at 1.5 to 8%. That’s not much of a change in the seven years that have elapsed.

Other studies continue slicing and dicing the problem in various ways. By gender, 27% of women and 25% of men report being near-constant internet users with many more college than high school graduates (34% to 20%). Constant use also varies by income and race. Still, some people must be on the internet more than others just to be able to do their jobs properly. There is more to addiction than time on the computer.

This site provides links to 32 studies between 2008 and 2014 showing “Facts, Figures, & Numbers” from several countries. It’s been a very popular research subject, but has still failed to make the grade as a recognized disorder in the US.

Ultimately, it seems to be just another case of the government stepping in to solve a behavior problem. Every time Americans can’t exercise a little discipline, we lose our freedom to a well-meaning politician intent on solving our problems for us with another law. In this case it seems to be happening even before there is a clear definition of the problem or an understanding of its size.

Fortunately in this case, it doesn’t appear to stand a chance of passing, but it’s an excellent indicator of the general mindset. Whenever we fail in personal responsibility or discipline, help or “protection” comes in the form of regulations, restrictions and less freedom. And it takes only a small minority (8% or less, in this case) to get the ball rolling.

Ancient Chinese Folly

There is something fascinating about ideas that are ancient and Chinese. They are in the same category as all-natural, sustainable and organic. People take them on faith, feeling that research is unnecessary, while risking the loss of time and money; and sometimes putting themselves at risk.

Take acupuncture for example. I am always skeptical of treatments that boast a cure or relief from multiple conditions. Just one example is listed here. “Health benefits of acupuncture include relief from chronic pain, arthritis, anxiety, insomnia, depression, migraine, nausea, postoperative pain, and obesity.” 

This other website adds to the list: nausea, sciatica, sinus congestion, stress, tinnitus and tobacco addiction. But then they go on to describe several recent research results in not very glowing terms. In 2017 authors reported limited evidence that acupuncture is modestly effective for acute low back pain. A 2016 review of 22 previously published trials concluded that adding acupuncture to standard treatments for migraines “may reduce the frequency of episodes, however the size of the effect is small when compared to a sham acupuncture treatment.” A 2016 review of 12 trials found that it may help people with frequent tension headaches. And another analysis “it appeared to provide only short-term(up to 13 weeks) relief” for people with chronic knee pain.”

One puzzling comment was that after the treatment “some people feel relaxed (or even sleepy), while others feel energetic.” One treatment with opposite outcomes may indicate a strong placebo effect.

Not many sources list the side effects of acupuncture. Since it’s ancient and Chinese many will automatically assume that it is only beneficial. But the treatment “can cause serious adverse effects, such as infections, nerve and blood vessel injury, complications from needle breakage or remnant needle pieces, punctured organs, central nervous system or spinal cord injury, hemorrhage, and other organ and tissue injuries resulting in death. Punctured pleural membranes around the lungs can lead to collapsed lungs.”

A study from China in 2015 claiming acupuncture is effective for treating the symptoms of angina was published only a few weeks ago. It received a harsh critique based on the time delay, lack of studies replicating the result, failure to use a double-blind design, the subjective nature of the results and that all authors were affiliated with schools of acupuncture or Traditional Chinese Medicine.

A report from 2013 states that “after decades of research and more than 3000 trials, acupuncture researchers have failed to reject the null hypothesis, and any remaining possible specific effect from acupuncture is so tiny as to be clinically insignificant.” Since then as we see above, evidence of effectiveness continues to be weak.

I always wonder why so many people, who mock those that don’t agree with them on climate change as being as unscientific as flat-Earthers, unquestioningly put their faith in these treatments and cures, some even crazier and more dangerous than acupuncture.

The BBC reports on a case from the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada of a 62-year-old woman who, on the advise of her traditional Chinese doctor, sustained severe burns when she tried vaginal steaming in an attempt to avoid surgery for a prolapsed vagina. “Vaginal steaming, which involves sitting over a hot water and herb mix, has seen a growth in popularity” and is “now available at some salons and spas.”

The practice began to gain popularity in 2010 and has been endorsed by Gwyneth Paltrow as a detox and cleansing treatment – those two words alone should scare off clear thinking Americans. Last year Chrissy Teigen, who tweeted under a picture of herself trying it, “no I don’t think this works but it can’t hurt right?” No, wrong! Ask a doctor rather than a model or movie star and you will get the opposite answer on all claims.

Once again, lapses in critical thinking are so obvious. There is no such thing as alternative medicine. There is only medicine that works and medicine that doesn’t. In the war between science and fairy tales, the fairy tales are winning.

The Latest Big Thing – CBD Oil

I began to wonder about CBD oil when I saw on the local television news a very non-critical report about a new store in town. It was like a press release from the store that the reporters used as an excuse to fill airtime with a very positive interview of the owner, but without questioning any of the exaggerated claims about the its curative powers. I knew that it had been until recently illegal, making good scientific research very difficult and sparce, and that researchers generally look at only one effect at a time when testing any treatment. How could this substance arise out of the blue with so many promises?

This webpage, for example, lists seven benefits including: relieving pain, reducing depression and anxiety, alleviating cancer related symptoms, reducing acne, having neuroprotective properties and benefiting heart health. Of course the last three are conditioned with “may," “might” and “could.” It warns: “Although CBD is generally considered safe, it can cause adverse reactions like diarrhea and fatigue in some people. It may also interfere with certain medications.”

Based on such reviews, it appears to fall into the familiar too-good-to-be-true category. So I was not surprised to find the headline: “FDA warns company marketing unapproved cannabidiol products with unsubstantiated claims to treat cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, opioid withdrawal, pain and pet anxiety.” And if you are going to advertise in the realm of too good to be true anyway, why not throw in that it counteracts the growth of [and/or] spread of cancer, kills breast cancer cells, treats Parkinson’s disease, reduces the severity of opioid-related withdrawal, addresses symptoms of chronic pain, anxiety and ADHD, and helps with PTSD, schizophrenia, fibromyalgia and eating disorders. The FDA objects to all these claims (and more) as “unsupported and unapproved.”

 WebMD calls it “all the rage” but warns that “experts say the evidence is scant for most of these touted benefits." Like many other over-the-counter products and supplements, it is “being produced without any regulation, resulting in products that vary widely in quality.” Dosages vary from one product to another, possibly from one production run to another and from one brand to another. “Only one purported use for cannabidiol, to treat epilepsy, has significant scientific evidence supporting it.”

Last April the USA Today piled on, asking: “Is this hemp plant derivative snake oil or a legit remedy?” In addition to all the powers listed above, they add that it’s also hyped as a cure for inflammation, stress, unsatisfying sex and PMS.  But it's sold at local pharmacies (including the one that stopped selling cigarettes because they care so much about our health) in the form of creams, lotions, oils, tinctures, pills, powder or liquid. But this story also comments that the marketers' therapeutic claims are "rarely supported by medical evidence that CBD is significantly better than a placebo.”

Again from USA Today in a different story: “The head of the National Institute on Drug Abuse said there’s no evidence that marijuana [or CBD] weans people from opioid addiction – and promoting such treatment might deny people a chance at recovery.”

The Mayo Clinic sums it up: “While CBD is being studied as a treatment for a wide range of conditions, …research supporting the drug's benefits is still limited." It can cause more serious side effects than those mentioned above and “can interact with other medications” such as blood thinners.

And remember that part about it being unregulated? “Another cause for concern is the unreliability of the purity and dosage of CBD in products. A recent study of 84 CBD products bought online showed that more than a quarter of the products contained less CBD than labeled. In addition, THC [the psychoactive ingredient found in marijuana] was found in 18 products.” But don’t sweat those pesky details – it’s all-natural and I heard on Facebook…!

Competition is Good

It’s been a while since I wrote about Economic Understanding – that there is no magic money tree. Here is a short refresher.

A few often misunderstood economic concepts are that one person getting richer does not mean others must be getting poorer and that competition in markets usually benefits everyone.

Many politicians try to convince us that rich people got that way by taking money from us. They must be dishonest and greedy. They are not playing by the rules or paying their fair share (whatever that is). When they give examples of those rich, fat cats, they never seem to mention rich people we admire. They omit the professional athletes, TV and movie stars, studio heads, software executives and others who make their millions by bringing us the entertainment we crave. Those people get rich, and they don’t do it by stealing. They earn their money honestly; fans spend freely on tickets and apparel. The majority of other rich people also did it honestly, and if they took advantage of loopholes, that’s what the politicians should be focused on rather than stirring up envy. (Most of those politicians are also very well off.)

In a free society, where people make their own choices about how to spend their money, that money flows to those with the best ideas, best products or best services as determined by some combination of quality and price. Consumers get what they want at a price they are willing to pay, and the providers make a profit. 

This fair exchange, happy buyer and happy seller, keeps the economy growing. As one seller sees a rival doing more business due to a better product or better price, he is motivated to improve quality and/or make the operation more efficient to be able to lower the price. We get better things for less.

Examples are easy to find. In 1975 a good (tube) TV with a 26-inch screen could easily cost in the $450 range. Here is a 65”, Ultra HD, Smart LED TV with good reviews for about the same price. That is a direct comparison without considering that $450 in 1975 would be over $2,200 in today’s dollars. 

 Air conditioning in cars began as a luxury item, but today about 99% of new cars sold have it. And those smart phones owned by many, even some of those considered poor, were unavailable twenty years ago at any price! Anyone claiming that poor and middle class families are not better off today would have to ignore history and economic reality. Examples are so easy to find.

The progress we see all around us, and mostly take for granted, was driven not by government programs, but by the free exchange happening everyday across the nation as consumers made choices based on quality and price. Those free choices forced the competition and innovation that led to generally increased prosperity. Certainly that prosperity is not evenly divided, but that’s not the fault of people we willingly gave our money to.

The idea of competition can be scary, but it only means everyone has to work harder to keep improving price and quality. Where would your favorite sports team be without competition – playing inter-squad scrimmages all year? What fun is that?

One market where competition seems impractical is public utilities. Years ago cable companies were treated like utilities because towns and cities didn't want more than one entity digging up yards and streets to lay cable. Today in my neighborhood outside a small Midwest city, I have a choice of traditional cable, fiber optic cable, satellite dish and soon Internet and TV delivered by my electric utility. Four companies compete and prices are now coming down! 

When the government alone provides goods and services, there is no competition. There is scarce pressure to be more responsive, more customer-oriented, more efficient, with better quality at a lower price. Prices go up at rates greater than that of inflation with minor if any improvements in the product, e.g., public colleges and universities. The post office and the DMV have for years been held up as examples of poor service. If we want their services, or are forced to use them, we don’t have a choice. We take what we get, pay what they demand; and improvements are slow.

Competition should not be scary. Competition is good.

How To Shade the Truth

Here is the story I want to tell: Although there has not been a lot of news lately about school shooting, they are still a major problem. Parents and students alike should still worry about the safety of schools and demand something be done about gun violence.

If I am CNN, I run a headline on July 26, 2019 saying, “There have been 22 school shootings in the US so far this year.” Wow, that is almost one every 10 days!

They define a school shooting as one where someone was hurt or killed and that happened on school property. It includes incidents of accidental discharge and those where the weapon was a BB gun, because they are “potentially lethal.”

Seeing a headline like that many would assume that the shootings involved a K-12 student during regular school time. Looking at the examples in detail tells a slightly different story.

They are listed in reverse chronological order. The first three happened in school parking lots or playgrounds during summer break. One of the people shot was 36 years old, riding his bike though a high school parking lot. 

The next two victims were a teen shot in the parking lot after a fight broke out and a 25-year-old man playing basketball at a Chicago elementary school playground.

Four of the incidents happened at Universities, none of them inside buildings. Likewise, of the remaining thirteen incidents, only six actually happened inside a school. One involved a 16-year-old student “trying to buy marijuana from a 17-year-old student.”

The single incident of note was the well-publicized one death and eight injuries at the STEM School in Highlands Ranch, Colorado. “Two male students were charged with murder and attempted murder; one of them told police he sought to target classmates who had bullied him.”

Of course school shootings are bad: one is too many. But let’s be honest about it. There were not 22 since the beginning of the year as most people would understand them. A 46-year-old man shot multiple times by his neighbor in a high school parking lot “amid an ongoing argument over a parking spot” is not really a school shooting in any sense of the term. 

This is the kind of shading and spinning that the media often do to achieve the kind of shock factor desired to retain readership and viewership. It pays to read the rest of the article; it pays to question headlines; it pays to use critical thinking. It especially pays when you know they have a hidden agenda or an incentive to get you all upset – which is always.

Save Your Vitamin Money

At least once a month we see reference to one or another survey or report about people being unable to afford retirement. They haven’t saved enough money, but may not be able to keep working either. But now just when it’s needed, along comes a reliable tip on how to save a little more: Don’t waste your money on vitamins. 

This is not the first time I have written about the waste and potential dangers of dietary supplements. The last entry on the subject of supplements in general was about two years ago where I quoted from the New York Times saying that annual spending in America averages about $100 per person. I focused on vitamin and mineral supplements as recently as last September. I was hoping after many attempts to have wrapped it up, but it’s good advice, so I will give it another shot based on some fresh headlines.

About two weeks ago researchers from West Virginia University School of Medicine published a study in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine showing “that although reduced salt intake and certain supplements may lower the risk of cardiovascular diseases, most nutritional supplements do not improve the risk for heart disease or death.”

An article reviewing that study quotes the lead researcher: “The reason we conducted this study was that millions of people in the United States and across the world consume supplements or follow certain dietary patterns, but there was no good-quality evidence to suggest that these interventions have any effect on cardiovascular protection." 

The study itself was not a clinical trial but a review of 277 other studies with a total of nearly one million subjects. It looked at the effectiveness of many popular nutritional supplements and 8 diets. “Findings show that of the 16 dietary supplements, only two showed beneficial effects on heart health, namely omega-3 long-chain fatty acids and folic acid….[whereas] selenium, vitamin B6, vitamin E, vitamin C, iron, and vitamin A, among others, show no significant effect on heart health.” 

Other important findings were that some supplements by themselves, not just the tainted ones that appear in the news from time to time, are potentially harmful. Another surprising finding was that “most diets, like modified fat intake, the Mediterranean diet, and reduced saturated fat intake, had no effect on the heart at all.”

Some other sources reporting on the same study had more watered down headlines. This one says, “For Heart Health, Some Popular Supplements Aren't as Helpful as We Thought.” But the sub-headline is more direct: “Consumers should ‘stop wasting their money on these products.’ ”

Another one is even more careful in its wording: “Nutritional supplements and diets not always protective, research suggests.” But they did provide a link to another study from 14 months ago that also came to the conclusion that “most commonly consumed vitamin and mineral supplements provide no consistent health benefit.”

The final conclusion as always is “only eating a healthy balanced diet is the key to overall health.” That shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who has been paying any attention to and looking into health news over the years. Once again, it’s looking for the easy, magical answers that cause us to waste time and money on pills and fad diets. Avoiding that mindset is, though, an easy way to come up with some extra money for that problematic retirement savings plan.