More Secrets To A Longer Life

A couple of related stories caught my attention recently. The impression I got from them is that people continue to look for easy answers, tips and secrets. With all the new technology and scientific breakthroughs, they tend to abandon common sense, expecting something better and easier. This attitude drives a lot of wasteful behavior indicative of a lack of discipline and critical thinking.

 

The first was from a website called Outside with the title: “8 Simple Tips to Live Longer and Healthier.” These tips, it explains, are easy and based on scientific time-tested methods. The tips are merely to develop healthy daily living habits. This idea has been around for ages and the evidence to support it “has mounted, even as more people try to find the elixir of youth.”  A 2016 British study “found a healthy lifestyle reduces one’s chance of all-cause mortality by a whopping 61 percent.”

 

To make such a list, as the line from Casablanca goes, “round up the usual suspects.” They are easy to understand, but not so easy to adopt.

1. Exercise is good for you.
2. Watch what you eat.
3. Socialize – loneliness has surprisingly bad effects.
4. Avoid nearly all supplements – “the vast majority don’t work and may even cause harm.”
5. Get enough sleep.
6. Get outside and enjoy nature.
7. Don’t smoke.
8. Drink alcohol in moderation.

This kind of information is republished frequently by the news media and in public service announcements. By now it’s not really news! Some might add a few more such as: sunscreen, brushing and flossing, drink when you are thirsty, wash your hands and get a flu shot.  But most of this is common knowledge.

 

The one about the supplements is certainly right but not often mentioned. For example, Harvard School of Health calls claims about antioxidants “mostly hype” adding, “mostly disappointing [study] results haven’t stopped food companies and supplement sellers from banking on antioxidants.” The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) says, “Many studies have shown antioxidants do not add health benefits nor do they play a key role in preventing cancer or heart disease.” I have covered the dangers and waste associated with dietary supplements many times in the past.

 

The related idea of looking for the easy answer came from a story early in the pandemic. Americans were hoarding not only toilet paper but also another product that made little sense. Last May a Forbes article reported, “retail sales of orange juice increased 46% in the United States in a four-week period ending on April 11.” 

They apparently believed in the power of Vitamin C to cure colds and other viruses. That this is not true should also have been common knowledge. Back in 2006 NPR ran a story, “The Vitamin C Myth.” By then there had been “at least twenty well controlled studies on the use of mega doses of vitamin C in the prevention of colds, treating the duration of colds, and in treatment of the severity of colds;” none of them showed any evidence that “vitamin C in mega doses does anything.” 

 

This vitamin C myth is just another example of what I referred to recently in “Flashback – Fear of Power Lines” on September 11: when people get an idea stuck in their heads, it takes a great deal of persuasion to get them to change their minds, even if the science is definitive.

 

Problems in discipline cause us to ignore the simple but not easy-to-follow lifestyle instead hoping for a pill or magic medical device. Problems in critical thinking cause the brain latch on to one of those ideas and never again wonder if it’s accurate.

What We Think We Know For Sure

A few weeks ago my niece was in the mall talking on her phone to her mom, my sister. In the middle of the conversation, a man working there walked up and interrupted to tell her that it was a proven scientific fact that holding a cellular phone next to her head would cause brain cancer. She politely thanked him and continued her conversation.

In point of fact, there is no such proven science, and this has been known for many years. This government website states: “The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency energy is heating…Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause heating to the area of the body where a cell phone or other device is held (ear, head, etc.). However, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature, and there are no other clearly established effects on the body from radiofrequency energy.” They go on to cite findings from several organizations including the American Cancer Society, the FDA and the CDC. Those groups’ conclusions vary slightly between evidence not strong enough, no conclusive evidence and no relationship.

But people get these ideas stuck in their heads and swear by them. Even if you can quote the findings, backing them up with links and references, they will likely not change their minds. A couple of similar examples come from omega-3 fatty acids and dairy fat from milk and butter. Many believe the former is good for your heart, so gulp down the fish oil pills, and the latter causes heart problems. New research puts both these ideas in doubt.

From a recent Medical News Today article: “Studies have shown that those who consume fish regularly as part of a healthful, balanced diet are at a lower risk of heart problems. But the National Institutes of Health (NIH) explain that research is unclear as to whether these benefits come from fish or omega-3 in particular.” So no one knows if omega-3 itself has a positive effect, yet 20 million Americans buy supplements believing that they are doing the heart-healthy thing.

The HIH study reviewed 79 randomized trials with a total of over 112,000 subjects, which looked at the cardiovascular effects of taking omega-3 supplements. The supplements had "little or no effect" on death risk from any causes or on the risk of cardiovascular events, stroke, or irregular heartbeat. Eating walnuts or fortified products such as margarine "probably makes little or no difference.” Their overall conclusion – “Diet may help, but supplements do not.”

Of course advertisers take advantage of any misconception. They keep posting contains omega-3 on packages. If enough people believed in it and were influenced to buy, companies would add any substance endorsed by the current craze. (At least the superstitious American health enthusiasts don’t endanger elephants and rhinos like their Asian counterparts do.)

On the opposite side of the fence is the dairy industry. We have been misinformed for the last 60 years about the harmful effects of fat, told to avoid whole milk and butter. The theory was that fat eaten was absorbed into the blood and distributed around the body – wrong. The problem is sugar, but the fat-banners won the battle for the hearts and minds of the public and the politicians. 

Hence, average per capita annual milk consumption in America has dropped from 30 gallons in 1970s to 18 gallons today. This report tells of a new study of 2,907 adults that found “people with higher and lower levels of dairy fats in their blood had the same rate of death during a 22-year period.” They describe it as part of an “ongoing vindication process for saturated fats” like those found in milk, cheese, and butter. (Even 15 years ago the evidence was coming to light.) “The researchers concluded that dairy-fat consumption later in life does not significantly influence total mortality.’”

What do advertisers and food companies do in light of the facts that have been emerging over the last ten years? They play to the misinformed and to the conventional wisdom by developing (more expensive) milk from almonds, soybeans, cashews, hemp, rice, etc. to save the health-conscious from the dreaded “moo-juice.” They prominently display omega-3 (and other hyped-up additives) on their labels to give the impression of putting our health ahead of profits. It's left to the consumer to sort it out. Be skeptical, not gullible.

Sound Familiar?

It’s interesting how a little critical thinking can anticipate events.  Here is a list of just a few recent news items that looked so familiar in light of my entries on this site over the last six years.

Driverless vehicles:  Almost 4 years ago I asked the question, “What could lie ahead in the case of self-driving cars?”  I suggested driverless 18-wheelers moving freight from warehouses to stores, trash trucks with automatic lifts to both collect and drive the route, a robot to deliver mail from an autonomous vehicle sorting and filling the boxes, taxis with a touchpad to enter destination but no driver and even safer school buses with CCTV to take attendance and keep an eye on the children.

Today we have heard much about testing driverless trucks.  This Guardian article tells us the UK government has approved trials of convoys of semi-automated trucks on their highways.  “Up to three wirelessly connected HGVs will travel in convoy, with acceleration, braking and steering controlled by the lead vehicle, a concept named platooning.”

At the same time that Uber is testing self-driving taxis, in Ann Arbor, MI “Domino’s and Ford are teaming up to see if customers will warm to the idea of pizza delivered by driverless cars.”  It’s all coming true and probably faster than expected.

On another subject:  Many Americans look to our neighbors to the north to set the example for medical care, but recently Manitoba, “the only remaining Canadian province that covers a portion of chiropractic care” has reduced the per visit insurance by about 30 percent and it covers only the manipulation.  This according to Dynamic Chiropractic.

Only a few weeks ago I warned about the dangers and possibilities of fraud concerning chiropractic services.  Apparently most Canadian provinces address these issues by refusing to pay for any of it, letting citizens pay their money and take their chances.

Low-fat diets:  A new analysis presented at the European Society of Cardiology spanning more than a decade and considering 135,000 adult subjects from five continents reveals flaws in government dietary guidelines around the world.  “The ongoing Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) project has found both saturated and unsaturated fat intake linked to better heart health, that a high-carb diet is a better predictor of health risks than fat consumption, and that the health benefits of fruit, vegetables, and legumes like beans and chickpeas may plateau at three to four servings per day.

  

The dispute about the dangers of eating fat has been going on for almost 60 years.  Unfortunately, the political side crowded out the science.  As I put it earlier this year, "With virtually no evidence that eating less fat had any health benefits, [the authorities] assumed that 'if a cholesterol-lowering drug could prevent heart attacks, then a low-fat, cholesterol-lowering diet should do the same.'  But the research and the experience over many years could not confirm this conclusion."

On the subject of homeopathy:  Recently, a couple of negative articles arrived at my desk on this subject.  One listed almost fifty warning letters sent by the FDA to makers of homeopathic products over the last 10 years.  “Nearly all ordered the seller to stop claiming that products could effectively treat specific diseases or conditions. Some ordered the seller to stop claiming that products were vaccine equivalents. A few involved the failure to use good manufacturing practices.”

The second revealed that the Russian Academy of Sciences “has become the latest body to declare homeopathy has ‘no scientific basis’ and endangers people who believe it to be effective.”  I came to pretty much the same conclusion two and a half years ago in “Homeopathy – Does It Really Work?”

I’m sure there are at least several more, but these are the ones that stood out in my mind or happened to catch my attention.  Seeing some of the trends before they become broadly accepted requires only that one pay attention and try to stay strong in the five key dimensions.

Just Another Oil Crisis

This has nothing to do with OPEC and strife in the Mideast.  It’s another press release about oils in our diet.

It started with a headline on the BBC declaring:  “Coconut oil is as unhealthy as beef dripping and butter, say US heart experts.”  As usual, we have to be very wary of headlines, especially ones like this one designed to scare.  It turns out that the information is from the American Heart Association (AHA).  They are concerned that coconut oil is considered by some to be a health food containing fat that “may be better for us than other saturated fats.”  The AHA says there are no good studies backing up this claim.  According to them, all saturated fat is bad.

But all the differing opinions about good fat and bad fat can be very confusing.  Generally animal fat is considered unhealthier than vegetable fat, but not everyone agrees with that distinction either.  I wrote about this just five months ago when the story came out that Nutella contains palm oil which has recently been placed on the bad list.  In that piece I reviewed a number of different sources showing how they ranked the oils in different orders of healthiness.

Another article (coincidentally also) from the BBC but a year earlier, “Diet debate: Is butter back and is sat fat good?” gives a balanced explanation.  At one time the experts felt that all cholesterol is bad, but now everyone knows about HDL (good cholesterol) and LDL (bad cholesterol).  The oil and fat debate is equally subtle, making the comparison to butter in that latest headline questionable.  Furthermore, any research is difficult because it depends on many people accurately reporting what they eat over long periods of time.

Back in the 1950s some researchers found evidence that fat was the culprit.  To understand the history in detail an interesting source is the book The Big Fat Surprise by Nina Teicholz.  It tells of some of the problems with study methods – in one case looking at Italians during Lent to assess their usual eating habits – and of the politics involved – when the US Government commits to a particular diet recommendation, studies with contrary findings are often ignored and scientists risk loss of funding.  Those who thought sugar, not fat, was the problem were marginalized.  As a NY Times Magazine piece from 2002 put it:  “While the low-fat-is-good-health dogma represents reality as we have come to know it, and the government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in research trying to prove its worth, the low-carbohydrate message has been relegated to the realm of unscientific fantasy.”

That Times article also gives a great summary of the history and politics.  At one point they explain it this way:  A huge government study “concluded that reducing cholesterol by drug therapy could prevent heart disease. The N.I.H. administrators then made a leap of faith.”  With virtually no evidence that eating less fat had any health benefits, they assumed that “if a cholesterol-lowering drug could prevent heart attacks, then a low-fat, cholesterol-lowering diet should do the same.”  But the research and the experience over many years could not confirm this conclusion.

With all this conflicting evidence, what’s an eater to do?  The best answer has to do with moderation: in fat, in sugar, and in portion size.  Contradictory news will continue to pour in.  For example, eggs that we were told just a few years ago were "worse than smoking cigarettes" (for the cholesterol) are back on the good-guy list.  Popular Science reported just two weeks ago “An egg a day could help babies grow bigger and taller.”

So the answer is not to take all the headlines too seriously and to practice moderation.  You heard it here first! – Except this is really just common sense.