Living Longer (continued) – Same Old Boring Advice

For the last two weeks, we have been looking at commonly mistaken solutions in the search for a longer life. There is no shortage of unverified exercises, tricks, potions and diets claiming to help us live longer. Many years ago a TV commercial featured some very wrinkled people living in the remote Russian steppes whose secret to a longer life was eating yogurt. These days everyone eats yogurt, and the more exotic the better, with little to show for it.

Sadly the trick to living longer is not yogurt or supplements or more vacations. It’s not being lazy to save your energy as this piece argues. Instead about every few months, like clockwork, the health-news segments present a new study or often the same old studies with the same old boring advice.

One that resurfaces every few years is a Harvard study revealing the five things anyone could do to raise the chances of living longer. (More details about the study came out in MarketWatch just last July.)

It was also published by the Harvard Gazette back in April with the headline: “Five healthy habits to live by,” and told of the five habits, if adopted in adulthood, that could add approximately 14 years to women’s life expectancy and 12 years to men’s. 

The five so-called secrets uncovered by this study were (drumroll, please) “eating a healthy diet, exercising regularly, keeping a healthy body weight, not drinking too much alcohol, and not smoking.” I hope no one paid a lot of money for a study basically telling us what everyone already knew (but most didn’t want to hear). 

But in May 2016 a source called the Thrillist reviewed a different Harvard study on the same subject. “For 75 years (and counting), researchers have been following the same 600+ people to determine what makes a long, healthy, and happy life.” This longitudinal study, following the same subjects over an extended period, came up with seven secrets. Of course there is considerable overlap: keep learning, don’t smoke, don’t abuse alcohol, exercise, maintain a healthy weight, adapt well to setbacks, and have positive relationships.

Actually, the study reported in 2016 was a combination of two simultaneous studies, one with 263 participants and the other with over 300. The first of these was reported on in the Huffington Post in August 2013 with the headline: "The 75-Year Study That Found The Secrets To A Fulfilling Life.” This one was based on an interview with the author of a 2004 book on the subject. The main differences between the studies, the focus on relationships and coping, are explained by the fact that this study was as concerned with happiness as with longevity.

So the secret to a longer life is not a secret at all. It has been publicized for well over a decade with the common-sense equivalent going back many years before. As I explained two Fridays ago, it just takes some combination of critical thinking and common sense, perspective, economic understanding - not throwing away good money on junk science - and discipline to stick to a sensible routine.

Of course, if none of that common sense advice appeals to you because it lacks tricks and secrets and requires discipline, follow the latest advice for living longer from this New York Times article, based on yet another study – play more tennis!

Living Longer (continued) – How About My Good Genes?

How often have you heard people talking about a grandparent or great grandparent living to be over 100 years old?  It seems almost like a badge of honor to have a relative who passed that hurdle, although in many cases they were alive but no longer had their wits about them. 

Not only is it a matter of pride, it also seems to be somewhat reassuring, especially in the cases where the relative smoked or drank throughout his or her life. People figure that if Aunt Polly lived to 102, it was good news for them.

For a while the nature-or-nurture question was considered a toss up. Do we live longer because of our habits, because of our genes, or is it some combination of the two? Several sets of studies on twins raised in different households tried to find out.

Results from hundreds of individual studies have been published since the early-1980’s showing that genetics, rather than upbringing held sway for many characteristics. “Minnesota researchers found that about 70 percent of IQ variation across the twin population was due to genetic differences.” In other studies genes played a larger role than environment on personality, sexual orientation as an adult, religiosity and social attitudes. 

One of the earliest and most widely publicized stories of identical twins came from a study by Lewis and Springer. One pair of twins separated just four weeks after birth and reunited  39 years later was found to have remarkable similarities. “They both had childhood dogs named Toy, married and divorced women named Linda and then married women named Betty, drove Chevys, had nearly identical smoking brands and drinking patterns, and chewed their fingernails.” Physically, they had similar problems with headaches, and they chose the same Florida beach for vacations.

Soon many people were convinced that nature, that is genes, was a driving force and could be credited or blamed for any number of good and bad outcomes. But not so fast! Leave it to science to mess up a good story.

A study specifically looking into the link with longevity published in Nature several years ago has come back into the spotlight recently. Their primary conclusion was that “genetic differences account for about a quarter of the variance in adult human lifespan.” The advantage they had in studying longevity as oppose to other traits was that they could look at the records of twins over the last 100 years with no need for observation or interviews.

Harvard conducted another study on longevity with 268 students (not twins) beginning in 1938. With almost 80 years of data available, they concluded that “how happy we are in our relationships has a powerful influence on our health,” more powerful than genes alone.

So whether a grandmother or a great aunt lived beyond the normal lifespan seems to have much less effect on individual longevity than previously thought.  (That’s good news for a couple of men I know who have already lived past the age when their fathers died, and are very grateful – that’s perspective.) 

Having ruled out yet another potential factor in the search for long life, where does it leave us? More on this next time.

Living Longer (continued) – Are Multivitamins the Answer?

Last time we investigated the headline about how taking at least three weeks vacation was the key to living longer. The bad news is that the study was seriously flawed and the conclusion seemed very questionable. Realistically, there is no need to despair as the three-week-vacation option is out of reach for most Americans anyway. But how about those vitamins so many people take daily? As I wrote last time, “Not so fast!”

Many articles and studies agree that, for the most part, taking multivitamins is a waste of time and money. This recent item from NBC puts it bluntly: “The multivitamin industry rakes in billions of dollars. But science says we're not getting healthier. Unless you have a clinically identified deficiency, the research tells us there is little reason to consume supplements.”

Remember my August 17 entry about what we think we know for sure? This is another subject that falls into that category of believing what we want to despite scientific evidence. About half of all Americans take a vitamin or other supplement with annual spending expected to grow to $300 billion within the next five years. (Reflecting on the Labor Day question of why do we work, imagine if that $300 billion could go into individual retirement accounts instead.)

So people are convinced (by the smooth-talking advertisers), but science continues to tell us the opposite, with reports citing “little evidence” and “no clear health benefit” and that “their use is not justified.” The only upside is that people who fall into the multivitamin trap tend to take better care of themselves in other ways. 

The downside is that these pills, like all other dietary supplements are under-regulated leading to consumers not getting what they pay for. In some cases, it’s not just a matter of throwing money away on ineffective pills. Instead, some contain fillers or substitute ingredients, and tests have found some containing contaminants, which may “pose serious health risks.” 

Even pure vitamins can be dangerous, especially in mega-dose amounts. High doses of vitamin E or A can be harmful, possibly increasing cancer risk. A 2017 study “noted that 20 percent of all cases of liver toxicity are caused by herbal and dietary supplements. Another study found that 23,000 emergency department visits a year are the result of adverse reactions to supplements.”

Well, now that the word is out, can we expect Americans to heed the warnings, make better choices and save their money? It’s doubtful, because this is not breaking news! Besides the fact that I have been writing about it off and on for the last five years, the headlines have rolled in for at least that long and been ignored. See the sampling below.

From earlier this summer: “The truth behind multi-vitamins: You may do more harm than good taking them.” 

“In the recent study published by the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, it says vitamin supplements aren’t doing anything for your health.”

From articles in November 2013 and November 2015: “Even though half the U.S. population pops vitamins in the belief they can help people live longer, healthier lives, a very extensive look at the studies that have been done show it may be a waste of time when it comes to preventing the diseases most likely to kill you.”

From HealthDay News in December 2013: “With three new studies finding that a daily multivitamin won't help boost the average American's health, the experts behind the research are urging people to abandon use of the supplements. The studies found that popping a daily multivitamin didn't ward off heart problems or memory loss, and wasn't tied to a longer life span.”

From WebMD around the same time: “The studies, published in the Dec. 17 issue of the journal Annals of Internal Medicine, found that multivitamin and mineral supplements did not work any better than placebo pills.” 

CBS added in 2015, “taking lots of supplements may raise a person's risk.”

The articles and studies have all stressed the futility of using vitamins and other supplements as the magic answer to better health and longevity. The consistent reminder in every one of these reports is that, unless prescribed by a doctor for a specific deficiency, they are ineffective and never a substitute for healthy eating.

So apparently the vitamins are not the answer to health and long life either. But people don’t worry about any of this if they have been blessed with good genes – not so fast! We’ll look at that idea next time.

Living Longer – The Secret To A Long Life

Everyone wants to know the secret to living longer, and many, many answers to that question are tossed around in the news media and on social media every day.  This is an important issue to most Americans. It is a matter for critical thinking, making sure the proposals pass the test of common sense, for perspective, making sure the potential gain is worth the investment, for economic understanding, knowing that a dollar spent on this pursuit cannot be spent elsewhere, and for discipline, having the ability to stick to a plan for the long term. (Note: any secret to longevity that has no long-term component doesn’t pass the critical thinking test.)

The next three or four installments of this page will cover an investigation of a few of these secrets to longevity. So where shall we start – how about with taking more vacations?

A news article about a study in Finland that, curiously enough, got to Yahoo News by way of India, tells us that men who take vacations live longer. Specifically, “compared with those who took more than three weeks, men who took three weeks or less annual leave from their regular work schedule were found to be 37 per cent more likely to die early.”

The study included 1,222 middle-aged executives, who were randomly assigned to a test group or a control group. Every four months they gave the test group advice on healthy living, including subjects like diet, exercise and not smoking. The control group was left alone. “Shorter vacations were associated with excess deaths in the [test] group,” but made no difference in the control group. They concluded: “stress reduction is an essential part of programmes aimed at reducing the risk of cardiovascular diseases.” 

Wow, where do I start? To be fair, I couldn’t find a link to the paper presented, so have no idea about how long the study lasted – hopefully, it was more than a few years, or how they defined excess deaths. But there are other flaws in the reasoning.

First, the sample was a decent size, but they cut it in half for no apparent reason. They assigned men randomly to each group. Randomization is a good course of action when you have no idea about the background of the subjects, but with more information it is preferable to assign similar people to each group to try to balance out what researchers call confounding factors. Some of those factors may have been family or work situations that could make taking vacation more stressful or impossible, such as divorce or personal/corporate bankruptcy. So randomizing into two groups is puzzling.

Then I wonder if vacation time was the only variable they tested for – that would seem odd given that they also provided healthy living information to only one group. Otherwise they may have been testing for a number of variables and found an “association” only with vacations. I have written elsewhere about how this practice can lead to some unreliable, even crazy results.

And who funded the study? Was it the Finnish tourism industry?

 Finally, the conclusions they reached cannot be applied to any large population – of Finland or anywhere else. They tested only male executives. It is comparable to a college professor testing a group of undergraduates, called a sample of convenience, and publishing the results as if they applied to ordinary citizens across the country. No can do! Do male Finnish executives have anything in common with female Detroit autoworkers? In fact, the conclusions did not even apply to their own so-called control group. How does not receiving healthy living information affect how stress-reducing a vacation is? Half their experiment backed their findings and the other half didn't!

I’m sure it made the news because everyone would like to exercise a little confirmation bias and latch on to a scientific study telling them what they want to hear: that not taking a three-week vacation can be a health hazard. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple.

So, if we want to live longer, we must look elsewhere, like to those magic pills, foods or beverages packed with vitamins and minerals – right? Not so fast! A word or two about that next time.

Why Do We Work?

On Labor Day it’s probably appropriate to ask yourself the question: Why are you working? Popular culture will tell us “Everybody’s working for the weekend,” but there must be more to it than that.

In reality we work to pay the bills, to put a roof over our heads, to eat and be comfortable most of the time, to pay for education and to afford transportation. (In the last two instances, many pay them off after the fact.) One important, less obvious reason – we work so that some day we can stop working. It’s called retirement. It’s not something that just happens by magic, and it’s getting to be more and more challenging. 

Although for ordinary people it is a fairly recent development, less than 90 years old, with the help of organizations like AARP, most of us take it for granted. But it’s not a right; it’s something that must be earned and planned for.

Social Security has been in place since 1935. We see the deduction from every paycheck. It’s easy to assume that retirement is taken care of. This Motley Fool article warns that is clearly not the case. Some struggle to get by on Social Security alone, however one emergency can put a senior behind financially with little hope of catching up; healthcare costs continue to rise, especially for older people; and the annual COLA doesn’t keep up with real cost increases. “Social Security benefits are clearly insufficient to live on under the current system – but things could actually get worse. Social Security's trust fund reserves are expected to be depleted by 2034, and if no steps are taken to fix funding shortfalls, Social Security will only be able to pay 77% of expected benefits.”

This is not because the government is stealing from the so-called trust fund. It’s a feature of the original design that did not account for the baby-boomer generation or for the trend toward fewer workers. (For those still stuck on the myth that “it’s my money and they owe it to me,” here is a clear explanation from about two and a half years ago of why that’s not the case.)

Another article from Yahoo Finance tells the stark reality of the current situation: “Despite the fact that it was never meant to act as a main source of income, nearly one in five married retirees and one in two unmarried retirees say they rely on Social Security for the bulk of their income, according to the U.S. Social Security Administration.” To make ends meet, they must rely on Food stamps and other government programs.

With traditional pensions disappearing and Social Security an inadequate replacement, retirement savings cannot be considered a luxury. No one can afford to wait.

On average Americans are far behind. To be on track, by the age of 30 workers should have saved the equivalent of one year’s pay. Most are behind but have time to make it up, unlike their parents. “According to the research, the average retirement savings for families aged 50 to 55 is $124,831. For families aged 56 to 61, it's $163,577. Those figures are far less than the $1 million that many experts recommend as a target for retirement savings.” The one-million-dollar figure may be high, and this site, complete with calculator, recommends only $480,000 – still a lot more than the average of $163,000.

The answer then is simple. You are working to some day not have to work any more. But it’s not automatic. It takes planning, perspective and discipline. Without it anyone could end up in the category described in this CBS report: Broke and Bankrupt in Retirement.

Paying Attention

It’s hard to use critical thinking unless you are paying close attention. Opinions and feelings try to slide by as facts; some things are brought to our attention and some glossed over or omitted. Questions go unanswered.

Here are a few changes and trends I noticed by paying attention and applying some perspective to note differences. Not all are necessarily bad or problematic, but as we let unimportant things slip by, we also allow the big issues to ride along.

Gradually the vocabulary for describing schools is changing. High schools now have campuses. In news reports the term is commonly used, even in cases where it’s a single building with an athletic field in back – these were formerly referred to simply as high schools. After spending four years being taught by educators, students may earn a high school degree. 

One news item recently reported that Chik-fil-A had moved into third place among quick-service restaurants, as another told us, “Chick-fil-A will become the first quick service restaurant to offer full meal kits.” Eating fast food is a bad habit; does calling it quick service instead of fast food make a difference in the nutritional value or is it just more marketing?

I’ve written before about how realtors have hijacked the word homes. They don’t sell houses anymore; they sell homes. It has gotten to the point where an architectural design formerly known as a townhouse, usually having a small footprint with multiple floors, is today referred to as a townhome. Google the term townhouse and you will see many ads for restaurants and bars. Google townhome and you will see real estate ads – more marketing.

 Health food stores got it right from the beginning.  They don’t really sell food, and much of it isn’t particularly healthful. In fact, it is unregulated and untested so some products can be dangerous without customers knowing. But they got the marketing angle down to the point where so many people put their critical thinking in neutral and believe otherwise.

Finally, the word alleged has somehow changed its nature or definition, or has just become a term thrown around to protect against any misrepresentation. So many times I have heard local news reporters saying something along these lines: “The man was allegedly charged with robbing a Village Pantry.” (Robbing Village Pantries in the wee hours is kind of a hobby for folks around here.) But he wasn’t allegedly charged; he was actually charged for allegedly doing the robbing.

Paying attention and using critical thinking is important. Words can be misused unintentionally, which is usually harmless. But they can also be used by advertisers, politicians and others to manipulate opinions. For example, referring to people who sneak into the country as immigrants is like referring to shoplifters as customers.

Fear of Science and Technology

Last week I attended a presentation on GMOs by a Purdue University professor in the Department of Botany and Plant Pathology. He was very knowledgeable with impressive credentials, but he said things some people didn’t want to hear. 

The primary point of contention was that a vast majority (near 90%) of scientists agree that genetically modified plants are safe to eat, but only 37% of the general public agree. Somehow when a majority of scientists are cited as agreeing with man-made global warming, everyone is so convinced that they will try to cut off any further discussion; they shudder to think of the US pulling out of the Paris Agreement; but when a majority of scientists say that GMOs are safe to eat, they must all be working for Monsanto. 

The difference is that climate change is not as scary as eating something potentially harmful. The resistance arises from a fear of something that sounds very unnatural.

However, the speaker pointed out that farms, and agriculture in general, is not natural. Even in backyard gardens, people remove the weeds that naturally grow to plant seeds that have been developed through thousands of years of selection. As nature caused genetic modifications in plants, people preserved those with the best characteristics: size, juiciness, drought-resistance. Humans have been eating and enjoying unnatural foods for millennia (fresh from the garden).

Furthermore, the introduction of plant science has enabled great leaps forward in agriculture, allowing farmers around the world to feed the growing population, now 7.6 billion. For example, the average yield of corn per acre in the US in 1900 was 25.9 bushels per acre. That increased to 77.4 by 1965 and to 137.0 by 2000. The yield in 2017 was 176.6 bushels per acre. The application of science increased the amount of corn by almost 7 times when it would have been impossible to increase the acreage.

But the myth exists that natural automatically equates to good and healthy, and promoters of food and supplements use that to our overall disadvantage.  Another glaring example of this came across the Internet a few weeks back.

A product called kraton is being aggressively promoted as a possible solution to the opioid epidemic. They say it is harmless and no more addictive than coffee. But there is “no reliable evidence that kratom can help addicts safely wean themselves off of heroin or prescription opioids, or that it offers any other therapeutic benefit, according to the FDA, which has issued a public health warning about its potential for addiction."

Various scientific studies show that it causes withdrawal symptoms similar to those of opioids, and it has been linked to episodes of psychosis, seizures, and to deaths, along with mild, moderate, and life-threatening medical outcomes reported in 660 phone calls to U.S. poison control centers from 2010 through 2015.“The CDC has issued four reports of Salmonella infection outbreaks linked to contaminated products.”

But here is how it’s promoted. It is marketed as a dietary supplement that grows naturally in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Papua New Guinea with friendly sounding brand names like Botany Bay, Enhance Your Life and Divinity. They claim it helps overcome opioid addiction and withdrawal, lowers pain and blood pressure, prevents cancer and reduces nerve damage caused by strokes. (There is no evidence for any of these claims.)

Meanwhile Americans continue to buy it as the industry association fights government attempts to take it off the market. Again it’s a matter of valid science vs. perceptions, of critical thinking vs. feelings. It all comes down to that persistent misconception that natural stands for guaranteed goodness. (The Salmonella that contaminated some samples was also natural!)