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.

Flashback – Social Security Myths

[Here is a brief excerpt from a long rant on Facebook about how unfair the Social Security system is and looking for support. 

“This is NOT a benefit. It is OUR money, paid out of our earned income! Not only did we all contribute to Social Security but our employers did too! It totaled 15% of our income before taxes. (This should be enough for you to forward this message, If not read on.)”

Despite my posting only 6 months ago the following full explanation of why this idea is complete hogwash, the misunderstanding continues. If you pass anything along, this should be it, because it is the truth.]

People keep saying and posting on social media thoughts on Social Security that are dead wrong. These myths and misconceptions have been going around for years, and apparently too few people take the initiative to look for the facts. Instead they express righteous indignation against an imagined injustice that they can't control. Their anger and frustration are amplified by cowardly politicians eager to feed into the fear in order to blame the other side rather than to do anything about it . 

First: It’s my money. I paid in, and I expect to get it back. (Wrong)

Second: Congress raided the Social Security trust fund to pay for their pet projects and wars. (Wrong)

The concept behind Social Security is that the government collects money from working people, salaries and wages, to pay retirees at a set rate. Here is the way the government explains it: “Under a pay-as-you-go program…, the taxes of each generation are used to pay for benefits to prior generations and are not used to advance fund their own benefits.” The money you paid in goes to pay someone else; it's not set aside for you.

Previously, there were far fewer retirees than workers, so SSA collected more than they paid out. Surplus funds were (by law) invested in government bonds. Like any other investment in bonds, they accumulated interest. By a recent estimate, Social Security earns $80 million per year from the interest on this investment.

That surplus is sometimes referred to as a trust fund, giving the false impression that they are holding your money in a separate account to fund your retirement. As shown above, this is clearly not the case. Money collected this month is paid out to retirees this month with any excess invested. As more people retire and live longer, the surplus has gotten smaller. Beginning very soon there will be no surplus. Social Security will begin cashing in those bonds to cover monthly payments. 

By 2032 the surplus is expected to be used up. The only money available to pay out will be the money collected. That amount will cover only about 75% of the set rate. For many years politicians have avoided trying to fix this problem, because anyone who mentions it is accused of stealing from old people, instead of trying to address a known problem.

What about raiding the mythical trust fund? The reason a government (or any other entity) issues bonds is to borrow money from investors. They can use that money in any way they wish. There has been no raiding or stealing. They treat money borrowed from Social Security the same as any borrowed from any other bondholder. They spend it. Otherwise they wouldn't borrow it in the first place! As mentioned above, they also must pay interest on the money borrowed - that's the opposite of raiding. 

At times the government has changed the way it accounts for Social Security collections. Sometimes they were counted separately and sometimes they were included with all other tax revenues. This affects only how the deficit is calculated and reported. It has nothing to do with how much is available to pay out but has been misrepresented as raiding. CBS News debunked this myth back in 2012, but did anyone listen?

Furthermore, the agreed payout can be and has been unilaterally changed many times in the past. A cost of living adjustment was added in 1975. The month when that adjustment was applied changed in 1983. Part of the payment became taxable in 1984. The age for full retirement was adjusted in 1983. The contribution rate has grown since its inception and the cap changes every year with inflation. 

That means the government can change the rules if necessary. Here is how the Social Security Administration explains it. “We use the term obligation in lieu of the term liability because liability generally indicates a contractual or legal obligation. No contractual or legal obligation exists for paying full scheduled benefits on time once the trust fund reserves are depleted. In fact, current law requires that, when the trust fund reserves are depleted, benefits paid should match income received.”

It’s not your money. There was no raiding. There is no firm promise to pay, and it was never meant as the sole source of retirement income. Look it up!

(Also, for a full explanation of whether Social Security is an entitlement follow this link.)

Social Security Myths

People keep saying and posting on social media thoughts on Social Security that are dead wrong. These myths and misconceptions have been going around for years, and apparently too few people take the initiative to look for the facts. Instead they express righteous indignation against an imagined injustice that they can't control. Their anger and frustration are amplified by cowardly politicians eager to feed into the fear in order to blame the other side rather than to do anything about it . 

First: It’s my money. I paid in, and I expect to get it back. (Wrong)

Second: Congress raided the Social Security trust fund to pay for their pet projects and wars. (Wrong)

The concept behind Social Security is that the government collects money from working people, salaries and wages, to pay retirees at a set rate. Here is the way the government explains it: “Under a pay-as-you-go program…, the taxes of each generation are used to pay for benefits to prior generations and are not used to advance fund their own benefits.” The money you paid in goes to pay someone else; it's not set aside for you.

Previously, there were far fewer retirees than workers, so SSA collected more than they paid out. Surplus funds were (by law) invested in government bonds. Like any other investment in bonds, they accumulated interest. By a recent estimate, Social Security earns $80 million per year from the interest on this investment.

That surplus is sometimes referred to as a trust fund, giving the false impression that they are holding your money in a separate account to fund your retirement. As shown above, this is clearly not the case. Money collected this month is paid out to retirees this month with any excess invested. As more people retire and live longer, the surplus has gotten smaller. Beginning very soon there will be no surplus. Social Security will begin cashing in those bonds to cover monthly payments. 

By 2032 the surplus is expected to be used up. The only money available to pay out will be the money collected. That amount will cover only about 75% of the set rate. For many years politicians have avoided trying to fix this problem, because anyone who mentions it is accused of stealing from old people, instead of trying to address a known problem.

What about raiding the mythical trust fund? The reason a government (or any other entity) issues bonds is to borrow money from investors. They can use that money in any way they wish. There has been no raiding or stealing. They treat money borrowed from Social Security the same as any borrowed from any other bondholder. They spend it. Otherwise they wouldn't borrow it in the first place! As mentioned above, they also must pay interest on the money borrowed - that's the opposite of raiding. 

At times the government has changed the way it accounts for Social Security collections. Sometimes they were counted separately and sometimes they were included with all other tax revenues. This affects only how the deficit is calculated and reported. It has nothing to do with how much is available to pay out but has been misrepresented as raiding. CBS News debunked this myth back in 2012, but did anyone listen?

Furthermore, the agreed payout can be and has been unilaterally changed many times in the past. A cost of living adjustment was added in 1975. The month when that adjustment was applied changed in 1983. Part of the payment became taxable in 1984. The age for full retirement was adjusted in 1983. The contribution rate has grown since its inception and the cap changes every year with inflation. 

That means the government can change the rules if necessary. Here is how the Social Security Administration explains it. “We use the term obligation in lieu of the term liability because liability generally indicates a contractual or legal obligation. No contractual or legal obligation exists for paying full scheduled benefits on time once the trust fund reserves are depleted. In fact, current law requires that, when the trust fund reserves are depleted, benefits paid should match income received.”

It’s not your money. There was no raiding. There is no firm promise to pay, and it was never meant as the sole source of retirement income. Look it up!

(Also, for a full explanation of whether Social Security is an entitlement follow this link.)

Full Moon and Other Myths

Ask any number of cops or emergency room nurses, if business picks up under a full moon, and they will quickly confirm your suspicion.  Try telling any of your friends or neighbors that this is not true and you are looking for a fight.  

It’s surprising (and distressing) how many people will strongly defend this kind of information even though they have never done or seen any research presenting evidence one way or another.  They just know it because they know it and believe that it is true.  They will swear by it because something happened to a friend or relative that confirmed it in their mind. Anecdotal evidence is given undue power.

Critical thinkers stand no chance in these situations.  They can’t carry around in their pockets information like the following:  “‘Published [research] does not confirm that there is a change in the amount of violence, reported crimes or aggressive behavior during a full moon,’ Eric Chudler told ABC News. Chudler, a research associate professor in bioengineering at the University of Washington in Seattle, has studied more than 100 research papers on the purported effects of the full moon on human affairs.”

Even presented with this real evidence, people would continue to believe in the power of the full moon.  (Even though they may reject the idea of werewolves.) Other studies have found that some of the strongest proponents of this myth, that nights with a full moon are prone to result in a higher crime rate and more cases of trauma, turn out to be nurses and police officers. 

But doctors at the Children's Hospital in Pittsburgh studied the data on health-care myths and one did a study involving area nurses. He said he found that 69 percent of surgical nurses in his study believed that a full moon led to more chaos and incoming patients that night.  The myth persists, just because people expect to see such patterns and can easily convince themselves that they exist – “See, it’s the full moon. Get ready for a busy night.”

Endorsement from such authority figures and the sympathetic newspaper stories about a lunar effect provide fuel to perpetuate the belief that the phase of the moon affects behavior.  But scientific, statistical evidence, real studies looking for any relationship, and there have been many of them, show no link between phases of the moon and abnormal or unusual behavior.

Some people, including veterinarians, tend to believe that cats and dogs act strangely on full-moon nights and “studies do show an uptick in emergency room visits for cats and dogs during a full moon and in the days before and after.”  It’s doubtful that the moon has any influence beyond the fact that the nights are brighter and people might allow their pets to stay out longer, increasing the potential for them to injure themselves or otherwise get into trouble.

The main problems with this and other myths are confirmation bias and an over-tendency to look for patterns. These are stressed in several recent books in the field of behavioral economics.  When people see an example of something they believe, they tend to embrace it.  When they see a counter example, they tend to dismiss it.  Few look at it as a research problem where the first step is to gather data, count and compare occurrences.

The second problematic tendency is to look for patterns even where none are present.  The familiar is more comforting than the strange.  Along those lines, it is tempting to assign some cause to an effect, even if the supposed cause is some supernatural or paranormal phenomenon, gods or ghosts.  When The Oprah Show revealed a very unusual meeting or situation, she and the audience would gasp – “What are the odds?” But it’s almost certain that with over 300 million people in America, those working for the show could easily find several examples of unlikely occurrences with odds greater than one in ten million.  It’s not a miracle or synchronicity, it just happens somewhere almost every day.

But don’t try to argue that with Oprah or a full-moon believer. They will blow you away!

Time To Look It Up

There are so many urban myths and other falsehoods arising out of social media and other sources.  As has always been the case, falsehoods spread quickly while the truth struggles to catch up.  Today with the Internet, the speed and range of these myths just increase, while people, even intelligent people, seldom take time to verify facts.  Generally, again with the accessibility of the Internet, it’s an easy lookup.

This came to mind earlier in the month when Chelsea Clinton posted pictures on Twitter of spinach pancakes for National Pancake Day.  The response was swift, as followers commented negatively both on their appearance and their imagined taste.  They certainly didn’t look very appetizing.

In response to the mild uproar she posted another Tweet:  “Dear internet, my daughter needs +iron so we put spinach in everything we can.”  After that the commotion died down.

But wait!  That belief that spinach is super-loaded with iron is a myth.  Look up on Google spinach-iron-myth and it comes up immediately.  Look up spinach-iron and the myth information is first or second on the listing of sources.  Here is a sample:

“For a hundred years or more spinach has been (and clearly still is) renowned for its high iron content compared with that of other vegetables, but to the joy of those who dislike the stuff this is quite untrue. In 1870 Dr E. von Wolff published the analyses of a number of foods, including spinach which was shown to be exceptionally rich in iron. The figures were repeated in succeeding generations of textbooks – after all one does not always verify the findings of others – including the ‘Handbook of Food Sciences’ (Handbuch der Ernahrungslehre) by von Noorden and Saloman[1] 1920.

“In 1937 Professor Schupan eventually repeated the analyses of spinach and found that it contained no more iron than did any other leafy vegetable, only one-tenth of the amount previously reported. The fame of spinach appears to have been based on a misplaced decimal point.”

That’s right.  Due to a typographical error made almost 150 years ago and initially corrected 80 years ago, many people still credit spinach with an exceptional amount of iron.

But it gets better.  Another source points out:  “The problem, however, is that the iron from plant-based foods, including spinach, is not absorbed as well as iron from meat and poultry.”  Liver pancakes, anyone?

This phenomenon is not limited to iron and spinach.  Several times I’ve heard people tell me they don’t like to use the microwave because they believe all that zapping with radiation make the food not taste as good and destroys the nutrition.  The fact is that “nuking” food cooks it faster with less water, so it is usually more nutritious. 

Likewise cranberries have earned a reputation for being friendly to your urinary system.  But the latest information, reflected in this long quote from a WebMD posting, and confirmed by other sources, tells a different story:  “Cranberry juice is high in salts called oxalates, which can make kidney stones more likely, especially if you already tend to get these types of stones.

“If you take the blood-thinning medication warfarin, you should avoid cranberry products, because cranberries can interact with warfarin and cause bleeding.

“But the weight of evidence, especially those from larger and better-designed trials, points towards the likelihood that cranberry products are ineffective for preventing UTIs” (urinary tract infections).

The lesson for all is to take the time to look it up, even if it’s considered common knowledge.  It’s usually easy to find a reputable source or two.  It saves time and money, and is sometimes safer.  I hope Chelsea Clinton’s defense that her baby needs extra iron is based on a doctor’s testing and recommendation and not just a common belief that babies need extra iron.