How to live longer and enjoy yourself more

Only 19 more days until we get some blessed relief from truly deep, bipartisan, political dudgeon, the worst in many years. Even friends and family are at each other’s throat. But politicians come and go, and the truth is that America is strong enough to survive a watch with either party at the helm. So let’s talk about something that really matters – your health.

All the experts agree – there are two major knobs you can turn to improve your health, sense of wellbeing, and longevity: diet and exercise. Let’s look at physical activity first.

While some of us are already physically active from choice (exercise, competition) or necessity (work), many are not. The New York Times reports a fascinating study of Finnish identical twins who differed significantly, in later life, in exercise activity. Genetics, early life and upbringing were all similar. It was only in later life that one twin exercised and the other did not.

“It turned out that these genetically identical twins looked surprisingly different beneath the skin and skull. The sedentary twins had lower endurance capacities, higher body fat percentages, and signs of insulin resistance, signaling the onset of metabolic problems. The twins’ brains also were unalike. The active twins had significantly more grey matter than the sedentary twins, especially in areas of the brain involved in motor control and coordination.”

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) offer the following benefits of a non-sedentary lifestyle:

• ·         Control weight
• ·         Reduce risk of cardiovascular disease
• ·         Reduce risk for type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome
• ·         Reduce risk of some cancers
• ·         Strengthen bones and muscles
• ·         Improve mental health and mood
• ·         Improve ability to do daily activities and prevent falls
• ·         Increase chances of living longer

Further, the amount of exercise to achieve these benefits is not extreme. The CDC recommends at least 150 minutes of moderate exercise each week (less than 25 minutes per day), and some muscle strengthening exercise at least twice per week.

Moderate exercise may include any of the following:

• ·         Walking briskly (3 miles per hour or faster, but not race-walking)
• ·         Water aerobics
• ·         Bicycling slower than 10 miles per hour
• ·         Tennis (doubles)
• ·         Ballroom dancing
• ·         General gardening

But a very easy way to incorporate more activity into your life is to embrace a more physical daily routine.

• ·         Park as far from the mall as possible and walk; eschew the closest parking space
• ·         Walk to your corner store for sundries
• ·         Shovel your driveway of moderate snowfalls
• ·         Replace your lawnmower with a non-driven walk-behind
• ·         Take the stairs whenever possible

All of this counts toward your 150 minute weekly goal.

The other major knob within your control is diet. Here are the key recommendations from the American Heart Association. Your diet should emphasize:

• ·         a variety of fruits and vegetables,
• ·         whole grains,
• ·         low-fat dairy products,
• ·         skinless poultry and fish
• ·         nuts and legumes
• ·         non-tropical vegetable oils

Ensuring that you are getting adequate dietary fiber is extremely important. One very easy rule of thumb comes from Harvard Health. When purchasing food items, quickly check the nutrition label. Locate two numbers: total carbohydrates and dietary fiber. Select the food only if dietary fiber is at least 10% of total carbohydrates. They offer this simple method: Divide the grams of carbohydrates by 10. If the grams of fiber is at least as large as the answer, the food meets the 10% standard.

Here are some examples of food you would or would not purchase based on this approach:

• ·         Whole Wheat Spaghetti – Yes
• ·         Standard (white) pasta – No

• ·         Fiber One Chewy Bars – Yes
• ·         Typical granola bar – No

• ·         Shredded wheat cereal – Yes
• ·         Any sugary cereal – No

• ·         Smartfood popcorn – Yes
• ·         Most potato chips – No

Further, you can look up the nutrition information of home-prepared foods using the web. Here is another choice that might surprise you:

• ·         Baked potato with skin on (dressed like a salad with olive oil and vinegar) - Yes
• ·         Mashed potatoes prepared with milk and butter - No

In all the foregoing is the implicit message that we must eat less meat. The healthiest peoples of the world eat meat occasionally as a treat, not a daily staple.

In conclusion, a crash diet isn’t going to help you. An unused gym membership is worthless. To be effective, you must mold for yourself a healthy lifestyle.

Exercise takes time. That is your investment, but the payoff is huge. If woven into your daily routine, it is not so difficult nor noticeable.

Here is to you and a long, healthy life. After all, we will need to last at least one more election cycle in hopes of getting better choices. 

Go vote. Think first.

In thirty three days, we will collectively make a momentous decision.

There are two major party candidates and two third party candidates. Ardent as their supporters may be, let us posit that neither of the third party candidates will prevail.

That leaves us two candidates, one on the left, one on the right, both less than perfect. Which way do we tack? Continue on to port, or heave to starboard? It will depend on what the majority of American voters think is most important, and how they assess the ability of each candidate to improve their lives.

Let’s take a broad look at a few topics of concern without prescribing solutions or ascribing relative advantage to either candidate.

1.       Globalization and trade

Globalization has caused wrenching changes in all Western economies, not the least here at home. First, manufacturing jobs moved from New England to the South, then to Mexico, and Asia, and India, constantly searching out lower costs of production. The result was directly observed as job losses. It made criticism of trade agreements, such as NAFTA, easy and popular.

But here is the rub. While certain manufacturing jobs, largely low skill, were lost, the cost of purchasing goods was lowered. The American consumer was able to purchase far more with her dollar. Clothing, dishwares, appliances, bedding, furniture – all could be had at Walmart or Costco or Sears at much lower prices.

The loss of low-skill manufacturing jobs is directly experienced and widely observed. But the benefits accrued from international trade, while enormous, are diffuse and not obviously seen. That a family can purchase new school clothes at a significant saving is not seen nor deemed noteworthy. But when multiplied by 100 million households, this one minor example could rack up billions of dollars in savings. Now multiply this by many other examples of savings gleaned from various daily purchases.

American households, given numerous billions of dollars, will now allocate that money in other ways. Savings. Restaurant meals. Vacations. House renovations. All of which generate additional economic activity and new jobs.

Directly observable costs and diffuse benefits – something to be careful of when arguing positions.

2.       Middle class wage stagnation

Globalization, cheered above, has also contributed to middle class wage stagnation. A displaced manufacturing worker who ends up serving french fries is not advancing up the wage scale. It is an absolute requirement that trade deals include benefits and re-training of displaced workers so that they become qualified for higher skill jobs.

But another more pernicious effect is the lack of economic growth. Growth is the engine that creates jobs, increases demand and competition for workers, and drives higher wages. The past eight years since the financial meltdown have achieved very disappointing growth. The President’s administration projected growth in 2010 for the following five years at 3.9%. GDP actually grew by only 2.2% a year during that time. (Wall Street Journal, 10/4/2016, “Judging President Obama on His Own Terms).

In 2013, the administration reduced their four-year growth projection to 3.3%. The actual growth rate stubbornly remained low at 2.3% during that period. While these differences may seem insignificant, consider this: “Compounding growth at 3.6% annually means a 28% larger economy after seven years. Compounding at only 2.1% means 15.7% growth. If the administration’s growth projections were accurate, the GDP would be about $1.8 trillion larger. That’s roughly $6,000 for every man, woman and child in the U.S.”

What would a family of four do with their additional $24,000? First and foremost, it would move them more solidly into the middle class. And, as mentioned above, they would spend it. Savings. Restaurant meals. Vacations. House renovations. All of which generate additional economic activity and more new jobs.

What is standing in the way of higher economic growth? Why have the administration’s projections gone afoul, stranding innumerable erstwhile wage earners in the doldrums?

Many economists, such as John Cochrane of the Hoover Institute at Stanford University, believe it is in great part due to the growth of the bureaucratic state. Cochrane characterizes overly burdensome business regulation as “sand in the gears” of our economy.

At recent count, there are 81,611 pages in the Code of Federal Regulations costing $2.028 trillion per year in compliance costs. (That’s about $25 million per page). Can we intelligently reduce this burden, so that smog doesn’t return to Los Angles and Lake Erie remains swimmable and banks remain solvent?

One would certainly hope so. It is our choice of president and legislators which will determine our course.

Good luck, dear voter. Think deeply.