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.

Why not a Roundabout?

The most direct route from Dublin, in the east, to Sligo in the northwest of Ireland begins with the M4, a fast, modern motorway much like Interstate 95 (except for the terrors of entering and exiting and driving on the left).  Then to state highway N4, much like Massachusetts Route 140, sometimes four lanes, but mostly two. In less than three hours, one can transit from the shores of the Irish Sea to the North Atlantic, traversing verdant farm fields, rolling hills, and charming villages in between. This is Ireland.

There are a few traffic signals (red lights), in the larger towns, but mostly you will encounter roundabouts at intersections.

To the typical New Englander, this reference to circular intersections raises horrific specters of Neponset Circle and the Sagamore Rotary. But rotaries and traffic circles are not roundabouts.

Traffic circles and rotaries (we will say rotary from here on) tend to be very large – several hundred feet in diameter. And because of their relatively large size, the speed of traffic into and through the rotary tends to be fairly high. Couple this with drivers unfamiliar with rotary etiquette and you have a recipe for disaster. No wonder that we hate things circular.

But roundabouts are different. The Federal Highway Administration (FHA) likes roundabouts.  According to them, “A roundabout is a type of circular intersection, but is quite unlike a neighborhood traffic circle or large rotary.  Roundabouts have been proven safer and more efficient than other types of circular intersections.”

Roundabouts are safer because they are smaller. A roundabout can fit in the space of many existing intersections, requiring little if any additional land. Very importantly, the speed through the roundabout is low, 15-20 miles per hour.  The FHA, again, says that “roundabouts REDUCE the types of crashes where people are seriously hurt or killed by 78-82% when compared to conventional stop-controlled and signalized intersections.”

According to the experts, roundabouts are safer and more esthetically pleasing than signalized intersections. What else might they offer?

In addition to safety, roundabouts improve traffic flow and reduce delays . According to Wikipedia, “Under many traffic conditions, a roundabout operates with less delay than signalised or all-way stop approaches. Roundabouts do not stop all entering vehicles, reducing both individual and queuing delays. Throughput further improves because drivers proceed when traffic is clear without waiting for a signal to change.”

Now we can add ecological benefits – roundabouts reduce delays and wasted emissions significantly. When considering all of these benefits, (by the way including increased pedestrian safety), why aren’t roundabouts more widely used?  In New England, certainly, part of the problem is that we have been traumatized by horrific rotaries and traffic circles, tainting the reputation of any circular traffic control approach.

And in addition, there is simply a great amount of ignorance regarding how to negotiate a roundabout. The FHA, again: “Still, because they may be unfamiliar to most people, successful implementation of a roundabout requires extra outreach and education.” This is a problem that can be solved.

With all of this in mind, it makes one wonder why the Southeast Regional Planning and Economic Development District (SPREDD) is recommending adding traffic signals to the intersection of Route 123 and North and South Worcester streets in Norton (Attleboro Sun Chronicle, September 9). Traffic is heavy enough, and dangerous enough, that some improvement is required. But let’s compare, for a moment, the relative merits of a traffic signal versus a roundabout.

A traffic signal would have the following characteristics:

-          More dangerous than a roundabout (additional and more serious accidents)

-          Higher risk to pedestrians

-          Poorer traffic flow; greater delays

-          Worse ecological impact; greater emissions

Why in the world would we intentionally choose such a solution? Building a roundabout instead would offer the opposite of each of the above ills. Safer to all, improved traffic flow, reduced delays, and more friendly to the environment. Global warmists would rejoice. Roundabouts should be at the top of the list for all of our intersection improvement projects.

But perhaps, at root, Massachusetts progressives are not so progressive after all.

Human lives, intersected

On Sunday, a jogger running on Route 44 was struck and seriously injured by an Attleboro woman. Here is a pertinent passage in the Sun Chronicle’s story:  “…the jogger was running westbound when he was struck. The vehicle that struck him was also traveling west.”

The accident occurred in the late afternoon. Perhaps the sun was in the driver’s eyes. She was allegedly drunk, so maybe she just strayed out of her lane. And, unfortunately, all this occurred behind the jogger’s back. He was blissfully unaware until struck, when he “was thrown through the air and then struck a utility pole.” Ouch.

Like the great majority of accidents, two human live intersected, and both made mistakes. The driver clearly shouldn’t have left her lane of travel, whatever the reason. And the jogger was wrong in blindly turning his back to a source of danger.

It is not a trivial problem. While our Attorney General obsesses over “assault rifles,” the odds of a pedestrian dying  in an accident are 20 times greater than those of anyone being killed by any sort of rifle, “assault” or otherwise. Twenty times.

The statistics are gripping: nearly 5,000 pedestrians killed and 65,000 injured every year. With school now back in session, it behooves us to review what we can do to keep our kids, and us, safer.

There is a lot that government can do to promote pedestrian safety.  Investing in sidewalks, crosswalks, signal lights. Even more important, rigorous enforcement of traffic codes, keeping drivers in line with the intent of safety legislation. Too often, citations for rolling through a stop sign or not yielding to a pedestrian waiting to cross are issued only after an accident, not preemptively, regularly, and often enough to actually change and maintain safer driver behavior.

Here are some things that pedestrians can do to help themselves.

1. Pay attention to your surroundings. Don’t text and walk. Wait to play Pokemon until you are in the park or somewhere safely away from traffic.
2. Always prefer to walk facing traffic, even on a sidewalk. If you see a distracted or impaired driver about to leave his lane, you have a chance to do something about it. (But see number 1 – only if you are paying attention).
3. Don’t trust crosswalks. Carefully watch that traffic is clear in all directions. Once a driver has stopped for you, watch out for another cutting around her from behind.
4. Before stepping in front of a stopped car, make eye contact with the driver. A driver will often slow down for a stop sign, but only glance quickly left for oncoming traffic. Without pausing to look right, he will bang the right turn. If you, trusting or texting, distracted or dancing, step from the curb, you are now a statistic.

Now as a driver, you must realize that striking a pedestrian is a life changing event for both you and the victim. There are a few tactics you can engage to minimize the odds of such a terrible outcome.

1. Don’t be in a hurry. Often, accidents are caused by the unrelenting pressure of making up lost time. Risks are taken. Mistakes are made. But whose fault is it, really, that you are late? Show some discipline and make it a habit to leave early.
2. Pay attention. Your car, travelling at 60 miles per hour, has over 1,000 times the energy of a .357 Magnum bullet. Be a careful steward of that awesome energy.
3. When approaching a controlled intersection, come to a complete stop behind the stop line. Then creep out and look both ways before continuing. Many drivers roll right through the crosswalk and, never stopping, bang their turn if oncoming traffic permits. But here is the logical fallacy. Oncoming traffic is an independent event. It doesn’t care if you rolled or stopped or aren’t even there at all. So stopping short, looking both ways, and then proceeding when safe has no effect whatsoever on when oncoming traffic will allow you to merge. So cool your jets and take pity on those poor mothers just trying to safely cross with their baby strollers.
4. When stopping prior to turning right, ALWAYS LOOK BOTH WAYS. This cannot be overemphasized. Many a pedestrian or (wrong-way) bicyclist have been mowed down by a driver who glanced left, then banged his right turn. It is extremely dangerous to human and companion animal life forms.  

We see here a national tragedy, thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of injuries, all avoidable. We see here a nexus of government investment and enforcement, pedestrian care, and driver caution that could reduce this awful carnage.

But perhaps we prefer to obsess about “assault rifles.”

The numbers argue, strongly, otherwise.

The romance of the open road still beckons us

Imagine this.

A line of cars is stopped at a red light. Everyone’s chatting or surreptitiously glancing at their phone, or watching a jogger pass by. The light turns green. Car number one hesitates as the driver struggles to return from Pokemon world. Oncoming traffic takes advantage and two cars bang a quick left. Car number two honks and number one wakes up – they both begin to move, and further back in the line, drivers stir to life and slowly tap the gas as the car immediately in front of them begins to move. Like a loose-jointed snake, the conga line finally progresses, but not many make it through before the next red. The guys in the rear are disgusted.

Now imagine this.

  

A platoon of Marines, at ease. The drill sergeant calls them to attention, then issues a command: “Platoon, forward… March!”

All of the Marines, from the front of the ranks to the rear, step off smartly, simultaneously. Each Marine in the column trusts that his or her fellow, directly in front, will step off as commanded. The entire platoon moves as a single unit. It is a beautiful sight to behold.

The behavior of the slovenly, civilian cars and that of the polished Marines could not be more different. The difference is that the drivers do not implicitly trust those in front to move immediately when the green light lights. Lack of trust begets sloppy performance.

Meanwhile, last week, Ford Motor Company announced that they will be delivering “fully driverless cars,” with no steering wheel or pedals, within the next five years.

Now reimagine that intersection. It is 2021, and a line of odd, bulbous cars are all waiting for the light. Each contains one or more passenger and no driver. Everyone is chatting or overtly glancing at their phones, or watching a jogger pass by. While waiting, the vehicles communicate with each other to verify that there are no substandard (human guided) cars present. The light turns green, and the entire line instantly begins to move, accelerating smoothly, akin to a platoon of Marines doing close order drill.

Longer term, all of the traffic lights will have disappeared, replaced with more efficient and fluid roundabouts. Traffic will flow though cities and across the land in electric silence, with the ease of corpuscles in our veins.

Why should we want to do such a thing?

Because vehicles are very deadly, accounting for 33 thousand deaths and over two million injuries each year. Stop and reread those statistics.  The odds of being injured in a motor vehicle accident are enormous, many orders of magnitude greater than that of winning the lottery. While this carnage has been gradually reduced by safer vehicles, increased seatbelt use, and improved roadways, the human and economic cost is still enormous.

And while an occasional blown tire or faulty ball joint or failed brake may cause an accident, the great majority are the result of one thing – operator error. Robots offer great promise in reducing these driver-induced accidents.

Another good reason – because today, drive time is often among our least productive. If your time spent in a wifi-connected, driverless vehicle could be as productive as your home office, multiplied by millions of journeys, every day, the productivity boost to our economy would be huge.

What might stand in the way of this vision? The technology? No, advances in sensors and computing and artificial intelligence are already capable of basic driverless vehicles. Indeed, Google and Tesla have both fielded vehicles capable of high degrees of autonomous operation. Five years from now, those capabilities will have doubled, or tripled, or more.

No, the major impediment to autonomous vehicles will be regulatory and legal. Will autocar developers have a level playing field in all fifty states, or will they have to deal with a patchwork of local regulations? When the inevitable accidents occur, who will be at fault? Will you sue Ford Motor Company, or the laser sensor vendor, or the artificial-intelligence software developer who built and enabled your car? The specifics of autonomous vehicle law and insurance protocols will need to be developed.

There is one regulatory tic which must be avoided at all cost – the demand for 100% perfection. We must be prepared to accept the occasional autocar accident, without flinching, in the face of fierce media barrages. Say that autocars are only 90% effective, but reduce the human carnage to 10,000 deaths, and one million injured. While the carnage is still significant, the human and economic costs will have been reduced enormously.  We cannot allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good.

In the end, shall we ban human operators? After all, we are proven imperfect and dangerous.

I think not. The romance of the open road still beckons us. The beauty of a downshift and acceleration through an ascending curve should not be lost.

Robots are OK when we just want to go somewhere. But we need to be able to express ourselves, to control our trajectory on the road and in life.

Don’t let that spark be stamped out.