Notice - Shift - Rewire

 

Negativity bias. We all have it. It's is a very human thing that we developed hundreds of thousands of years ago to keep us safe. The negativity bias, also known as the negativity effect, is a cognitive bias that, even when positive or neutral things of equal intensity occur, things of a more negative nature have a greater effect on one's psychological state and processes than neutral or positive things.So why would be be hardwired to focus on the negative?

Our tendency to pay more attention to bad things and overlook good things is likely a result of evolution. Earlier in human history, paying attention to bad, dangerous, and negative threats in the world was literally a matter of life and death. We had to be alert for rampaging mammoths and stealthy saber-toothed tigers. Those who were more attuned to danger and who paid more attention to the bad things around them were more likely to survive. This meant they were also more likely to hand down the genes that made them more attentive to danger.

Very few of us need to be concerned about being eaten by tigers these days. Yet our negative bias persists. Research suggests that this negativity bias starts to emerge in infancy. Very young infants tend to pay greater attention to positive facial expression and tone of voice, but this begins to shift as they near one year of age. Brain studies indicate that around this time, babies begin to experience greater brain responses to negative stimuli. This suggests that the brain's negative bias emerges during the latter half of a child’s first year of life. There is some evidence that the bias may actually start even earlier in development. 

Research has shown that negative bias can have a wide variety of effects on how people think, respond, and feel, impacting our mood, decision making and relationships in (surprise!) negative ways. Our old protection mechanism no longer serves us well in the modern world. Interestingly, there is a difference between how men and women register negative comments. Dr. Timothy J. Bono, PhD, who teaches a course in the Science of Happiness at Washington University in St. Louis, explains, "The negative-positive asymmetry effect holds for both men and women. The difference, however, is typically found in how the emotions become manifest. Women are much more likely to internalize them (in the form of sadness or depression, for example), and men are more likely to externalize (as with outward anger)."

Fortunately, as the new science of epigenetics shows us, our genes are often predilections and not destiny. Neuroscientists and psychologists say that we can overcome our inherent negative bias and one simple (if not easy) method for doing so is called the Notice - Shift - Rewire approach. Click Here to read more about it.

This is not about transforming into an unfettered optimist or becoming a Pollyanna who sees only the good in everything. But controling our automatic bias toward the negative can help us feel better, be happier, less prone to suffering, act more kindly, to people around us, be more effective at home and work, and have more sense of a kind of inner peace and connectedness with all things. That seems worth a shot to me.

Can You Afford to Live to 100?

 

Today’s life expectancies hover just below eighty years, and if you reach the milestone of seventy they jump to the mid eighties. Due to advances in medicine and healthier lifestyles, reaching your nineties or even 100 is more realistic than ever. That's good news for those of us staring down into our seventh decade. But there is a dark shadow cast over this good news: can we afford to live that long?

According to the Alliance for Lifetime Income's Cyrus Bamji, chief strategy and communications officer, one of their recent studies revealed that almost half of those between sixty-one and sixty-five say that they don’t think that their savings will last their lifetimes. Nearly one third are not confident that they will have enough income to cover basic expenses. Forty percent of Americans rely entirely on Social Security for their retirement income.

There are three basic reasons for this alarming situation.

People simple have not saved enough for retirement. This is not to be dismissed simply as millennials spending money on avocado toast and gourmet coffee. In fact, Gen Xers are saving more for retirement than their predecessors. But many people struggle to pay the rent and buy food, let alone set money aside for their future. And even those who are saving aren't saving enough. The average American retires with just over $65,000 in savings. Many have a significant amount of equity in their homes, which will be a huge help, but not enough to close the gap between what they have and what they will need. And for younger people, home ownership seems increasingly out of reach.

This leads to the second problem, which is that nearly half of retired Americans are financially supporting children eighteen to twenty-one and 30 percent are supporting adult children twenty-two to thirty, all from their retirement funds.

Finally, there is the cost of healthcare.  Health care costs make up 10% to 15% of the average older household’s spending. But what you will spend on health care costs in retirement could be less or more — potentially a lot more. A 65-year-old woman typically could expect to pay $3,300 to $7,700 annually for premiums and out-of-pocket medical, dental and vision costs, according to a study by Vanguard Research and Mercer Health and Benefits. But her costs could top $22,000 in some scenarios, the researchers found.

Most financial advisors say that a comfortable retirement should aim to sustain an income of about 80% of your pre-retirement income. Most real people are nowhere close to that. The prospect is so dismal that many people are simply ignoring the problem, the worst possible thing they can do.

This is a problem at a societal level and requires a societal solution. How likely is that given our governments bickering and fixation on building walls. Things like universal wellness systems to promote avoiding illness instead of treating it after it occurs, creative housing solutions and practical education are things that must be tackled on a societal level. 

But what can you do as an individual? A few things. And the sooner you get started the more impact your efforts will have.

Adopt a healthier lifestyle. It's obvious advice, but it bears repeating. If you make an effort to stay active and eat healthy, you'll likely spend less on health care than someone who ignores diet and exercise and has other unhealthy habits such as smoking.

Save more.  Generally speaking, the sooner you start saving for retirement, the better off you’ll be. Even small amounts set aside regularly can amount to a large nest egg thanks to the miracle of compound interest. If possible, increase or max out contributions to your employee savings plan. If that is not an option for you, send yourself a bill every month to pay alongside your mortgage. Become familiar with the many ways that you can tap the equity in your property as you age so that you are not rushed into a bad decision when you are faced with a choice.

Start to live like you are already retired. An easy way to boost your savings is to cut back on your spending. Start by envisioning your retirement and look for costs to cut. If that vision involves downsizing your home or cooking healthy meals at home, begin making those changes now. Consider purchasing a more economical car. These changes will save you money right away. They will also make the transition into retirement easier.

Have an honest talk with your children about money. This may be an extremely uncomfortable conversation for both you and your children, making it easy to put off or avoid altogether. Don't.

There are no easy solutions to a problem this big when you are already in the middle of the problem, but not dealing with it only allows it to become bigger and burdens our children and grandchildren. Healthy aging is not only about your physical health but your financial and emotional health as well. It is time we moved this problem out of the shadows and start to address it.

Is It Time to Treat Sugar Like Cigarettes?

 

In 1964, Surgeon General Luther Terry issued a report on smoking and health saying that tobacco causes lung cancer and is a main contributor to bronchitis, emphysema and other lung ailments. Members of the Federal Trade Commission read the report the day it was released and quickly proposed a mandatory cigarette label that warned, "CAUTION: cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health and may cause death from cancer and other diseases." The legislation ultimately passed by Congress required a warning label with less dire language: "CAUTION: CIGARETTE SMOKING MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH." In 1965, Congress passed the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA), which required a health warning on all cigarette packs. In 1970, President Nixon signed the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act, which banned cigarettes ads on the radio or television. It also required an updated warning on the cigarette packages which read: "Warning: The Surgeon General has determined that cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health." 

In the six decades since the release of the Surgeon General's report on health and smoking the percentage of Americans who smoke has continuously fallen from a rate of 42% in 1965 to an all-time low of 11% in 2021. The results of a February 2023 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey found that 57% of U.S. adults now support policies that ban the sale of all tobacco products.

People still smoke of course, and smoking still kills far too many people. Cigarette smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death in the U.S., with tobacco killing more than 480,000 Americans annually and costing more than $240 billion a year in related health care expenses. But the relentless campaign against cigarette smoking ranks as one of the most successful public health campaigns in history.

In comparison, sugar added to sweetened beverages alone kills about 184,000 people every year now. Forty nine percent of the US population is now either diabetic or pre-diabetic and the numbers keep rising. From 2000 through 2020, the US obesity rate increased from 30.5% to 41.9%. During the same time, the prevalence of severe obesity increased from 4.7% to 9.2%. That's right. Nearly 1 American in 10 is severely obese. Obesity-related conditions include heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and certain types of cancer. These are among the leading causes of preventable, premature death. The estimated annual medical cost of in the United States was nearly $173 billion in 2019 dollars.

The average intake of added sugar in Americans' daily diet is about 19 teaspoons for men and 15 teaspoons for women, vs a recommended intake of 12 teaspoons or less.

There is some data to suggest that since added sugar content was required on nutrition lables in 2016 (after a years long fight with sugar producers) Americans have begun cutting back. Maybe it is time to also require a clear, visible warning lable on food just as we successfully did on cigarettes. We will never get everyone to stop smoking or stop drinking sugary beverages. But if we can reduce consumption as successfully as we have with smoking the benefits in the cost of healthcare, lives saved and the quality of those lives might just be enormous.

Do You Know Your Numbers?

 

We live in a world of numbers. Phone numbers, addresses, account numbers, dates, bank balances, distances, times. Most of us are pretty familiar with the numbers we need to navigate through the tasks and routines of our day-to-day lives. But what about the numbers that tell the story of our wellness and health?

Our health is a world of numbers too but all to many of us don't know the ones that tell our story. 

When I work with someone who is eager to lose some weight, I usually begin by asking about numbers. What do you weigh now? How much weight do you really want to lose? Almost everyone knows these numbers.

But when I ask about the calories that they consume on an average day or how many they burn off between their daily routines and exercise, most don't have any idea. You can't create a calorie deficit that will produce weight loss if you have no idea how many calories you consume and burn. 

Many people, especially older people like me, are concerned about eating too many carbohydrates or not getting enough protein. But when I ask how much they are consuming day-to-day the most common response is a blank stare.

Hypertension is called "the silent killer" because it typically presents no symptoms until your blood pressure has reached a problematic level and already harmed your health. Yet even the people who know what a good blood pressure target is (hint: 120/80 or lower) rarely know what their own blood pressure is. Some may remember it from their last doctor visit (not the best reading, it tends to be high) but have no idea what it was yesterday.

If you want to improve your health in some way, it makes sense to know where you are starting from. There are apps and tools and inexpensive equipment available to everyone these days that can provide you with the numbers you need to know with very little effort on your part. Do you know your numbers?

Here is some advice from the American Heart Association on the ones that you should know. If weight loss or nutrition are your focus, here are some great tools you can rely on.

Ignorance is not bliss. It's ignorance. 

The Need for Speed

 

If you have ever joined a Facebook group devoted to weight loss, investigated weight loss programs, diets or coaches, it's likely that you have been - and maybe still are- bombarded with all sorts of schemes that promise that they can show you how to lose weight without dieting or exercising or changing any of the habits that helped you gain the weight in the first place. Losing weight may not be easy (and can be much harder for some people than others) but it is not complicated. If you live in a calorie deficit (consuming fewer calories than you expend every day) you will likely lose weight. So most of us dismiss the most obvious nonsense as just that.

But what about the plans that promise rapid weight loss? 

The most common ways that people try to lose weight fast are by exercising a lot, and by following a”crash diet” or a very low-calorie diet of fewer than 800 per day. That sure sounds like a "calorie deficit" to me so why not, right? There is little doubt that such plans will shed pounds, and probably quickly. At least at first. But losing weight is only half the battle. The real challenge is keeping it off for good.

Most people who follow a diet regain half the weight they’ve lost after only a year. Even worse, nearly everyone who follows a diet regains all the weight they’ve lost after 3–5 years. That’s why experts often suggest losing weight at a slow but steady pace. Most studies show that people who lose weight at a slow but steady pace are more likely to keep it off long-term.

There are other issues associated with rapid weight loss as well. When you create a very large daily calorie deficit your body assumes it is starving and reacts accordingly. “When you lose weight too quickly, your body slows down its calorie-burning process,” explains endocrinologist and obesity specialist Dr. Marcio Griebeler. “That is your body’s way of trying to ensure you don’t starve. You might lose a good amount of weight right away, but your metabolism quickly goes into survival mode.” The change in your metabolism is a key reason why people regain weight after trying rapid weight loss plans. When you go back to eating a regular diet, your metabolism isn’t used to that many calories — and the pounds come back. Other risks include undesirable muscle loss, nutritional deficiencies and gallstones.

So while it is certainly possible to lose weight fast by creating a large daily calorie deficit, such an approach is unhealthy, cannot be maintained and increases the likelihood of regaining any lost weight quickly as well.

What is a safe rate for long term weight loss? Most experts recommend a rate of 1 or 2 pounds per week (that would be a calorie deficit of about 500 - 1,000 kCal per day) and in any case not consuming less than about 1,200 calories daily. This might seem like a frustratingly slow pace if you want to lose a significant amount of weight. But look at it this way. You probably didn't gain the weight in a week or two, it probably took years. Why would you expect to lose it that fast?

Fighting Back at the Grocery Store

 

Over the last two years, the amount of money that I find myself spending each month on groceries has increased by about 75%. Last month I was shocked and awed to find that I had spent just under $600 to feed myself. What and how much I was buying had not changed in any appreciable way. I do buy mostly fresh or frozen foods and ingredients and I make most of my own meals from scratch. I spend extra for organic in many cases. I have been doing this for many years. But all of a sudden the cost of feeding myself has exploded. And I am only feeding myself. How does a family of four or five people afford to eat any more?

Partly this is my own fault. I tend to hate shopping for food so I make my list of what I need, go to the store and buy it. I tend not to look at alternatives to what I like or am used to, I stick with certain brands and familiar products. But between the prices rising so much and the contents of the packages steadily shrinking, it is time for a change. I am not prepared to change from fresh food to processed garbage, even though that tends to be a lot cheaper. But something had to give.

So here are five not very challenging ways that you can start to fight back against endlessly rising food prices. 

1. Make a list. Check it twice.
    Never, never ever set foot in a grocery store without a shopping
    list. Don't put     anything on it that you do not need. That means
    knowing what you plan to eat until your next trip to the store.
    This used to be a real pain before the dawn of meal planning
    apps, which are now powerful, plentiful and usually free. (I like
    Mealime.com but you will have no trouble finding one that suits
    you.) If it is not on your list, don't buy it.

2. Stock up on long lasting staples.
    Buy staples with a long shelf-life in bulk or when you find them on
    sale. (Just buy things you will use! Its not cheap if you don't use
    it.) Canned goods, rice, grains, flour, beans, onions, potatoes,
    frozen foods and anything else that will keep until you will use it
    up.

3. Check unit prices for the best deal.
    Instead of picking up the items with the lowest price, grab the
    ones with the lowest unit prices. This is often the largest package
    size, but not always. Check. It won't likely be on the package but
    nearly all supermarkets post the unit prices (price per ounce,
    say) on the shelves below the items. The lowest unit price is the
    best deal.

4. Forget brand loyalty.
    Your favorite brands are no longer loyal to you, its time you
    stopped being loyal to them. Store brands or generic products
    are often exactly the same ingredients as the brands you have
    been buying, often made for the stores by the same
    manufacturers! Read the ingredient label.

5. Avoid shopping online and using delivery services.
    Online grocery shopping and delivery services are convenient,
    but don't kid yourself that they are not costly. You may not
    always find the size you’re looking for online and could be
    forced to trade up to a bigger size for a higher price. You may
    also only see what the seller wants you to see. Additionally,
    some grocery orders at Amazon are fulfilled by third-party
    sellers. These could carry shipping costs, which add to your
    bill.

Here are 30 more ways you can cut your food bill. What other ways have you found to help control your grocery bill? Post your best ideas in the comments so that others can use them as well. Its us against them now.

Pain in the Ass

 

Ok so this is one of those days that I would not wish on anyone. Ok, on only a very few people. It is colonoscopy prep day for me, arguably the least favorite medical procedure of my lifetime (so far). It will be my third time doing this, and no, it has not gotten less awful. "Its not the procedure, its the prep" is pretty much the truth of it. It is 12 miserable hours during which I cannot wander very far from a toilet. So why do it when there are alternatives?

Because colonoscopy is the Gold Standard for colorectal cancer screening. None of the alternatives approach it in accuracy or effectiveness, and none of them allow minor problems (aka polyps or biopsies) to be resolved at the same time, in the same procedure.

Excluding skin cancers, colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer diagnosed in both men and women in the United States and the second highest cause of cancer deaths. About 152,000 cases are diagnosed every year. The rate of people being diagnosed with colon or rectal cancer each year has dropped overall since the mid-1980s, mainly because more people are getting screened and making lifestyle-related changes to lower their risk. From 2011 to 2019, incidence rates dropped by about 1% each year. But this downward trend is mostly in older adults. In people younger than 55 years of age, rates have been increasing by 1% to 2% a year since the mid-1990s. In 2024, colorectal cancers are expected to cause 53,010 deaths. As with many cancers, early detection greatly improves the odds of effective treatment. Found after the cancer has existed for a while, the odds of dying from it are brutally high.

I only have to do this every 5 to 10 years, so I will deal with it. No matter how much this sucks right now, it could be so very much worse.