Things Happy People Have in Common

While I focus mostly on nutrition and related issues, attitude and outlook are also important building blocks of a happy life and a wellness lifestyle.

Sonja Lyubomirsky, a psychologist at the University of California Riverside studies happiness as a "positive psychology", focusing on what gives people a sense of well being rather than on dysfunction. She has identified five things that people who score highly on tests designed to measure their satisfaction and happiness with their life situation.

1. Happy people devote significant amounts of time and effort to family and friends. They prioritize relationships.

2. They practice gratitude, making a deliberate and conscious effort to focus on what is going well in their lives rather than what isn't.

3. They practice optimism, and have more positive and compelling expectations for what their future holds than less happy people.

4. They are physically active people. They get out of the house, they participate in events and sports, and they keep moving.

5. They savor the pleasures of the moment rather than dwelling in the past or worrying about the future.


Another conclusion of Lyubomirsky's research is that our circumstances account for only about 10% of our satisfaction and happiness, while over 40% can be attributed to our outlook and attitude.

I don't know if all these things make a difference or not. But while some of them may cost a bit of time, none cost you much in the way of money.

If you'd like a measure of your own happiness, you can take the Authentic Happiness Inventory questionnaire from the University of Pennsylvania. Its completely free but you will have to register. The results might surprise you.

Five Menu Items to Avoid

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit watchdog and consumer advocacy group that advocates for safer and healthier foods, has just released its 2018 Extreme Eating Awards. Since eating out is such a nutritional minefield, between misleading menus, gigantic portions and limited nutritional information, I though I would share their five "winners".
You've been warned.

1. Worst Way to Start Your Day Award

Restaurant: The Cheesecake Factory

Item: Breakfast Burrito

Main Offenses: 2,730 calories, 3 1/2 days worth of saturated fat and 2 days supply of sodium.

Comparison: Equivalent to 7 McDonnalds Sausage McMuffins.


2. Worst Special Effects Award

Restaurant: Yard House

Item: Vampire Taco Combo

Main Offenses: 2,040 calories, 1 1/2 days worth of saturated fat and 1 2/3 days supply of sodium.

Comparison: Equivalent to eating 9 Taco Bell Beef Tacos plus 3 cans of Budweiser.


3. Worst Cinematic Snack

Restaurant: AMC Theaters

Item: Bavarian Legend Soft Pretzel

Main Offenses: 1,920 calories, 1/2 day worth of saturated fat (a relative bargain so far, but wait for it!) and 4 days supply of sodium.

Comparison: Equivalent to eating 6 Auntie Annie's Original Soft Pretzels.


4. Least Creative Mashup

Restaurant: Chili's

Item: Honey-Chipotle Crispers & Waffels.

Main Offenses: 2,510 calories, 2 days worth of saturated fat, 2 days supply of sodium and a special bonus, 2 days worth of added sugar.

Comparison: Equivalent to eating 5 Krispy Kreme glazed doughnuts smothered in 30 McDonalds Chicken McNuggets with 5 packages of BBQ sauce.


5. Worst Adapted Pizza

Restaurant: The Cheesecake Factory

Item: Chicken Parmesan Pizza Style Chicken

Main Offenses: 1,870 calories, a 3 day supply of saturated fat and 2 1/2 days worth of sodium.

Comparison: Four pieces of Popeye's Fried Chicken plus 4 bisquits.


With 1,800 - 2,000 calories being roughly what a healthy human being needs per day, it is no wonder nearly 40% of Americans are obese with items like these being sold every day. And these totals do not count your sugary beverage or desert.

Fewer Hospital Re-admissions = More Deaths

According to a study by Dr Ankur Gupta at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, Medicare penalties for hospitals that readmit patients with heart failure have had their intended effect of reducing the frequency of readmission after discharge. Thirty-day readmission rates dropped from 20% before the penalties went into effect to 18.4% afterward. A whopping 1.6 point decline.

Unfortunately for the patients, this came at the cost of a 1.4 point increase in the 30-day mortality rate for heart failure patients - from 7.2% to 8.6%. Worse, the one year mortality rate rose from 31.3% to 35.3% - up 4 points - from before the program to after.

Medicare officials say that they are "monitoring" the readmission penalty program. Government healthcare at work.

Vitamin D and Colon Cancer

Vitamin D has long been known to be a factor in strengthening bones and teeth by acting as a catalyst for calcium absorption. But new research suggests it may also be helpful in preventing colon cancer, the third most common type of cancer and the cause of 50,000 deaths a year in the US.

Current dietary guidelines recommend that adults get at least 600IU of vitamin D daily. Unfortunately, very few foods are good sources (fatty fish such as salmon and trout are two). The body is capable of manufacturing vitamin D itself, but it requires sun exposure to do so, which is problematic for some people and in some places. That leaves supplementation as the best option for many people.

A recent study by the American Cancer Society analyzed data on over 12,000 people in the US, Asia and Europe concluded that people with a higher-than-recommended blood level for vitamin D had a 22% lower risk of developing colorectal cancer. Those with lower-than-recommended levels had a 33% higher risk of developing the disease.

The study's authors recommend that everyone ensure that they are maintaining at least the recommended blood level (your doctor can test this at your next physical) and that people over 70 increase their vitamin D intake to at least 800UI daily.

"What is optimal for bone health may not be optimal for colorectal cancer risk reduction," said study co-author Marji McCullough.

Three Simple Ways to Lose Weight Without Dieting

Why worry about your diet? Just order Lipozene (as seen on TV), the diet pill that "melts away fat" without making any changes in your diet or lifestyle. Just take Lipozene and lose "four times more weight" (they never say four times more weight than what).

I haven't taken Lipozene, but I do understand the appeal. Everyone would like a simple way to lose weight without having to make any effort. I'm not sure that's really possible. But a recent Japaneses study of nearly 60,000 men and women with Type-2 Diabetes published in the journal BMJ Open identifies 3 weight loss strategies that just might come close.

First, just slow down while you eat whatever it is that you are eating. The slowest eaters in the study were 42% less likely to become obese over the next five years than those who ate quickly. Take your time and chew. Savor the flavor.
Put your fork down between bites. I mean really, how hard is that?

Skipping any after dinner snacks and not eating within 2 hours of going to bed also reduced the likelihood of obesity.

It really won't get much easier than that.

Of course, there is always Lipozene.

Do Fasting Diets Work?

Fasting diets, where you consume a normal (normal for human beings not normal for Americans) number of calories one day and then cut back by 70% or more the next, have become increasingly popular. But to they really help people lose weight?

A recent study done at the University of Illinois at Urbana and published in JAMA Internal Medicine suggests that fasting diets are no better for weight loss than ordinary restricted calorie diets.

In a controlled study, 100 obese adults were divided into two groups. The alternate-day fasting group consumed 25% of their normal daily calories on fasting days and 125% on other days. The other group reduced calories by 25% every day. After six months weight loss was the same for both groups. Also, there was no significant difference in cholesterol, blood pressure or blood sugar between the two groups.

There is nothing wrong with fasting if it is something that you want to do, and it may well have other as yet unproven benefits. But don't expect it to amp up your weight loss program. As the end of the day, it all comes down to calories consumed vs calories burned.

Who Pays for Self-Inflicted Illnesses?

For the last decade or so, health experts have been warning about the "epidemic" of obesity in America and its troubling implications for the health and wellness of our population. Clearly the message is not getting through the fog of lies and deception perpetrated upon us by those who make, market and sell our food. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2017 Americans of all ages just kept getting fatter.

As of last year 4 in 10 Americans were obese and another 3 in 10 were overweight, the highest percentages ever recorded. Being either is proven to increase your risk of high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke and more than a dozen types of cancer. But the biggest danger is diabetes.

According to a study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine the 10 year risk of developing Type 2 Diabetes is 8 times higher in overweight women and 18 times higher in obese women, compared to women of normal weight. The numbers are similar for men. As of 2017, roughly 46% of adult Americans are diabetic or pre-diabetic.

It is comforting to blame food producers for the problem, but companies simply provide products that people want to buy. The real problem is that we refuse to stop stuffing ourselves with crappy food. According to a famous and widely ignored Tulane University study, only 4% of obesity can be attributed to genetic factors. The rest of it is all due to the lifestyle people choose to live. The amount and type of food they choose to eat and the exercise the choose not to get.

This is everyone's problem now. How, as a society, do we afford to care for a population where 50% plus of us are diabetic? How should we afford it when the disease is nearly always the result of the bad choices that people make for themselves? Should the shrinking portion of people who make the effort to tend to their own wellness pay the cost of the ever increasing portion that does not?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but it is a discussion we as a society need to start having.