Veering left

It’s not political. Rather, researchers have discovered that almost all of us have a natural tendency to wander in a counterclockwise direction. An applied physicist discovered this phenomenon when he was studying whether people maintain a certain distance between one another while walking. In reviewing the data from his 40 experiments, he noticed that most of his participants spontaneously veered to the left. This piqued his interest. He looked for additional data in the scientific literature and found a study showing that people who are lost usually wander in circles, but the study didn’t specify the direction.

As he continued his research, he found that veering left was unrelated to hand dominance, the layout of the room, or anything else that he could discern. He did find that the phenomenon holds true across demographics, cultures, and conditions. A study of 52 Japanese kindergarten children, who were moving about while music played, showed that most of the children moved counterclockwise.

To continue collecting data, scientists conducted further experiments. For example, they instructed study participants to wander about in an open schoolyard while a drone recorded their movements. Within seconds, they found that 80 percent of people were moving in a counterclockwise direction. As one researcher noted, “It’s not a gradual drift but rather a bias that emerges almost immediately.”

The scientists are baffled. As one physicist noted, "In principle, there is no reason for the fact that people prefer rotating counterclockwise."

I’ve never paid much attention to my own wanderings, although I’m aware that I usually tend to go left when exiting a hotel room, regardless of where I’m heading.

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.

The germs among us

Germs are microscopic organisms, such as bacteria, viruses, fungi, and protozoa.

As one who doesn’t believe in sanitizing everything—or, really, anything—I was heartened to read about an international project in which over 900 scientists and volunteers collected samples of microorganisms from subways in 60 cities and on six continents. They swabbed turnstiles, railings, ticket kiosks, benches, and subway cars. (One researcher was thanked by a bystander for cleaning the subway.)

The researchers found 4,246 known species of micro-organisms. Two thirds of these were bacteria and the remainder were a mix of fungi, viruses, and other kinds of microbes. They also found 10,928 viruses and 748 kinds of bacteria that had never been documented.

The vast majority of the collected organisms pose little risk to humans. As one scientist reported, “We don’t see anything that we are worried about. People are in contact with these all the time.” In fact, nearly all of the new viruses the researchers found are likely to be bacteriophages—viruses that infect bacteria.

 Half of the bacteria the researchers identified were those that typically live in and on the human body, especially the skin. Some of the bacteria were those that live in soil, and some were a species typically associated with the ocean.

All this is to say that microbes are a natural part of our environment. You can’t avoid the little creatures, and you can’t get rid of them.

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.

Excess deaths in the United States

According to an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the term “excess deaths” refers to the “difference between observed deaths and deaths expected if US death rates equaled the rates of other high-income countries.” In fact, the US has higher mortality rates than other high-income countries. In 2023, life expectancy in the US ranked 50^th among other countries across the globe.

The causes of our excess mortality vary according to age groups. For ages 25 to 55, half of the excess deaths were caused by drug poisoning, alcohol, and suicide. For people 55 to 64, circulatory diseases and metabolic conditions, such as diabetes, account for nearly half of the excess deaths; for ages 64 to 84 those conditions account for more than half. For people 85 and older, mental and nervous system disorders, such as Alzheimer’s disease, were the leading cause of excess deaths. According to the Journal, “many of these excess US deaths could likely be avoided by adopting health and social policies that have benefitted other high-income countries.”

The most rapid increase in excess US deaths is the result of drug poisonings, alcohol-related causes, and suicide—“deaths of despair”—and were most common among males.  Deaths of despair accounted for 24 percent of the increase in US deaths from 1999 to 2022. The Journal noted that deaths of despair are closely associated with social disadvantage, the loss of manufacturing jobs, automation, and worsened opportunities for less-educated workers. It also noted that “US regions with less-protective safety net and health coverage policies have higher and worsening mortality than other regions, as do those where majorities voted for Donald Trump in 2016.”  Whaddaya know!  

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.

Why acupuncture works—sometimes

I tried acupuncture for my sciatica. It didn’t work. Surgery did. Nevertheless, studies have proven that acupuncture does work for some ills, such as migraines and chronic pain. Recently, researchers have theorized that the interstitium may be the conduit that facilitates the effects of acupuncture.

The interstitium was discovered about ten years ago (see my 2016 blog post).  It’s a large, fluid-filled, interconnected network—a “highway of moving fluid”—that allows fluids, cells and molecules to move between tissues and organs before re-entering the lymphatic and cardiovascular systems. Interstitital spaces exist throughout the body. (The full implications of this interconnectedness haven’t fully been grasped. For example, both healthy and cancerous cells can pass through it.)

More recently, when researchers examined the skin of people with tattoos, they found that ink particles had traveled deeper into the body than they expected. The particles had traveled from the skin into the interstitum, then into the fascia.

In later experiments, researchers injected dye into acupuncture points on the forearms of volunteers. They found that the dye slowly migrated up their arms along the same meridian as acupuncture points, flowing through the interstitium between the muscles. It appears that acupuncture points, located along 12 main meridians, are within the same areas of connective tissues where fluid flows through the interstitium.

As far as I know, the researchers made no comments about acupuncture balancing your flow of energy (chi), as asserted by traditional Chinese medicine. I don't know how you can tell if your energy is balanced. 

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.

Food noise and set points

Obese people report having incessant thoughts about food. It’s called “food noise.” For example, one woman talks about being plagued by internal voices saying things such as “Don’t you want the cake in the kitchen?” or “You don’t want the salad.” Oprah Winfrey writes that she has suffered from food noise, and that the new weight loss drugs, such as Ozempic or Wegovy, silence that noise. As she writes, “The single biggest surprise of taking the medications was waking up and not thinking about the very first thing I wanted to eat.”

As to set points, scientists have long observed that we have a weight that our bodies naturally gravitate toward. If you try to get your weight below that set point, your body’s metabolism slows such that you’d need less food than would be expected to maintain your weight. You regain the weight you lost.

The weight loss drugs seem to reset the set point to a lower level, but only so long as you continue taking the drugs. What’s more, when you quit taking the drugs, the food noise comes back. Again: You regain the weight you lost.

The question now is, if the new obesity drugs reset the set point, how do they do it? As one researcher notes, “What’s the thing that’s set and what’s reading that as set?” In other words, what is the mechanism that controls the set point? Maybe if they figure that out, they’ll find new ways of lowering it. I suppose the solution, if they find one, would require more drugs.

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.

Hospitals to blame for high costs of health care

According to a professor at Yale’s School of Public Health, hospital prices are responsible for the high costs of health care, including the 320 percent increase in insurance premiums over the last 25 years. (Premiums for a family health plan can exceed $27,000 a year.) Prices at hospitals have grown three times as fast as inflation and twice as fast as prescription drugs and doctor visits.

In the U.S., hospitals earn $29,000 on average for hip replacements that are covered by private insurance and $16,000 for those covered by Medicare. In Germany, where 90 percent of the population is covered by a public system of nonprofit insurers, hospitals receive $9,400 for a hip replacement.

The reason for excessively high hospital costs is the hospitals’ “accumulation of market power, which brings them more bargaining heft when they negotiate prices with insurers.” Their market power is a result of mergers: Since 2000, more than 1,300 out of 5,000 hospitals have merged. When hospitals that were once competitors merge, prices go up. Now, 21 percent of hospitals are effectively monopolies.

Because hospitals are the largest or second-largest employer in many counties in America and spend more than $100 million on lobbying, politicians who represent places with dominant hospital systems are not eager to fight with these institutions. Moreover, chronic underfunding of the Federal Trade Commission inhibits their ability to regulate the hospital monopolies. According to the professor, the costs of  fighting hospital mergers “would potentially exceed the agency’s entire budget for antitrust enforcement across all sectors of the economy.”

The professor says we should push back on mergers and “scrutinize an industry in which 25 years of price increases have left care unaffordable.” Pushing back and scrutinizing don’t strike me as very powerful weapons.

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.

Actinic keratoses and more

Actinic keratoses are rough patches on the skin. I have zillions of them. They’re caused by long-term sun exposure (ultra-violet light). Thirty percent of Medicare beneficiaries have been diagnosed with actinic keratoses. Dermatologists freeze them off with squirts of liquid nitrogen—a rather painful treatment. I’ve occasionally had that procedure, but mostly I give it a pass. I’ve got way too many.

Actinic keratoses are usually described as pre-cancerous. But, as one scientist noted, research has shown that there is less than a 1 in 1,000 chance of it progressing to skin cancer. What’s more, even if you have one removed, it will probably reappear. (This has happened to me.) It’s a chronic condition.

The last time I went to a dermatologist (a new one) I told him not to freeze my actinic keratoses. He was clearly annoyed with me—and I with him. (He was new. My previous dermatologist had retired.)

Removal of actinic keratoses is one of several treatments that investigators are now saying are probably unnecessary for old people. Colonoscopies are not recommended for people aged 75 and older. The drug levothyroxine for “subclinical hypothyroidism”—borderline underactive thyroid gland—has been found to have “no apparent benefit” for old people and can harm. Mammograms are not recommended for women over 75. Neither are PSA (prostate cancer) tests for men over 70.

I guess you could consider avoiding these tests and treatments as advantages to being old. Big deal.

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.

“Natural rejuvenation”

Natural rejuvenation—reversing cellular damage—is one of the newest developments in longevity research. Scientists have learned to trigger it in the lab. For example, they’ve taken skin cells from 90-year-olds and restored them to youth in a petri dish. They’ve rejuvenated diseased mice, returning their gray hair to black and strengthening their muscles.

Scientists discovered that rejuvenation happens naturally at conception. At first, the fertilized egg inherits all of the DNA damage that the parents had accumulated over the years. But after two weeks, the embryo’s cells have reverted to a pristine condition. Researchers are attempting to mimic this process.

To do this they’re attempting to reset cells’ epigenetic markers—the tiny clusters of molecules that sit on our DNA and give it instructions about which genes to turn on and off. Over time, some of these epigenetic molecules go awry, such as by attaching where they shouldn’t or losing their tight connection to the DNA, making it harder for our cells to read their instructions. The rejuvenation process attempts to reset the epigenetic code and restore its function.

This past March, Life Biosciences, Inc., began the first safety trials to test rejuvenation therapy on 18 people with glaucoma. In these trials, they’re delivering “reprogramming factors” to reverse the disease. The results are not yet in.

In the meantime, at a longevity science conference, the scientists agreed that, for now, there’s only one scientifically certified approach to extending human life: vigorous exercise and a healthy diet. Too bad. It’s so tedious.

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.

The self-serve blood test

It looks like private enterprise is getting into the lab testing business, making it possible for you to bypass your doctor to get a blood test (and others). In researching this topic, I came across a Forbes Health site that rates 11 such companies. Here’s a quote from the site:

You Might Feel Fine—But What’s Happening Inside?
Fatigue. Weight gain. Brain fog. These subtle symptoms are often dismissed or attributed to stress. However, they could be early warning signs of deeper issues, such as nutrient deficiencies, hormone imbalances, inflammation, or even the onset of chronic disease. The problem? Most people are unaware, as they do not test their blood regularly enough.

On reading this, my initial thought was “Good heavens! It’s a scare tactic to generate business!”

One company, called Function, was not listed in the Forbes list (I don’t know why). But it was the focus of a New York Times article. For $365 a year, Function offers more than 160 lab tests—far beyond what is typically included in an annual workup. (If you test that many markers, a few of them will be abnormal in a person who’s healthy.)

Function customers receive a summary created by AI and reviewed by a clinician. The summary includes the test results, how to interpret them, and what steps to take next. The company does not accept insurance. The blood draws themselves are performed at Quest Diagnostics locations.  

The bloodwork that you’d typically get from your doctor mostly screens for common conditions that have well-established treatments, such as diabetes and anemia. Depending on your history or symptoms, you might also be tested for additional biomarkers.

Looking at 100 to 1000 biomarkers—as offered by these companies—sounds like a fishing expedition, leading to unnecessary follow-ups, treatments, and anxiety. I’ll skip it.

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.

The rise in autism

When I was growing up in the 1940s and ‘50s, I never knew anyone—or of anyone—who was autistic. Now, off the top of my head, I can name three people who have autistic grandchildren. The rise in autism has commonly been attributed to better record keeping. I never believed this.

During the 1970s, three in 10,000 children were diagnosed with autism. According to the CDC, in 2025, one in 31 U.S. children aged eight are identified with autism spectrum disorder. 

New research, which I learned about from alert reader Don Jordan, indicates that certain drugs, taken during pregnancy, are at least partially responsible for the rise in autism. The drugs in question are those that inhibit the synthesis of sterols—in this case, cholesterol.

The medications include SSRIs, such as Fluoxetine; antipsychotics, such as haloperidol; beta blockers, such as metropole; statins, such as simvastatin; and others, including trazodone, bupropion, and buspirone.

The research, published in Molecular Psychiatry, is based on a study of more than six million pregnancies spanning all fifty states over ten years. Roughly 11 percent of pregnant women studied were prescribed at least one of these drugs. The researchers found 234,971 children with an autism diagnosis.

The article states, “Cholesterol is essential for life, serving as a critical structural component of all cells.…Cholesterol biosynthesis is particularly critical during intrauterine development in all vertebrates.” (Our brains are the most cholesterol-rich organs in our bodies.)

Other studies have shown that “maternal inflammation” contributes to the rise in autism. For example, scientists have found that a mother who is diagnosed with asthma or allergies during the second trimester more than doubles the unborn child’s risk of autism. Other studies have shown that mothers of autistic children tended to have more autoimmune disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis and celiac disease. The idea is that the mother’s inadequately controlled inflammatory responses can predispose autism in the child. (The spinal fluid of autistic people has shown elevated markers of inflammation.)  

These statistics are alarming. One scientist notes that “Something environmental is causing the rise.” But what?

Addendum: My granddaughter-in-law, a pediatrician and mother of two, is concerned that societal pressures on pregnant women to abandon some medications might have a negative impact on their wellbeing. Regarding the use of certain psychotropic medications, she says, "the benefits of well controlled maternal psychiatric (and by extension, physical health) is critical to factoring in to the risk benefit profile of these medications in pregnancy."

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.

Body awareness: your sixth sense

The term for this is proprioception—your sense of where your body is in space. Neurons embedded in your muscles, joints, and tendons sense when these body parts are stretching, bending, or rotating. This information travels to your brain, helping you with coordination.

I read a book about a man who, following a bout of flu, lost his sense of proprioception. He had to depend on his eyes to determine what his body was doing. In a dark room, or with his eyes closed, he’d fall over.

Your body awareness naturally declines with age, increasing your risk of falling. Moving your body helps to keep your proprioception in tune. The less you move, the more your body awareness deteriorates.

To test your upper body proprioception, stand in front of a mirror, close your eyes and try to raise both arms to shoulder height, parallel to the floor. Once you think you’re positioned like an uppercase “T,” open your eyes and note how far your arms are from where you expected. If you’re off by a few inches, you can improve your awareness with exercises (see below). If you’re off by eight or more inches, it might indicate a neurological condition, such as Parkinson’s disease.

To test your lower body proprioception, with your eyes open and both arms crossed over your chest, see how long you can keep your balance while standing on one leg. Repeat the exercise with your eyes closed. Do the same test with your other leg. Healthy adults under 50 should be able to balance for 40 seconds with both eyes open, and for seven seconds with both eyes closed. By the time you reach your 70s, those numbers drop to 15 and two seconds, respectively.

You can improve your body awareness by practicing standing on one leg, performing Tai Chi exercises, walking on uneven surfaces, and walking heel to toe.

I tried the first test and nailed it. I failed the second one, but then I’m nearly 90.

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.

Delusional infestations

I’d never heard of such a thing until recently, when I was drawn to an article about it in The New York Times. Delusional infestation is the belief that you’re being infested by insects or parasites. It’s a complicated and rare phenomenon, but sufferers may go to extreme lengths to try curing themselves. One respected cancer researcher believed that insects were burrowing under his skin. He tried medications, exterminators, and even soaking himself in a bathtub of insecticide.

The point of the article had to do with people’s frustrations at not getting a diagnosis for their symptoms—such as brain fog or fatigue—when there are no visible signs of illness. They're left feeling frustrated and dismissed.

People who suffer from delusional infestations do, in fact, have something wrong with them. The causes might be an autoimmune disease, allergy, nerve damage, a thyroid condition, or drug side effects, all of which can produce an itching or even crawling sensation. Because of their frustration with the revolving door of health care providers, many of these sufferers have turned to entomologists for help.   

Starting in the early 2000s, one entomologist began seeing people who were convinced that bugs were inside their bodies. At first, there were one or two such people a year. In 2025, she received 1,610 inquiries from sufferers. Some people who come to her office have mutilated themselves to extract the phantom parasites. (For one thing, the entomologist explains that bugs need air to breathe and thus cannot burrow under the skin.)

If you have unbearable itching, I wish you good luck at getting a correct diagnosis. You can assume it’s not bugs burrowing into your body.

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.

Your thymus gland

Scientific American recently published new research indicating that the health of our thymus glands may be linked to whether we develop cardiovascular disease, lung cancer, or other life-shortening diseases. As remarked by one researcher, it’s an “important puzzle piece” for understanding long-term health.

The thymus gland sits inside your chest next to your heart and lungs. It’s most active before and during puberty, at which time it’s largely responsible for developing T cells, a critical type of white blood cell that helps fight infections. Because it shrinks and is replaced with fat tissue as we age, its role in adults has been overlooked for years.

In their research, scientists found “enormous variation” in the health of the thymus among the 27,000 people whose CT scans and other medical records they studied. In some, the gland stayed active until a very old age; in others it declined rapidly at a younger age. In other words, people with a healthy, active thymus tended to live longer than others. Unfortunately, the article didn’t explain what constitutes a “healthy” or “active” thymus or how to make it that way.

I remembered reading something about the thymus gland in a book called Your Body Doesn’t Lie, by John Diamond, MD, published in 1979 [!]. I found it on my bookshelf! Doctor Diamond calls the thymus gland the “master controller that directs the life-giving and healing energies of the body,” and that it’s the “first organ of the body to be affected by stress.” His advice for stimulating the thymus gland is to gently tap or pound the center of your chest for 15-30 seconds using your fingertips or soft fist. Do this three or four times a day. Also, he recommends smiling a lot, reading poetry, and listening to “revitalizing” music.

I know. It sounds goofy. It’s the best I could do.

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.

My new book

My new book, The End is Nigh: An Insider's Guide to Old Age is available on Amazon.

Supplements (again)

Over half of American adults take supplements. Some take prodigious amounts. This can be a bad idea. One paper in The New England Journal of Medicine estimated that supplements are responsible for 23,000 emergency room visits a year, often because of liver damage.

A few supplements have their place. Women who are trying to have a baby benefit from folic acid. People who have been shown to be deficient in vitamin D, vitamin B12, and omega-3s may also benefit from these supplements. This may be particularly true for old people who are not getting enough sunlight and/or their diets are lacking in such foods as fatty fish, plant oils, or certain seeds and nuts.

As to boosting longevity, no large clinical trials have shown that supplements extend human life span.

The supplements market has been described as having a “wild west” nature. Unlike medicines, supplements do not require FDA approval before they can be sold. Also, what’s on the bottle’s label might not match what’s inside the pill. One study of supplements found that, for the majority, the amount of the ingredient shown on the label differed from the actual amount—in some instances by as much as 100 percent.

Some supplements have been found to include lead, arsenic and mercury. Researchers at the University of Michigan estimated that 15 million American adults take a supplement, such as turmeric or red yeast rice, that could potentially cause liver toxicity.

 I’ve taken supplements in the past. I don’t anymore.

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.

Allergy advice—too late

I don’t have seasonal allergies (knock on wood), but many of those around me do. They’ve started suffering from itchy, watery eyes and other symptoms. A recent article in The New York Times offers advice that centers on taking action prior to allergy seasons. But, as far as I can tell, the first allergy season has already started—at least here in California and in Arizona. Anyhow, maybe this advice, which comes from allergists, could be helpful next year.

First, you must figure out your personal allergy season when your symptoms are most intense: tree pollen from late winter to spring; grass pollen from late spring through summer; and weed pollen from late summer through fall. This helps you determine when your medications might be most effective. Internet sites such as Pollen.com might help to find allergy forecasts.

After you’ve determined your season, the experts say to start taking your medication—such as Claritin, Zyrtec, and Allegra—about two to four weeks before your pollen season begins. This helps to block the histamines in your body from triggering itching, sneezing, and congestion.

To prevent pollen from wafting into your home, keep your windows closed starting a week or two before allergy season. Maybe even clean or replace filters on your air conditioner or air purifier and keep outdoor clothing and shoes away from areas where you spend a lot of time.

The docs also suggest using your inhaler before you go outside and keeping your skin moisturized to create a protective barrier.

Good luck!

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.

Rx to OTC switch

I’ve read that the FDA is considering broadening the types of dugs that can be sold without a prescription—that is, making them available “over the counter.”  FDA commissioner Martin Makary told CNBC that “everything should be over the counter” except drugs that are deemed unsafe or addictive or that require clinical monitoring.

Over the years, plenty of drugs have migrated from Rx to OTC, including those that treat allergies, joint pain, heartburn, overactive bladder, and acne, as well as those used for birth control. Examples include:

Nasonex—a steroid nasal spray.
Lastacaft, Pataday—eye drops to relieve itchy eyes.
Astepro—an antihistamine nasal spray.
Voltaren Gel—a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory topical gel.
Plan B—a form of emergency contraception.
Opill—a once-daily birth control pill.
Xyzal, Claritin and Zyrtec—antihistamines.
Differin Gel—acne treatment.
Prilosec and Nexium—for heartburn.
Oxytrol—for overactive bladder.
Narcan—to reverse an opioid overdose.

Note that OTC versions aren’t always the same as their Rx versions.

It will be interesting to see what, if any, previously prescribed medications will soon be available over the counter.

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.

A doctor’s advice on consulting AI

Over a third of Americans use AI for health advice. In 2025, 66 percent of physicians also used it.

Dr. Adam Rodman, director of AI programs at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston says, “I believe that when used appropriately, these large language models [AI chatbots] are the greatest tool for empowering patients since the invention of the internet.”

He recommends using chatbots, such as ChatGPT, to enhance, not replace, your medical appointments. To do this, he suggests first pulling up your doctor’s medical notes (they should be available online). After removing all your identifiable information, copy those notes into a chatbot. Next, give the chatbot an update of your condition, then ask it to concisely summarize all this information. Finally, ask the chatbot: “Given this context about my health, please give me three questions I should ask my doctor about [insert health concern here] during my upcoming visit.”

Because chatbots depend on having a full picture of your health and medical conditions, Dr. Rodman says you can learn how to describe your symptoms by asking the chatbot to “interview me as if you’re a doctor.” Such a question-and-answer session can lead to a clearer explanation of your condition and help to exclude other conditions that might cause unnecessary alarm.

Chatbots try to please their users by adding layers of information. For this reason, you need to be aware they may lead you down a rabbit hole of scary possibilities. To avoid this, you need to tell the chatbot explicitly why you are asking a question. For example, “I am having a bad headache today. Here is my last note from my primary care doctor. What are some strategies to make it better?”

Diagnostic errors cause almost 800,000 deaths or permanent disabilities in the United States each year. For this reason, Dr. Rodman believes that AI can be one of our best tools for saving patients’ lives. At the same time, he advises that you need to be cautious about seeking second opinions from chatbots or rely on it for advice on treatment plans. Just use what you’ve learned as a conversation starter with your doctor.

I've never tried any of these suggestions.

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.

Tests for aging well: Fourth test

This post is the last of the tests described in The New York Times article, “Are You Aging Well? Try These Simple Tests to Find Out.” Here’s the fourth test:

Single-leg stand

Stand on one leg for a minimum of 10 seconds on at least one side. As an added challenge, the article says, try it with your eyes closed.

I found that I could stand on my left leg for significantly more than 10 seconds (I stopped after 20) but couldn’t make it to 10 on my right leg. What’s with that? Maybe if I practiced.

Like everything else, balance declines with age, raising the risk of falls—a major cause of injury and death for old people. One study found that 20 percent of people aged 51 to 75 were unable to make it to 10 seconds. Experts say that those individuals had an 84 percent higher chance of dying in the next seven years, possibly because they were unhealthier at the start of the study.

I didn’t try standing on one leg with my eyes closed. I’m not going to push my luck.

Update: I have trained myself to get up off the floor using just one knee instead of two (plus both hands), which gives me another point, as described in an earlier blog. I used the technique suggested by alert reader, Jocelyn. You can see it on this video she sent to me.

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.

Tests for aging well: Third test

This post is the third installment of the four tests described in The New York Times article, “Are You Aging Well? Try These Simple Tests to Find Out.” Here’s the third test:

Grip strength test

Doctors use a gadget called a dynamometer to test grip strength. Assuming you don’t have a dynamometer, you can test yourself at home by walking for 60 seconds while holding heavy weights, such as dumbbells, in each hand. A 45-year-old-man should aim to carry two 60-pound dumbbells, a 65-year-old two 40-pound dumbbells, and an 85-year-old two 25-pounders. For a woman at those ages the weights are 40 pounds, 25 pounds and 15 pounds, respectively, in each hand.

Walking with weights in each hand is called a “farmer's carry.” Assuming you also don’t have dumbbells of appropriate weight, I got to thinking about what a farmer might carry and came up with the idea of filling two buckets with as much water required to get the amount of weight you want, weighing them on a bathroom scale. Or maybe just fill two totes with appropriately heavy items.

Luckily, I don’t have to do that, although I might try it. As I wrote in an earlier post, I had my grip strength measured a year or so ago by a doctor using a dynamometer. My reading was 50, which I discovered was rated between normal and strong for my age group.

Like the other tests, grip strength is related to mortality, serving as an indicator for how active you are in your daily life. As one physical therapist noted, “When you’re using your hands more, it’s probably because you’re doing things more.”

I wonder what I might have kicking around the house that weighs 15 pounds, the proper weight for my sex and age.

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.

Tests for aging well: Second test

This post is the second installment of the four tests described in The New York Times article, “Are You Aging Well? Try These Simple Tests to Find Out.” Here’s the second test:

Walking speed assessment.

To take the test, measure about 13 feet on a straight flat surface. Walk that distance at your normal speed, not as fast as you can. The article says that “people of all ages should aim for a gait of at least 1.2 meters per second, a little over three seconds total.”

I tried walking that distance at what I think might be my normal pace. (It’s hard trying not to rush to get a good score.) Using my Apple watch stopwatch function, my score was between 4 and 5 seconds.

Jennifer Brach, a professor of health and rehabilitation sciences at the University of Pittsburgh says that your walking speed is “predictive of future decline, it’s predictive of mortality, nursing home placement, disability, a whole host of different things.” She says you should retest yourself every few months to see if you’re slowing down—a warning sign of possible problems with your cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, vestibular (balance), or sensory nervous systems.

Maybe I should up my normal walking speed—once I figure out what it is.

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.

Tests for aging well: First test

If you read The New York Times, you may have already seen this article: “Are You Aging Well? Try These Simple Tests to Find Out.” A challenge!

To keep my posts short (and provide material for four posts), I’m going to describe one of these tests per post, along with my test results. Here is the first test:

Go from standing to sitting on the floor, and back up again, using the least amount of support as possible.

Here’s a link to a video showing a man (in his 20s?) doing the test. CLINIMEX: Sitting-rising test (SRT) - an updated 2025 video . On the first try he uses one hand. On the second try he doesn't.  (It’s in Portuguese or something, but there are captions.)

The test is scored on a 10-point scale—5 points for sitting down and 5 points for getting up. You lose a point for every hand, knee or other body part you use to help yourself.  The article says that if you’re in your 30s and 40s, you should score a perfect 10. If you’re over 60 and get an 8, you’re in “very good shape.” 

My result: I used both hands and both knees to get down to the floor and the same for getting up, so I lost 8 points, giving me a score of 2. (First, I got down to my hands and knees to sit down, then I got back onto my hands and knees to stand up.) Pitiful score, but hey, I got down and up!

Supposedly this test is a predictor of mortality. A study that looked at more than 4,000 people, aged 46 to 75, found that, over the course of 12 years, the people who scored 4 or below had death rates nearly four times higher than those who scored a 10. Apparently, that’s because people with low scores were at a higher risk for falls.

 What if, like me, you’re 89? Isn’t my 2 worth something? Evidence of life?

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.

Should cancer be treated or not?

This is tricky business. Since 1992, the diagnoses of eight cancers in people under 50 has doubled in the U.S. Those cancers include thyroid, anus, kidney, small intestine, colorectum, endometrium (uterus), pancreas and myeloma (blood cancer). Breast cancer is also on the rise.

But here’s the thing: some cancer specialists say this surge is the result of an “epidemic of detection”—finding cancers that wouldn’t have killed patients. One doctor notes, “The epidemic narrative not only exaggerates the problem, but may also exacerbate it. While more testing is often seen as the solution to an epidemic, it can just as easily be the cause.” As another doctor noted, “We are a very imaging-happy society.”

Not every cancer is dangerous. Some go away on their own; others stop growing or pose no risk. Autopsy studies repeatedly find that many people die with small cancers they were unaware of. Prostate cancer is one of these; so is thyroid cancer. The problem is that it’s impossible to know if someone’s cancer will be deadly or not, and if the cancer is gone after treatment, there’s no way to know if it needed to be treated.

Other doctors believe the surge in cancer diagnoses is real and serious. While the death rates for six of the cancers mentioned in the first paragraph are flat or declining, the death rates of colorectal and endometrial cancers have increased. Some scientists attribute this increase to the obesity epidemic, or something amiss in people’s microbiomes, or toxins in the environment. They’re trying to figure it out.

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.

Saturated fat (again)

 I’m not afraid of eating saturated fat. In fact, I eat plenty of it.

“Saturated” refers to fats, such as butter and animal fats, that are firm when refrigerated. Unfortunately, the term, “saturated,” makes it sound like the fat is somehow loaded with goop. In fact, it simply describes the composition of the fat molecule: each carbon atom in the molecule is linked to two hydrogen atoms such that the carbon is “saturated” with hydrogen atoms.

Saturated fats do not clog arteries. They are either burned for fuel or stored in your fat cells. Your cells need saturated fat to help your body perform important chemical processes and make use of vitamins and minerals. For example, saturated fat makes it possible for calcium to be incorporated into your bones.

Scientists have conducted trial after trial comparing the health effects of saturated fats to unsaturated fats, such as vegetable oils. The National Institutes of Health spent several hundred million dollars trying to demonstrate a connection between eating saturated fat and getting heart disease but never did find the connection.

In reviewing the data from the numerous trials, scientists had plenty to say. For example, “…after 50 years of research, there was no evidence that a diet low in saturated fat prolongs life.…if saturated fatty acids were of no value or were harmful to humans, evolution would probably not have established within the mammary gland the means to produce saturated fatty acids…that provide a source of nourishment to ensure the growth, development, and survival or mammalian offspring.”

By the way, most fats are a mixture of saturated, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated fatty acids. Lard is only 40 percent saturated fat. Olive oil is 13.7 percent saturated fat, which is why it turns cloudy when refrigerated.

So go ahead and slather your toast with butter. That's what I do.

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.

Those food pyramids!

The 1994 food pyramid had you eating mostly starchy food: 6 to 11 servings of “bread, cereal, rice and pasta.” 

In adhering to the high-carbohydrate, low-fat recommendations, we increased our yearly consumption of grain by almost sixty pounds per person and our consumption of sweeteners, such as high-fructose corn syrup, by thirty pounds per person. The number of young people under the age of 20 with Type 2 diabetes grew by 95% from 2001 to 2017. A third of all people over 65 are diabetic. (Carbohydrates spike blood sugar.)

The 2011 food guide, below, reduced the grains to 30 percent of our diets, but also included the phrase "switch to 1% or skim milk."

Rigorous research has concluded that saturated fats, such as the butter fat in milk, have no effect on “major cardiovascular outcomes,” including heart attacks, strokes or mortality. As the American College of Cardiology states, "The recommendation to limit dietary saturated fatty acid intake has persisted despite mounting evidence to the contrary." (I don't believe in limiting saturated fats.)

I’m no fan of JFK, Jr., but the new pyramid (below) makes more sense to me, although it still limits saturated fat to about 20-22 grams for a 2,000-calorie diet. This limit is nearly impossible to achieve, especially if you’re eating red meat. 

Looking at these vacillating recommendations over the years, you might be thinking, what the heck?! Like me, you can just ignore them, especially considering that members of the guidelines panels have ties to food industries. The problem is that schools, military personnel, and others who receive food through federal programs are required by law to follow the guidelines. Poor them.

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.

Exercise benefits

For the new year, here are some quotes from scientists about the benefits of exercise:

Euan Ashley, a professor of cardiovascular medicine, genetics, and data science at Stanford, says, “Exercise is just the single most important intervention you can think of for your health.” In analyzing data of more than half a million people over the course of ten years, he found that exercise reduces our chances of having atrial fibrillation, diabetes, hip fractures, and colon cancer by at least 50 percent. Unlike other interventions that might target one aspect of health, exercise affects nearly every system in your body.

According to neuroscientist Justin Rhodes, exercise can reverse the effects of a genetic bad hand by lowering the risk of a variety of ailments, including heart disease. Exercise also slows aging in several ways: by promoting the growth of stem cells in muscle, expressing genes linked to longevity, and lengthening telomeres. Rhodes contends that we can introduce exercise at any point in our lives and that, for every hour we exercise, we tack two hours onto our life span. 

I read in a recent JAMA article (2025) that “individuals with the highest levels of physical activity at midlife and late life had 41% and 45% lower risk of all-cause dementia, respectively, compared with those with the lowest levels of physical activity.” The study used data collected since 1971 from 5,124 participants.

For my exercise regimen, at age 89, I load Jazzercise on Demand onto my iPad and perform one of their 30-minute dance cardio routines followed by 10 minutes of upper body strength training using two five-pound weights. After that, I do a series of yoga stretches. I follow this routine on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Saturdays. (I’d rather just sit.) Lots of people walk for their exercise, but the road we live on is too steep. I do my walking on our weekly golf outings.

Plenty of old people live long lives without exercising, but I’ve decided not to chance it. Besides, I’m trying to stave off further deterioration.

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.

Your brain on AI

The other day, my iPad quit downloading emails. My husband took a picture of the error message and uploaded it to ChatGPT. ChatGPT provided clear step-by-step instructions for fixing it. The instructions worked!

An Article in The Atlantic magazine tells of a man who uses AI (Anthropic’s Claude) for up to eight hours a day, sometimes running as many as six sessions simultaneously. At the market, he takes pictures of fruit to ask if it’s ripe; he consults Claude for marriage and parenting advice; he asks Claude if a particular tree needs to be removed from his yard, and so forth.

Apparently, like the man described above, some people rely on AI to navigate basic aspects of daily life. For these compulsive users, AI has become a primary interface through which they interact with the world. The article calls this “outsourcing your thinking.” One man found himself turning to AI when a woman sitting next to him dropped her AirPod between the seats on the train. His first instinct was to ask ChatGPT for a solution rather than figure it out for himself.

Researchers are now getting a picture of how AI use might affect your mind. One researcher believes that AI tools “exploit cracks in the architecture of human cognition. The human brain likes to conserve energy and will take available shortcuts to do so. It takes a lot of energy to do certain kinds of thought processes. Meanwhile, a bot is sitting there offering to take over cognitive work for you.” In this researcher’s view, using AI to write your emails, for example, isn’t laziness so much as it is a naturally adaptive behavior.

Wow! Naturally adaptive behavior! That strikes me as kind of scary. What will become of our brains?

For an introduction to this blog, see I Just Say No; for a list of blog topics, click the Topics tab.