Your Health

Longevity: the Bible and modern Science

When I used to teach Hebrew school and my Grade 1 class  came to Genesis ch 5 where it mentions that Methuselah lived 969 years (Genesis 5:27) and lists many others who had very, very long lives (see the list at end) , I would ask my students if they believed these numbers.

My students, who were not Orthodox and came from very modern and educated homes, universally believed the text’s numbers.

They suggested the following explanations:

1. Maybe their counting of a year was different than ours; maybe a year was one of our ‘seasons’

2. They did not suffer from air pollution as we do today

3. Their food would be free of pesticides 

4. They had healthier diets than we do and did not suffer from being overweight, diabetes, etc.

 

I was amazed at their knowledge of current medical concerns and, in this light, wish to share new findings from the realm of genetics as published in Maclean’s , May 27, 2013, “How Long Will You Live?” (pp.  65-68).

The article starts by noting that the number of Canadians age 100 and over is rising.  In 2001 there were 3,795 and 5,825 as of 2011, and the projection is over 17,000 by 2031!

Most of these people are still alert and active, as is the similar generation on the island of Okinawa that has been studied for years.

Doing gardening, cooking or Tai Chi at age 105 is nothing unusual for these East Asians -- despite the hardships and trauma of the Japanese invasion and subsequent  World War II bloodbath that was the Battle of Okinawa.

Other communities have also fostered longevity in small pockets in Italy and elsewhere and genetic causes have long been suspected as the key.

Now, science has found that exact key: telomeres – tiny bits of DNA – that coat the tips of chromosomes.

As people age, these telomeres shorten, but people who live longer also maintain their telomeres length better.  (Though overly long telomeres are also harmful.)

As the article highlights, “those with shorter than average telomeres had a 25 per cent greater risk of dying”. ( p. 68)

In 2010, Dr. Ronald DePinho  published a study in Nature which showed that telomeres can be made longer in mice and this ‘rejuvenated’ the mice: restoring brain mass, improving cognition, reversing skeleton degeneration and muscle atrophy,  and even reviving  fertility . (Maclean’s, p. 68)

Drug companies are now in high gear to apply these findings to humans.

 

Naturally extending telomeres life

Other, natural ways to encourage telomerase length and longevity, according to recent studies (Maclean’s, p. 68), include:

1. the diet long recommended by Canada’s food guide:

a)      eat whole grains:  whole grain breads, wild rice, quinoa, oatmeal

b)      eat fruits and vegetables

c)      eat  foods rich in omega-3:  fish such as sardines, salmon, halibut;  egg yolks (Yes, they are good for you);  flax seed, walnuts, soybean, tofu and lean BEEF.   (Info on eggs from Wikipedia “Omega-3” and rest from http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=nutrient&dbid=84)

2. regular, moderate exercise – such as walking  or swimming for a half-hour  4 or 5 times a week

3. yoga or other meditation for stress management

4. join groups and build a sense of community

 

Moses’ 120 years seemed impossible to reach in 1960 when Canadian life expectancy figures were 68 for males and 74 for females. (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/health26-eng.htms )

But life expectancy figures are rising steadily, so 120 may soon be here.    A Methuselah may yet be in reach in a few generations to come – thanks to healthy eating, moderate exercise, etc. and medical science.

So after all, my young students by and large got it right.

_________________

Bible’s top 10 for longevity:

 Methuselah - 969 Genesis 5:27; Jared - 962 Genesis 5:20;  Noah - 950 Genesis 9:29;  Adam - 930 Genesis 5:5: Seth - 912 Genesis 5:8; Kenan - 910 Genesis 5:14; Enosh - 905 Genesis 5:11;  Mahalalel - 895 Genesis 5:17; Lamech - 777 Genesis 5:31; Shem – 600 Genesis 5:8 (See http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Ten_oldest_people_in_the_Bibleong lifetimes,)

YOUR HEALTH

BMI, Scale Tyranny and Western Culture

The BMI

I have long ago outlined major flaws in the BMI scale used to define healthy weight.  A recent article by Patrick Luciani (co-author of the 2011 XXL: Obesity and the Limits of Shame) has added new information worth sharing. (G&M, May 13, 2013, A13 “Is the obesity-industry complex making us fat?”)

According to Luciani, the BMI index currently categorizes 62% of all Canadian adults as overweight or obese.  However, he argues, the figure should be closer to 13% – including anorexics.

Such a disparity re: 50% of the population age 18 and over is horrendous and begs the question: why?

Luciani blames the following flaws in today’s BMI index:

1.       It relies on simple scale weight and does not differentiate between fat and muscle.  That is why professional and top-ranked athletes score as obese on the BMI.

As I mentioned in my earlier blog, NHL superstar and daily body builder Sidney Crosby rates obese on the BMI, as do the strongest people in the world, Olympic male and female weight lifters, who have massive muscles below their chests as well as above.

Moreover, muscle is far denser than fat --  by 20% -- and will therefore weigh more.

 

2.       In the late 1990’s, the upper limit of healthy weight was reduced downward on the BMI scale.

For males it dropped from 27.8 and for women from 27.3 to a gender neutral 25 for everyone – instantly making 3,000,000 Canadians overweight at the stroke of a pen!

 

This unisex revision to the BMI is also mindboggling as women and men have different body shapes and women’s bodies store more fat than men as men tend to have more muscle. Large breasts alone add weight men do not have and to ignore such biological differences is most bizarre!

 

3.       Finally, Luciani, although he avoids the term ‘culture’ says some people prefer to be a bit heavy and enjoying eating well. (See more below on Culture).

 

He adds in this regard that new studies show mortality rates are more or less the same for those in the ‘normal’ BMI range as those in the ‘overweight’ category.

 

In fact, recent insurance company data has confirmed what was originally published by insurers in the late 1970s:  you are more likely to live longer if you have an extra 10% of weight, as serve illness and surgery often result in rapid and life-threatening weight loss – unless you started with an ‘extra cushion’.

 

So, forget the BMI and its pseudo-science.  Don’t let your doctor or others in the health/diet industries pull the BMI wool over your eyes.  

It is not just useless, but dangerous as a yardstick!

 

Tyranny of the Scale

We have gotten into the routine of daily weigh-ins thanks to the availability of cheap and small home scales. Usually the weigh-in is done in the morning after using the toilet (to expel excess waste).

Unfortunately, this daily routine – especially favoured by women -- often leads to shock, trauma and tears.   An extra pound or two and the person starts her or his day upset and grumpy – a downer that can linger for hours.

Put simply, daily weigh-ins is a bad idea because it assumes 4 things:

1.       You eat the same or almost the same foods/calories each day and at the same times day after day. 

 

Having a supper at 9:30 p.m. rather than the usual 6:30 or 7:00 p.m. will make a difference as food has less time to digest and be ‘expelled’ the next morning.  So you end up with extra scale weight.

Heaven forbid you went to a fancy dinner or party, ate gourmet calories galore and drank alcohol (high in calories) and got home at 3:00 a.m.   Your next morning scale reading would be a disaster; unless, of course, you threw up all that extra weight.

 

2.       Your ‘waste’ system – pee and poop – is regular and daily. 

 

If you tend to evacuate your solids only every two or three days or suffer from a bout of constipation, or retain water during your monthly cycle (i.e., that bloated feeling), expect your scale reading to jump until you can ‘re-balance’ your system with a good flush.

 

3.       You have the same level of daily exercise – to burn off calories/weight -- throughout the four seasons of the year.

               If you, like me, exercise less in the winter – I am not into skating or skiing – then you will gain 5% or more in weight.  That extra fat is nature’s normal way of increasing insulation against the cold of winter.  In the summer’s heat, sweat and outdoor activities will naturally cause weight loss.

 

           4.You get more or less the same amount of sleep day after day – as this is a major ‘digestion’ period for getting ‘waste’ ready for expulsion in the morning.

              Experts now recommend adults get 7-8 hours; teens 9.25 hours and kids under thirteen get 10+ hours.

 

So, if you feel compelled to check your precise weight, do so only once a week Wednesday morning.

Why Wednesday?   Because it allows weekend partying, drinking and other binging to have a few days to ‘rebalance’ your system and weight.

 

And you can always do the simple, machine-free test taught by Phys. Ed teachers:

Stand in front of a mirror and pinch the skin at your waist/belly button between thumb and index finger.  If the bulge height is about one inch (2.5 cm) your weight is fine and normal.  If much less, your body has ‘low fat’ and you are either an athlete or anorexic.  If you have between 1” and 2” you have some extra fat.   Only worry and cut back your eating or routines if the height is 3” or more.

 

 

Western Culture’s concept of beauty

Although Luciani does not use the word culture, it is a factor in what people accept as a good weight – especially as it applies to the female body.

Since the invention of the bikini in 1946 and its ubiquitous popularity since the 1960s a new image of the female body beautiful has taken hold of Western Culture.

The bikini leave no room to cover up any excess stomach, hips or thighs.  It is unforgiving of even any extra flesh which automatically bulges around the midrift and leg openings of its bottom.

This new, idealized gaunt look below the chest is displayed prominently on the covers ( and inside) of women’s fitness magazines, women’s ‘health’ and dieting magazines, and the summer issues of every women’s fashion magazine. It is preached by Sport’s Illustrated’s swimsuit spectacular and any men’s magazines from GQ to Maxim to Playboy and the rest.

 

 However, this body image is NOT what has been the ideal sex goddess look for nearly all of the over two millennia of Western Culture.

For a 1000 years, Greek and Roman images of Aphrodite/Venus, the young goddess of love and sexual lust, always displayed her as having a rounded belly, full hips and fleshy thighs.  Just check Google images under Aphrodite – including the Venus de Milo.

Nudes from the Renaissance to modern times have continued this fleshy ideal.  Just Google Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel Eve, Leonardo Da Vinci’s Leda and the Swan, or look at the Google images for: Rubens, Rembrandt, Modigliani, Goya, Cezanne, Renoir, Monet, Matisse, Toulouse-Lautrec and abstract artist Picasso!

No bikini babe in the lot, and all candidates for Weight Watchers!!!!

 

Even when dressed in heavy fabrics, the idealized young women of the Middle Ages were visibly fleshy – as indicated by their full faces.  For example, the Mona Lisa!

 

20^th century May West was no thin stick, nor Rita Hayworth in Gilda, Jane Russell or Marilyn Monroe in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes.

Marilyn Monroe, regularly deemed the most beautiful and sexy women of the mid-century, was a size 12 to 14, and her fleshy body is immortalized in the live footage of her Happy Birthday song to John F. Kennedy (easily found on the internet).

 

So, in the last 60 years we has deviated from the traditional image of female beauty in Western Culture and, thanks to the bikini and a medical profession fixated on thinness, created untold pain, tears and daily attempts to defy one’s natural body -- for a look that is, by historical standards, abnormal and far from the ideal.

DID YOU KNOW

AVIATION HEAVEN?

I have not discussed politics in this blog till now. 

The blog is called 1984 Redux because today we face the danger of becoming ‘blind sheep’ just like the masses in 1984. They could not remember what happened beyond the last few weeks or months; a lack of historical memory that author George Orwell saw as key to political manipulation and the destruction of a healthy and free society.

(Remember the slogan; Who controls the present controls the past; who controls the past controls the future.)

 

Last week, news broke in the Globe and Mail (though known to AFP as of April 24, 2013 http://www.france24.com/en/20130424-qatar-wants-host-world-aviation-group) that Qatar, with a citizenry of just 250,000, will be seeking to have the headquarters of the International Civil Aviation Organization relocated from its longtime base in Montreal, Canada to Doha at this year’s September UN meetings.  As of last week, It has gotten the 23 states of the Arab league to endorse this application and, according to the Globe and Mail, this is being done, in part, to punish Canada for its pro-Israel stance under the Harper government.

And according to the AFP:

“ Montreal has been the ICAO's home since it was created in 1944, but Qatar is offering to build spectacular new offices to house the UN agency...  Furthermore, Qatar says, Montreal is cold and too far from European and Asian aviation hubs. To sweeten the deal, Doha said it would also offer to void income taxes for ICAO staff living in the country, if the agency moved there.”

Now Montreal does have winter and snow and cold, but as I recall, Qatar and the Arabian peninsula’s desert is no moderate climate either.  Temperatures are over 100° Fahrenheit  in May, June, July, August, September and October and ‘drop’ to mid-80s in the ‘winter’. There are regular dust storms as well. (http://traveltips.usatoday.com/average-temperature-rain-fall-qatar-13455.html) 

 

As for the access to European and Asia hubs, and don’t forget the United States and South America, here are the facts:

	Montreal  (miles)	Doha (miles)
London	3243.16	3236.85
Paris	3417.99	3088.78
Frankfurt	3772.85	2678.65
Tokyo	6449.91	5124.29
New York, USA	331.12	6688.93
Washington, D.C., USA	488.93	6892.07
Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)	5092.87	7154.25

 

Finally, the AFP and G&M reports seem to imply that the ICAO has only one office.  In fact, the ICAO website points out that it has 7 other, regional offices, with the existing Middle East headquarters  in Cairo, Egypt. (http://www.icao.int/secretariat/Pages/regional-offices.aspx)

 

More importantly, and here is where 1984 comes in:

In theory I have no objection to moving any international organization headquarters, be it aviation, the United Nations itself, the International Court at the Hague or the Olympics.

Any move needs to meet the following criteria to be justified and viable:

1. The current office location must be flawed from a business standpoint.  The location must be unable to keep up with technology and communication needs of the business, have problems attracting/keeping able staff or is now in a war zone.

2. The prospective new location must:

     a.  be equal to or superior to the current location on the above three items

b.  be feasible for current staff to relocate without major obstacles to family and culture shock.

·         Specifically, any openly gay and lesbian employees should be free to live as they do now without threat of violence.  The same for employees with strong religious beliefs:  be they Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Bahia, Christians, Mormons, etc. They must be able to have religious freedom in any new location – just as they have in Canada.

 

·         Women employees must have equal rights as per the United nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (https://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ intrernational charter of human rights and freedoms) They must be able to drive a car, walk outdoors alone and in their normal dress without harassment or violence.

 

·         Racism  -- based on ethnicity or colour -- cannot be legal in the new host. All Jews, for example, are barred from travelling to or working in any of the countries of the Arabian Peninsula.

 

·         All employees and their families and descendents must have the right, if they wish, to become lifelong citizens with full rights of their new home country. This is not allowed in any Arab state.

 

 c. the new location must be a democracy rather than a dictatorship, oligarchy or all powerful
  kingship – i.e., a role model of freedom to its own people and the international community.

 

By the above criteria, Qatar, a sheikdom following  Sharia law,  is far from an acceptable choice,  as is currently any Arab state. 

Only Turkey comes close of the Muslim lands, and by far the best choice in the Middle East is --

ISRAEL.

 

Put simply, a move to Qatar would not only be -- for staff -- a move half way around the world, but a regression into the Medieval past!

YOUR MONEY

Apple – is this madness?

The market buzz all week has been Apple’s announcement that it will ‘borrow’ US $17 billion dollars by offering bonds.

The news has been greeted with glee by stock market analysts and brokerages as:

1. it is the largest bond offering in history (so its very positive news in bad times)

2. it will generate all kinds of brokerage firm PROFITS as they act for ‘clients’ or – as has already happened – tried to ‘corner the market’ by buying huge chunks of the bond offer – to ‘resell’ to clients at a higher rate (See G&M, May 2, 2013, B11 “The Apple of Wall St.’s eye: firms load up on bonds”).

 

Question:

Why does Apple need to ‘borrow money’ and pay out on its 10 year bonds 2.415% interest if it has, as reported by the company, US $145 billion dollars in cash?

Forbes has also asked this question and gives the following answer, one that analysts have also stated on radio 680News.

Under the US corporate tax code the profits of a company are of course taxed. That’s the corporate income tax. However, profits made outside the US are, if the company declares that they’re going to stay outside the US, then free from that corporate income tax. Of Apple’s $145 billion cash pile some $100 billion of it has been earned outside the US. And it’s being held outside the US and thus doesn’t, currently, have to pay the corporate income tax.

One of the things you cannot do with money offshore in this manner is either buy back the company’s stock or use it to pay a dividend. To do either of those you have to bring the money back onshore and by doing so you’ll have to pay the tax. That tax is, the headline rate, 35% currently. And Apple’s offshore profits have paid very little tax so far. So they would have to pay a substantial percentage of that tax if they were used to pay the increased dividend or to finance the announced share buy backs.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/04/30/with-all-of-apples-cash-why-is-it-issuing-bonds/

 

Now let me see:

 Apple has over US$100 billion dollars in profits that are ‘sheltered’ from US tax collection at the nominal 35% rate as the funds are ‘overseas’.

But:

As Apple profits are roughly 50% from US sales and %0% from the rest of the world, how is it that Apple’s $100 billion is all ‘outside’ the US if its total cash is $145 billion including the US?

 

                      http://lowendmac.com/ed/fox/11ff/more-international.html

 

And  where, exactly, is this money kept?  

Is it in some numbered account in Switzerland or the Caribbean such as the Cook Islands?

 

The IRS and US Congress have been aggressively passing laws and making new initiative to ‘recover’ monies rightfully due US taxes but sheltered outside the country by individuals and companies.

Canadian residents with US passports are now being threatened for failing to submit annual US tax returns and paying US tax rates on their income made in Canada.  The same is being applied around the world – on threat of criminal conviction!

Swiss banks are being forced to reveal their numbered accounts to the IRS or face being barred from doing business in or with US citizens and companies.   So they are caving in and revealing sheltered – i.e., secretly hidden funds to US taxation.

 

So how come Apple, until recently the US’s most valuable company, has been able to squirrel away a massive cash fortune without being challenged by the IRS or US Congress?

Is there one set of rules for Apple and another for everyone else?

 

PS:   And why, on April 24, 2013, did CEO Tom Cook announce the company would pay out to shareholders US $100 billion dollars by 2015?  As per the Forbes reasoning, that overseas money would be taxable in the US and shrink to just $65 billion – if nothing else.

So does Apple have more than $100 billion overseas as the above tax hit would require for a $100 billion payout?

Is Mr. Cook panicking and jumping from one plan to another to prop up the freefalling share price of Apple?

Does no one on the Board of Directors at Apple read the companies announcements and realize 2+2 does not equal 5 or 5050 or 145 billion?

Is Wall Street closing its eyes to this nonsense – again -- to make a quick buck?

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUST DO THE MATH

STIHL battery lawnmower – breakthrough or con game?

STIHL has taken out a full page ad in the Globe and Mail to promote its new, lithium-ion super battery lawnmower.

The ad is visually appealing and has the dramatic tag line – at the top: No Gas, No Cord, No Problem.

The ad has at its core a price comparison and states that you will save some $428.80 over 10 years with their lithium-ion battery unit compared to normal gas powered lawnmowers.

But is the comparison accurate and fair?

First, I checked the company’s website, its YouTube promotional ad and made a call to a local commercial STIHL dealer as they are not sold at Canadian Tire or other retailers at the moment.

Here is what  I found out that the ad overlooks.

      1.  The cutting path is 14 1/2 inches wide; fairly common for electrics but small by gas unit comparison.  

       So cutting a large lawn will take a long, long time!       

2.    The battery’s run time for ‘normal height grass’ and ‘good conditions’ is 25 minutes for up to 3,200 sq. ft.  For larger lawns, the unit – which dies suddenly and shuts down – needs a recharge.

 To quote the Description tab info: 

“… can cover up to 3,200 square feet on a single charge, depending on operating and battery conditions. Need to cover more ground? The STIHL battery can be easily swapped out and recharged in less than 30 minutes with the optional rapid charger.”

·         So this mower also suffers from RANGE ANXIETY just like the Nissan Leaf and Telsa sports car.

·         The ‘optional’ rapid charger – which takes only 30 minutes - costs $75.00 ; not the $39.95 mentioned in the ad which is for the STANDARD recharger that takes 100 minutes to recharge (info from dealer)

·         A longer range battery (AP 160) is available at a cost of $199.00 compared to the standard battery (AP 80) at $130.00.

 

·         The YouTube video, while peppy, shows that for high grass, even a small lawn needs battery recharging after a few minutes.   In the video, it’s quick and easy as there is a second battery awaiting in the charger to quickly replace the dead unit.

So while battery removal and exchange is under 5 minutes or so (depending on how long it takes to get to the charger and back) the video recommends buying a SECOND BATTERY!

 

 

There are more ‘surprises’ as the newspaper ad’s FACTS and MATH do not work either.

Bi-annual service and blade sharpening

The ad states a gas lawnmower needs to be serviced every other year at a cost of $80.00 and the STIHL battery mower saves this cost and related time and trouble.

BUT you can learn to do the basic service from YouTube and parts/oil only cost a few dollars!                      And I know people who do not do a full service for years!

Moreover, for your $80 you always get a blade sharpening since blades need to be done EVERY YEAR.

So, STIHL makes 2 errors in this regard:

1. it forgets service usually includes blade sharpening and I would definitely expect this for $80.00!

2. STILH says its battery lawnmower needs the blade sharpening only every other year.  Good luck with that!  I have had a standard electric lawnmower and gas unit and can tell you the weaker, electric powered units need super sharp blades to work.  Gas units can chomp down grass even with dulled blades.

Cost of power to run the mower

The ad states gas units cost $14.19 a year (for gas and oil)  (based on  26 mows a year) and the RMA 370 electricity/recharge cost is only $1.31 a year.  Over 10 years the difference becomes $128.80

 

Let’s examine those numbers more closely.

A gas unit costs $0.55 per cutting of $3,200 sq. ft (as used in the ad).  That works out to just under  ½ a litre of gas at today’s Ontario costs.  This amount sounds reasonable.

The ad’s electricity calculation is more complex.

It multiplies volts times amps to get watts (which is correct) and then divides by 1000 since electricity charges are by the kilowatt hour (correct again), but then it does to interesting and surprising EXTRA calculations:

It multiplies the usage by 2 and then by 2.1.

As even a lawn of 3,200 sq. ft needs a recharge half-way or so, it (correctly) doubled the electricity cost as 2 charges are needed, accounting for the x2 element.

But what is 2.1 ??????

What it must be is the kilowatt cost of electricity.    The ad, put simply, assumes your utility’s electricity rate is  2.1 cents per kWh!

Nowhere in Ontario - if anywhere in North America -- is electricity so cheap.  Toronto hydro’s rate chart has no time less than 6.3 cents a kWh and that is only between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. and weekends.

Other weekday rates are 9.9 cents and 11.8 cents – 50% to 80% more..

So, 2.1 cents kWh is a distortion at best. 

At weekend rate of 6.3 cents kWh, $1.31 becomes $3.93 and $39.30 for 10 years.

 

So, here is a revised comparison chart that matches the reality of using the RMA 370.

 

	10 year overall costs
	Gas powered	RMA 370
Purchase price	449.95	399.95	$734.95 using AP 80 batteries   $872.95 using AP 160 batteries
Quick Charger (AP160)		75.00
two  batteries		AP 80 $130.00 x 2 = 260.00 AP 160 $199.00x 2 =398.00
Annual blade sharpening	15.00 x 10 = 150.00	15.00 x 10 = 150.00
Service every    2 years	$65 max (deducting blade sharpening) to under $20.00 done 5 times = $325 to $100
Fuel/electricity	14.19 x 10 = 141.90	3.90 x 10 =  39.00
TOTALS	841.85 to  $1,066.85	$923.95  for AP 80 and $10612.95 for AP 160

 

So say goodbye to the ad’s claim of a $428.80 in SAVINGS over 10 years!

Gas powered is equal or cheaper!

 
________________

 

P.S. By the way, since when does a small diameter (14 1/2 inch) gas mower cost $449.00?  Canadian Tire will sell you a standard 20” gas mower for under $300.00!

Oh, and Canadian Tire  carries the GreenWorks line of Lithium-ion battery units which use 2 batteries at a time and can cut for up to 90 minutes!