NYT: Multivitamin Use Linked to Lowered Cancer Risk

---

October 17, 2012

By RONI CARYN RABIN

After a series of conflicting reports about whether vitamin pills can stave off chronic disease, researchers announced on Wednesday that a large clinical trial of nearly 15,000 older male doctors followed for more than a decade found that those taking a daily multivitamin experienced 8 percent fewer cancers than the subjects taking dummy pills.

While many studies have focused on the effects of high doses of particular vitamins or minerals, like calcium and vitamin D, this clinical trial examined whether a common daily multivitamin had an effect on overall cancer risk. A randomized, double-blinded clinical trial, the kind considered the most rigorous type of study, it was one of the largest and longest efforts to address questions about vitamin use.

The findings were to be presented Wednesday at an American Association for Cancer Research conference on cancer prevention in Anaheim, Calif., and the paper was published online in The Journal of the American Medical Association.

The reduction in total cancers was small but statistically significant, said the study’s lead author, Dr. J. Michael Gaziano, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the VA Boston Healthcare System. While the main reason to take a multivitamin is to prevent nutritional deficiencies, Dr. Gaziano said, “it certainly appears there is a modest reduction in the risk of cancer from a typical multivitamin.”

He noted that other measures are likely to protect against cancer more effectively than the daily use of multivitamins.

“It would be a big mistake for people to go out and take a multivitamin instead of quitting smoking or doing other things that we have a higher suspicion play a bigger role, like eating a good diet and getting exercise,” Dr. Gaziano said. “You’ve got to keep wearing your sunscreen.”

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and a grant, initiated by the investigators, from the chemical company BASF. Pfizer provided the multivitamins. The sponsors did not influence the study design, data analysis or manuscript preparation, the authors said.

About half of all Americans take some form of a vitamin supplement, and at least one-third take a multivitamin. But many recent vitamin studies have been disappointing, finding not only a lack of benefit but even some harm associated with large doses of certain supplements. The 2010 dietary guidelines for Americans state that there is no evidence to support taking a multivitamin or mineral supplement to prevent chronic disease.

The American Cancer Society recommends that people eat a balanced diet, but that those who take supplements choose a balanced multivitamin that contains no more than 100 percent of the daily value of most nutrients.

Though several researchers said they were somewhat surprised by the findings, others called the results encouraging.

“It is a small overall effect, but from a public health standpoint, it could be of great importance,” said Dr. E. Robert Greenberg, an affiliate at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle. “Other than quitting smoking, there’s not much else out there that has shown it will reduce your cancer risk by nearly 10 percent.”

Multivitamin use had no effect on the incidence of prostate cancer, which was the most common cancer diagnosed in the study participants. When researchers looked at the effect of vitamin use on all other cancers, they found a 12 percent reduction in occurrence. Overall cancer deaths were reduced among vitamin users, but the difference was not statistically significant.

A major limitation of the study is that it included only male doctors, who were particularly healthy, with extremely low smoking rates, said Marji McCullough, a nutritional epidemiologist with the American Cancer Society. “We still need to find out whether these findings can be applied to others in the population,” she said.

The research effort might have benefited from the fact that the doctors who participated were diligent about taking their pills, and the researchers suggested that the effect of multivitamin use might have been muted because the participants were health-conscious to begin with.

Dr. David Chapin, 73, a gynecologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston who participated in the trial, said that although he had “never believed” in vitamins, he might start taking a daily multivitamin now, despite the modest benefit.

“A lot of studies make big news, but when you look at the nitty-gritty, they don’t show all that much,” Dr. Chapin said, adding that he recently discovered he had been taking a placebo pill. “This was a very reliable study, it was very well designed and administered, and it went on and on and on.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/health/daily-multivitamin-may-reduce-cancer-risk-clinical-trial-finds.html?partner=MYWAY&ei=5065&_r=0

Eight Purchases You're Wasting Money On

Published October 01, 2012

| LearnVest

We all have our bad spending habits: a $3 latte in the morning, an expensive taxi fare now and then, a cheap piece of jewelry when we're down in the dumps.
We're all for splurging, especially if you do it right. In other words, go ahead and buy the things that make you happy, as long as those small purchases motivate you, and you plan them out for maximum enjoyment ... rather than simply throwing your money away.
For example: You buy yourself a bouquet of fresh flowers at the end of the month as a reward for staying on budget. Let's say that costs you $20 a month, which adds up to $240 a year. That might sound like a lot, but if it motivates you to stay on track with your budget, you're probably saving yourself way more than $20 each month. So we call that a good splurge.
But $20 a month could also go toward a lot of stupid stuff that won't make you happier, won't improve your life and won't motivate you to achieve your financial goals. We just call that silly.

 

Pointless ATM Fees

You should never have to pay money to access your money. But around the end of last year, the average ATM fee was about $2.40, and the fees seem to be only going up.

These fees also add up, but they're totally avoidable if you withdraw at your own bank, though that may mean going an extra few blocks to your bank branch, or switching to a bank with more convenient locations. Alternately, you could consider an online-only bank like Ally or ING, which lets their customers use any out-of-network ATMs they want and reimburses them for the fees. Find out if you should switch banks with our quiz.
Savings: $125 a year (if you avoid a weekly ATM fee)

 

The Same Dress You Already Own 10 Of

Okay, okay, it's a different shade of red and the neckline is a little bit different, but you don't really need another dress like that. Or top, or pair of shoes, or purse. We're not saying you should totally abstain from fashion trends or shopping, but take a cue from this woman who follows the one-in-one-out rule: For every new pair of shoes or shirt or whatever she buys, she gives away an older version. You can also use our Purchase Appraiser to find out when an expense is really worth it.

Not only does this reduce the clutter in your house, it also ensures that you're buying something that fills a need, rather than boredom or "why not." (Bonus points—and extra income—if you sell the clothing you no longer want on eBay or Amazon Prime.)

Savings: $500 a year (if you skip one "why not" wardrobe purchase a month). More if your old stuff offsets the cost of your new expenditures.

 

Lottery Tickets

One out of every three people in the U.S. thinks that winning the lotto is their only shot at becoming financially secure, but the odds of winning a state lotto are roughly 18 million to 1. Meanwhile, the odds of getting struck by lightning are about 2.65 million to 1--significantly better.

Buying lottery tickets is a fun exercise in wishful thinking, but you’re essentially throwing your money away. The $5 you might spend on one big-number ticket could turn into more than $100 over time, if you invested it for retirement*. When you "invest" it in the lotto, it just turns into $0.

Savings: $260 a year (if you save on a weekly $5 ticket); $5,650 if you invested that amount for retirement*

*If you're 25 now and will retire at 65, with an 8% rate of return on your investments, calculated here.

 

Actual, Physical DVDs

Buying DVDs is so 2000. Nowadays, everything is online. Why do you need to own a DVD that you’ll watch once before it collects dust on a shelf?

If you're an avid movie watcher, consider subscribing to a service like Netflix or Hulu Plus instead, so you can stream as many movies as you want for as little as $8 a month. If you're only an occasional watcher, you can rent movies online from services like Amazon and iTunes for around $2-$5.

Not sure where you fall? Take our quiz for a personalized recommendation based on how much you really use your media.

Savings: $180 a year (if you buy a $15 DVD once a month)

 

Takeout Lunch

We know, it can be a hassle getting to work on time, let alone preparing lunch before you leave. We understand it's only human to buy lunch at work now and again, but doing it regularly will take a toll on your wallet.

Some better ideas? You can repurpose your leftovers so you don’t have to make a new meal every day. You can also assemble your lunch at the office, if it's appropriate where you work. For example, you can bring in raw salad components and do the slicing at lunchtime. And, if you're really crunched for time and need something easy, even buying prepackaged meals at the drug store or supermarket will be cheaper than going to a restaurant or deli.

Savings: $1,092 a year (if you buy a $10 lunch three days a week, compared to $3 if you bring your own)

 

Regular Movies, Just in 3-D

3-D movies are often a way for movie companies to make extra dough, because it allows them to charge more per ticket to the same movie. Before shelling out more, ask yourself, what else could you do with the $3 or $4 extra you spent on the fancier ticket? You just want to go in with your eyes open (literally).

Bottom line: Seeing "Avatar" in 3-D? Probably worth it. Paying to see the re-release of "Finding Nemo" in theaters just to see it in 3-D? Probably not.

Savings: $96 a year (if you opt for a 2-D movie instead of 3-D twice a month)

 

Hardcover of a Book You Won't Reread

We love reading. A lot. We even made a summer reading list, and some of you are reading through our selections one by one.

But, in this digital age--and given the gift that is the public library--you shouldn't be spending the big bucks on a hardcover book unless it's your all-time favorite and you know you're going to want it as a headliner on your bookshelf for years to come.

Hardcover books are, on average, more than $32, whereas paperbacks are more like $16. So you could save half the price of your next book (even more than that, if you're really not going to reread it and you sell it). And that's not even counting getting books for free at the library.

Savings: $384 a year (if you buy one hardcover book a month for $32 each)

 

Eco-Unfriendly Bottled Water

Sure, some people prefer the taste of filtered water, but, according to the EPA, drinking your daily recommended eight glasses of water from the tap costs 50 cents a year, while drinking that same amount from bottles could cost you as much as $1,400. Not to mention, ditching disposable bottles helps the environment.

If you don't like the taste of plain old tap water, filtration systems are pretty inexpensive, like this $26 one from InstaPure (replacement filters cost under $20). For a system you don't have to install in any way, you could get a basic Brita pitcher for as little as $12.

Savings: up to $1,400 per year

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/10/01/eight-purchases-youre-wasting-money-on/print#ixzz28v81AaFS

Men's Health: Home Food and Your Health The Worst Chemicals in Your Food

What's lurking in that list of ingredients can affect your health

By Julie Stewart, Illustrations by Studio TBC

That jug of 100 percent orange juice in your fridge—natural as can be, right? Just the luscious juice and pulp squeezed from fresh fruit. Or not: Many brands spike their juices with "flavor packs," essences and oils formulated to simulate the taste of, well, fresh-squeezed oranges. These "packs" contain chemicals such as ethyl butyrate, but you'd never know it from the juice's label. "Industry insiders say the formula for fresh orange flavor is as elusive as the formula for Coke," says Alissa Hamilton, Ph.D., J.D., the author of Squeezed: What You Don't Know about Orange Juice.
It's all perfectly legal. Ethyl butyrate is just one of nearly 4,000 additives that the FDA has approved for use in our nation's food supply. Without them, processed foods wouldn't look as appetizing, taste as fresh, or last as long in your pantry. But these "enhancements" also mean you don't always know what you're eating. In the case of OJ, pending class-action lawsuits have accused juice makers of misleading consumers. But you don't have to wait—we have our own verdict on additives and your health. (Want more must-have nutrition info and breaking health studies delivered to your inbox every day? Sign up for the Men's Health Daily Dose newsletter. It's FREE!)

THE CHARGE: Artificial food coloring is dangerous

THE VERDICT: Yes, for some people

Food coloring is all about merchandising, says Bruce Bradley, a former food marketer. "Manufacturers are trying to make something beautiful out of shelf-stable ingredients," he says. But that may be a costly strategy: A study review in the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry estimates that 8 percent of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder may have symptoms linked to consuming synthetic food dyes.

These dyes and other artificial ingredients may also influence attention and behavior in adults, especially if they're genetically susceptible, says study author Joel Nigg, PhD, a professor of behavioral neuroscience at Oregon Health and Science University. In 2011, the FDA's Food Advisory Committee determined that artificial dyes should be evaluated further.


YOUR MOVE: See if a dye-free diet helps you focus, says Kathleen Holton, Ph.D., M.P.H., a nutrition researcher at Oregon Health and Science University. For a month, replace processed foods with additive-free, whole-food versions. Read ingredient lists carefully: Juice, dietary supplements, and gum can contain artificial coloring. Log what you eat and any symptoms you notice.

THE CHARGE: MSG makes you feel lousy and sluggish

THE VERDICT: Correct, it can

If digging into a Chinese buffet leaves your head pounding, you may be reacting to monosodium glutamate, or MSG. In a Danish study, men who consumed a drink laced with MSG were more likely to report headaches and muscle tenderness than those who quaffed a beverage flavored with salt. MSG may alter receptors on your nerve cells to trigger the aches, the researchers say.

MSG might also have lasting effects on your appetite. A study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition showed that adults who consumed the most MSG were most likely to be overweight. The researchers suspect that MSG may interfere with the activity of the hormone leptin, which regulates satiety. "Chronic MSG consumption may cause leptin resistance," says Ka He, Sc.D., an associate professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the University of North Carolina.

YOUR MOVE: Limit portions at restaurants. At your supermarket, check product labels; MSG can be found in many processed foods. If MSG isn't on the ingredient list, similar forms of glutamate may be present in the product under another name, such as hydrolyzed vegetable, plant, or soy protein, or autolyzed yeast extract. (Hungry for Asian food tonight? Skip the takeout and make fast, fresh, DIY versions of delivery classics.)

THE CHARGE: Sugar substitutes will mess up your appetite

THE VERDICT: That's true

Sugar substitutes slash calories from your diet, but they might alter your appetite. "Our taste for sweetness evolved to detect calories in food," says Dana Small, Ph.D., an associate professor of psychiatry at Yale University. For millennia, sensing sweetness meant that calories would soon be available to fuel metabolism.

This association has been so reliable, Small says, that simply seeing a sweet food can cause you to salivate to prepare for digestion. But as artificial sweeteners have infiltrated our diet, this association has weakened, she says. "The sweet taste no longer predicts the rewarding physiological effects of calories."

In a new study, Small's team found that when people who regularly used artificial sweeteners ate sugar, their brains showed reduced activation in the amygdala, which signals the reward value of food. If you desensitize your brain's response to sweetness, you can't depend on taste to guide how much you eat, and you may load up on extra sugar just to feel satisfied.

YOUR MOVE: If you drink more than an occasional diet soda, switch to plain water or to beverages that contain only a small amount of a natural sweetener, Small says. We like honey.

THE CHARGE: The U.S. government does not ban all unsafe additives

THE VERDICT: Guilty as charged

Even when a compound's safety is called into question by government agencies, it can still land on store shelves. Take butylated hydroxyanisole, or BHA, an additive that helps keep oily foods from going rancid. The government's National Toxicology Program says BHA is "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen," but the FDA says the small amounts it permits for use in food are safe.

Although the FDA collaborates with international food safety agencies, some additives that other countries won't allow in food are permissible in the United States. Take potassium bromate, an additive used by commercial bakeries to make bread dough. In 1999, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified potassium bromate as "possibly carcinogenic to humans." Both the European Union and Brazil have prohibited its use in flour. The EU also prohibits manufacturers from bleaching flour with benzoyl peroxide, which research shows can cause liver damage in lab mice.

YOUR MOVE: Check for BHA on the ingredient lists of foods that have oils, such as commercially made sweets and salty snacks. Avoid flour additives by eating organic bread; try Rudi's Organic Bakery (rudisbakery.com). (Do you know what's really in your food? Learn the shocking truth, then make smart, healthy swaps to your diet with the newly expanded 2012 edition of Eat This, Not That!)

http://www.menshealth.com/nutrition/food-ingredients-health

The Myth of Male Decline

September 29, 2012,By STEPHANIE COONTZ

SCROLL through the titles and subtitles of recent books, and you will read that women have become “The Richer Sex,” that “The Rise of Women Has Turned Men Into Boys,” and that we may even be seeing “The End of Men.” Several of the authors of these books posit that we are on the verge of a “new majority of female breadwinners,” where middle-class wives lord over their husbands while demoralized single men take refuge in perpetual adolescence.

How is it, then, that men still control the most important industries, especially technology, occupy most of the positions on the lists of the richest Americans, and continue to make more money than women who have similar skills and education? And why do women make up only 17 percent of Congress?

These books and the cultural anxiety they represent reflect, but exaggerate, a transformation in the distribution of power over the past half-century. Fifty years ago, every male American was entitled to what the sociologist R. W. Connell called a “patriarchal dividend” — a lifelong affirmative-action program for men.

The size of that dividend varied according to race and class, but all men could count on women’s being excluded from the most desirable jobs and promotions in their line of work, so the average male high school graduate earned more than the average female college graduate working the same hours. At home, the patriarchal dividend gave husbands the right to decide where the family would live and to make unilateral financial decisions. Male privilege even trumped female consent to sex, so marital rape was not a crime.

The curtailment of such male entitlements and the expansion of women’s legal and economic rights have transformed American life, but they have hardly produced a matriarchy. Indeed, in many arenas the progress of women has actually stalled over the past 15 years.

Let’s begin by determining which is “the richer sex.”

Women’s real wages have been rising for decades, while the real wages of most men have stagnated or fallen. But women’s wages started from a much lower base, artificially held down by discrimination. Despite their relative improvement, women’s average earnings are still lower than men’s and women remain more likely to be poor.

Today women make up almost 40 percent of full-time workers in management. But the median wages of female managers are just 73 percent of what male managers earn. And although women have significantly increased their representation among high earners in America over the past half-century, only 4 percent of the C.E.O.’s in Fortune’s top 1,000 companies are female.

What we are seeing is a convergence in economic fortunes, not female ascendance. Between 2010 and 2011, men and women working full time year-round both experienced a 2.5 percent decline in income. Men suffered roughly 80 percent of the job losses at the beginning of the 2007 recession. But the ripple effect of the recession then led to cutbacks in government jobs that hit women disproportionately. As of June 2012, men had regained 46.2 percent of the jobs they lost in the recession, while women had regained 38.7 percent of their lost jobs.

The 1970s and 1980s brought an impressive reduction in job segregation by gender, especially in middle-class occupations. But the sociologists David Cotter, Joan Hermsen and Reeve Vanneman report that progress slowed in the 1990s and has all but stopped since 2000. For example, the percentage of female electrical engineers doubled in each decade in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. But in the two decades since 1990 it has increased by only a single percentage point, leaving women at just 10 percent of the total.

Some fields have become even more gender-segregated. In 1980, 75 percent of primary school teachers and 64 percent of social workers were women. Today women make up 80 and 81 percent of those fields. Studies show that as occupations gain a higher percentage of female workers, the pay for those jobs goes down relative to wages in similarly skilled jobs that remain bastions of male employment.

Proponents of the “women as the richer sex” scenario often note that in several metropolitan areas, never-married childless women in their 20s now earn more, on average, than their male age-mates.

But this is because of the demographic anomaly that such areas have exceptionally large percentages of highly educated single white women and young, poorly educated, low-wage Latino men. Earning more than a man with less education is not the same as earning as much as an equally educated man.

Among never-married, childless 22- to 30-year-old metropolitan-area workers with the same educational credentials, males out-earn females in every category, according to a reanalysis of census data to be presented next month at Boston University by Philip Cohen, a sociologist at the University of Maryland. Similarly, a 2010 Catalyst survey found that female M.B.A.’s were paid an average of $4,600 less than men in starting salaries and continue to be outpaced by men in rank and salary growth throughout their careers, even if they remain childless.

Among married couples when both partners are employed, wives earned an average of 38.5 percent of family income in 2010. In that year nearly 30 percent of working wives out-earned their working husbands, a huge increase from just 4 percent in 1970. But when we include all married-couple families, not just dual-earner ones, the economic clout of wives looks a lot weaker.

In only 20 percent of all married-couple families does the wife earn half or more of all family income, according to Professor Cohen, and in 35 percent of marriages, the wife earns less than 10 percent.

Once they have children, wives usually fall further behind their husbands in earnings, partly because they are more likely to temporarily quit work or cut back when workplace policies make it hard for both parents to work full time and still meet family obligations.

But this also reflects prejudice against working mothers. A few years ago, researchers at Cornell constructed fake résumés, identical in all respects except parental status. They asked college students to evaluate the fitness of candidates for employment or promotion. Mothers were much less likely to be hired. If hired, they were offered, on average, $11,000 less in starting salary and were much less likely to be deemed deserving of promotion.

The researchers also submitted similar résumés in response to more than 600 actual job advertisements. Applicants identified as childless received twice as many callbacks as the supposed mothers.

Much has been made of the gender gap in educational achievement. Girls have long done better in school than boys, and women have now pulled ahead of men in completing college. Today women earn almost 60 percent of college degrees, up from one-third in 1960.

The largest educational gender gap is among families in the top 25 percent of the earnings distribution, where women lead men by 13 percent in graduation rates, compared to just a 2 percent advantage for women from the lowest income families.

But at all income levels, women are still concentrated in traditionally female areas of study. Gender integration of college majors has stalled since the mid-1990s, and in some fields, women have even lost ground. Between 1970 and 1985, women’s share of computer and information sciences degrees rose from 14 percent to 37 percent. But by 2008 women had fallen back to 18 percent.

According to the N.Y.U. sociologist Paula England, a senior fellow at the Council on Contemporary Families, most women, despite earning higher grades, seem to be educating themselves for occupations that systematically pay less.

Even women’s greater educational achievement stems partly from continuing gender inequities. Women get a smaller payoff than men for earning a high school degree, but a bigger payoff for completing college. This is not because of their higher grade point averages, the economist Christopher Dougherty concludes, but because women seem to need more education simply to counteract the impact of traditional job discrimination and traditional female career choices.

If the ascent of women has been much exaggerated, so has the descent of men. Men’s irresponsibility and bad behavior is now a stock theme in popular culture. But there has always been a subset of men who engage in crude, coercive and exploitative behavior. What’s different today is that it’s harder for men to get away with such behavior in long-term relationships. Women no longer feel compelled to put up with it and the legal system no longer condones it. The result is that many guys who would have been obnoxious husbands, behaving badly behind closed doors, are now obnoxious singles, trumpeting their bad behavior on YouTube.

Their boorishness may be pathetic, but it’s much less destructive than the masculine misbehavior of yore. Most men are in fact behaving better than ever. Domestic violence rates have been halved since 1993, while rapes and sexual assaults against women have fallen by 70 percent in that time. In recent decades, husbands have doubled their share of housework and tripled their share of child care. And this change is not confined to highly educated men.

Among dual-earner couples, husbands with the least education do as much or more housework than their more educated counterparts. Men who have made these adjustments report happier marriages — and better sex lives.

ONE thing standing in the way of further progress for many men is the same obstacle that held women back for so long: overinvestment in their gender identity instead of their individual personhood. Men are now experiencing a set of limits — externally enforced as well as self-imposed — strikingly similar to the ones Betty Friedan set out to combat in 1963, when she identified a “feminine mystique” that constrained women’s self-image and options.

Although men don’t face the same discriminatory laws as women did 50 years ago, they do face an equally restrictive gender mystique.

Just as the feminine mystique discouraged women in the 1950s and 1960s from improving their education or job prospects, on the assumption that a man would always provide for them, the masculine mystique encourages men to neglect their own self-improvement on the assumption that sooner or later their “manliness” will be rewarded.

According to a 2011 poll by the Pew Research Center, 77 percent of Americans now believe that a college education is necessary for a woman to get ahead in life today, but only 68 percent think that is true for men. And just as the feminine mystique exposed girls to ridicule and harassment if they excelled at “unladylike” activities like math or sports, the masculine mystique leads to bullying and ostracism of boys who engage in “girlie” activities like studying hard and behaving well in school. One result is that men account for only 2 percent of kindergarten and preschool teachers, 3 percent of dental assistants and 9 percent of registered nurses.

The masculine mystique is institutionalized in work structures, according to three new studies forthcoming in the Journal of Social Issues. Just as women who display “masculine” ambitions or behaviors on the job are often penalized, so are men who engage in traditionally female behaviors, like prioritizing family involvement. Men who take an active role in child care and housework at home are more likely than other men to be harassed at work.

Men who request family leave are often viewed as weak or uncompetitive and face a greater risk of being demoted or downsized. And men who have ever quit work for family reasons end up earning significantly less than other male employees, even when controlling for the effects of age, race, education, occupation, seniority and work hours. Now men need to liberate themselves from the pressure to prove their masculinity. Contrary to the fears of some pundits, the ascent of women does not portend the end of men. It offers a new beginning for both. But women’s progress by itself is not a panacea for America’s inequities. The closer we get to achieving equality of opportunity between the sexes, the more clearly we can see that the next major obstacle to improving the well-being of most men and women is the growing socioeconomic inequality within each sex.

Stephanie Coontz teaches family history at Evergreen State College and is the author of “A Strange Stirring: The Feminine Mystique and American Women at the Dawn of the 1960s.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/opinion/sunday/the-myth-of-male-decline.html?pagewanted=all&src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB

Easiest Way To Live Longer

The Easiest Way To Live Longer

By Lisa Collier Cool
Sep 11, 2012

Send

Share

Print

Health Experts Main

Day in Health

by Lisa Collier Cool

Recent Posts

Did you know that every minute you walk can extend your life by 1.5 to 2 minutes? In addition, many studies show that people who walk regularly live longer, weigh less, have lower blood pressure, and enjoy better overall health than non-walkers.
Ready to lace on your shoes? If you want to add to the amount of walking you do, just clip on a pedometer. That simple action actually increases your physical activity by over 2100 steps per day, a review that pooled data from 26 studies found.
Here’s a look at ten benefits of walking.

Walking Increases Your Lifespan

Walking more than an hour a day improves life expectancy significantly, a 2011 study showed. The researchers looked at 27,738 participants between the ages of 40 and 79 over a 13-year period. Surprisingly, their lifetime medical costs did not increase—even though they lived longer.
“An increase in walking time at the population level would bring about a tremendous change in people’s health and medical cost,” the study authors wrote.

Walking Wards Off Diabetes

Just thirty minutes of walking a day can prevent diseases such as type 2 diabetes, a 2002 study looking at both overweight and average weight men and women in a population at high risk for the disease showed.
If you already have diabetes, walking is helpful for you, too. A mile or more daily cuts your risk of death from all causes in half, according to a 2007 study.

Walking Keeps Your Mind Sharp

Walking 72 blocks a week (around six to nine miles) helps increase grey matter, which in turn lowers the risk of suffering from cognitive impairment—or trouble with concentration, memory and thought, according to a study which looked at 299 seniors over a nine-year period.
Furthermore, walking five miles per week can provide some protection to the memory and learning areas of the brains of those already suffering from Alzheimer’s disease or mild cognitive impairment, and lead to a slower decline in memory loss.
Common Symptoms of Alzheimer's Disease

Walking Helps Lower Blood Pressure

Walking just 30 minutes a day, three to five days a week—even when the 30 minutes are broken into three ten-minute increments—has been found to significantly lower blood pressure.

Walking is Great for Bone Health

Putting one foot in front of the other for about a mile a day led to improved bone density in post-menopausal women, and slowed the rate of bone loss from the legs, according to a 1994 study. “It takes walkers four to seven years longer to reach the point of very low bone density, study leader Dr. Krall told the New York Times.

Walking Cuts the Risk of Stroke

Walking about 12.5 miles a week or more cut the risk of stroke in half, according to a study looking at over 11,000 Harvard University alumni with an average age of 58.

Walking Improves Your Mood

If you’re feeling down in the dumps, walking is a quick and easy solution. Just thirty minutes on a treadmill reduces feelings of tension and depression, according to research published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine. In fact, the study found that walking lifted moods more quickly than anti-depressants did (and with fewer side effects).
And the more people walk, the better their mood and energy, says California State University Long Beach professor Robert Thayer, based on a study looking at 37 study participants over a 20-day period.

Walking Torches Calories

Just 20 minutes of walking a day will burn 7 pounds a year. The effects are even more dramatic when you add in some dietary changes as well.
23 Diet Plans Reviewed: Do They Work?

Walking Improves Insomnia

Having trouble sleeping at night? Try taking a brisk 45-minute walk in the morning five days a week, and your sleep may improve significantly, according to research from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, which looked at women from the age of 50-74. (Walking in the evening, however, sometimes has the opposite effect—so keep an eye on when you’re exercising and what your sleep patterns are.)

Walking is Good for the Heart

Women who took brisk walks for three or more hours per week reduced their risk of heart disease by 30-40 percent, according to an analysis of over 72,000 women aged 40-65, who were enrolled in the prospective Nurses’ Health Study. As I reported recently, heart attacks kill more US women than men annually. However, the benefits of walking aren’t limited to one gender. A different study showed that walking can cut the risk of coronary heart disease in half for men between the ages of 71 and 93.
Exercise and Fitness in the First Trimester
——————————

Get the information you need to improve your health and wellness on Healthline.com.

NYT: More Choice, and More Confusion, in Quest for Healthy Eating

September 8, 2012

By KIM SEVERSON

ATLANTA — Lisa Todd’s grocery cart reflects the ambivalence of many American shoppers.

Ms. Todd, 31, prowled the aisles of a busy Kroger store here last week. Her cart was a tumble of contradictions: organic cabbage and jar of Skippy peanut butter. A bag of kale and a four-pack of inexpensive white wine. Pineapples for juicing and processed deli meat. 

The chicken, perhaps, summed it up best. A package of fryer parts from Tyson, the world’s largest poultry producer, sat next to a foam tray of organic chicken legs. 

The conventional food was for her boyfriend, the more natural ingredients for her.

“We’re not 100 percent organic, obviously, but I try to be,” she said. “He doesn’t care, so I’m trying to maintain happiness in the relationship.” 

Like many people who are seeking better-tasting, healthier food, Ms. Todd had heard about a recent study on organic food from Stanford University’s Center for Health Policy.

Based on data from 237 previously conducted studies, the Stanford report concluded that when it comes to certain nutrients, there is not much difference between organic and conventionally grown food. 

But it also found that organic foods have 31 percent lower levels of pesticides, fewer food-borne pathogens and more phenols, a substance believed to help fight cancer.

For Ms. Todd and countless other shoppers, the study just added to the stress of figuring out what to eat. And it underscored the deep divisions at the nation’s dinner table, along with concerns among even food purists about the importance of federal organic standards.

“There’s complete confusion,” said Marcia Mogelonsky, a senior food analyst for Mintel, a global marketing firm. “Most people have a randomly arranged set of diet principles. They buy organics sometimes. They buy based on price sometimes. Very few people are completely committed to any one cause.” 

For some, the report gave credence to what many already believe: that organic food is not worth the price. Only 26 percent of Americans regularly buy organic food, according to a 2011 Pew Research Center poll. Price is usually why they do not. But it is a difficult choice for people who are trying to eat better. 

JoAnne Grossman, 66, lives in Columbus, Ohio, where she spent a day last week working to turn a bumper crop of garden squash into zucchini bread. She and her husband, Steven, have been eating more organic food over the last year. 

Her son has something to do with it. He is a high school teacher in the Washington area who also runs an organic farm. Still, the Stanford study made Ms. Grossman feel a bit better about not always going organic. 

“It’s not cheap,” she said. “But the big thing for me is that I don’t like the pesticides and the chemicals they use to grow things like those monster red peppers. They’re too perfect.”

For the crowd that spends weekends at the farmers’ market and knows that Humboldt Fog is a type of cheese, the study was, at best, misunderstood and misinterpreted and, at worst, an indication of a conspiracy driven by large-scale, conventional agriculture.

“I was like, ‘Are you absolutely joking?’ ” asked Jeremy Bethel, 30, an owner of the Capra Gia Cheese Company. A constant at more than a dozen farmers’ markets in the Atlanta area, his company sells milk and cheese from 350 goats raised in Carrollton, Ga., and eggs from 400 chickens in Rome, Ga. 

“They want to make organics sound bad because they see such a movement of people moving away from big agriculture,” Mr. Bethel said.

Yet among some farmers who reject conventional growing methods and customers who seek out their products, organic food — at least as it is defined by federal legislation signed in 2002 — is losing its luster even as the interest in healthier, more natural food continues to rise.

“You’re just paying $3,000 to the government to use the name organic,” said Mr. Bethel, citing what it might cost to certify an operation of his scale. 

People have moved beyond organics, those on the forefront of the local food movement say. Over the last couple of decades, food has become a platform for social issues and environmental causes, a rallying point for improving schools and a marker of cultural status. Farmers’ markets are seen as an indicator of community revitalization, and visiting them is a regular weekend activity for families. The Department of Agriculture has counted 7,864 of them this year, an increase of 174 percent from 2000. 

But organic food, especially products processed by large corporations, has become less a player in the front lines of the movement. 

Though organic food has long been a rising star in the food industry, growing by almost 8 percent from 2009 to 2010, certified organic food still makes up less than 4 percent of overall food and beverage sales, according to the Organic Trade Association. 

Farmland certified organic under the federal guidelines makes up less than 1 percent of all land used for crops and livestock, according to the Agriculture Department.

And increasingly, small-scale farmers like Greg Brown, who for six years has been growing okra, green beans and other vegetables on a few acres in Barnesville, Ga., are opting not to apply for federal organic certification. 

He thought about going for an organic label, but the packet of requirements was more than an inch thick and the cost to get certified too high in proportion to his profit. Instead he farms under the less expensive certified naturally grown label, a national program that has sprung up as an alternative to the federal organic program and that has nearly 800 farms as members.

The program, which relies on farmers to inspect one another’s farms, does not certify processed foods like cereal. It requires that farmers use most of the same techniques as the federal organic program, but without the paperwork. 

Customers seeking out Mr. Brown’s Greenleaf Farms okra and green beans are not really looking for a label, anyway, he said.

“They want food from healthy soil, and they want a direct line between the grower and their food,” he said. “Taste is up there, too.” 

That, in many ways, was the idea behind the organic movement, which began as a postwar response to the effects of chemical fertilizer and the rise of industrial-scale farming. In the 1970s, Alice Waters and some other West Coast cooks started looking for produce that tasted better than what most restaurant supply companies were offering.

They found a small community of environmentally minded organic farmers who were picking their fruits and vegetables when they were ripe and were growing varieties designed for flavor, not shipping and storage. 

From that relationship came California’s organic laws, which in turn became the basis for the national organic standards.

“I didn’t intend to seek out organic local food, said Ms. Waters said in an interview. “I was looking for taste.”

Like others, she thought the Stanford study was too narrowly focused on nutrients and had been largely misinterpreted. 

“Taste is what’s going to get us to eat seven portions of fruits and vegetables a day,” she said. “To not consider taste and quality in this whole discussion is to completely miss the point about food.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/09/us/would-be-healthy-eaters-face-confusion-of-choices.html?_r=1&partner=MYWAY&ei=5065

NYT: Postponing Retirement Indefinitely

August 29, 2012, 11:07 am48 Comments

Postponing Retirement Indefinitely

By ANN CARRNS

More than a third of adults near retirement age — 35 percent — said last year that they simply don’t expect to retire. That was up from just 29 percent two years earlier.
More than four in 10 of these “pre-retirees” who don’t expect to retire say it is because they are financially unable to do so. They cite the need for extra income and the maintenance of employer benefits as the main reasons for continuing to work.
That was among the findings in the “2011 Risks and Process of Retirement Survey Report” from the Society of Actuaries.

“There is a core group of people earning a paycheck who feel, for whatever reason, they aren’t going to be able to support themselves in their retirement years,” said Carol Bogosian, an actuary and retirement expert.



The survey was conducted for the society by Mathew Greenwald and Associates and the Employee Benefit Research Institute in July 2011, using telephone interviews of 1,600 adults ages 45 to 80. Half were retirees and half were pre-retirees, who were still working. The margin of sampling error for the survey was plus or minus 4 percentage points.
The findings suggest that Americans need to recalibrate their expectations about how long they can actually work, she said. While many pre-retirees say they expect to continue to work well past traditional retirement age, that may be “wishful thinking” — or an excuse for not saving and preparing, the report says. The reality is that many people actually retire earlier than they expect, whether because they lose their jobs and can’t find new ones, or because of failing health.


Half of retirees (51 percent) report that they retired before age 60. But just one in 10 pre-retirees (12 percent) think they will retire that early. Instead, half of pre-retirees who expect to retire say they will wait at least until age 65.


That gap, combined with the failure of many people to plan for a long enough retirement period, may indicate significant future financial problems for many, Ms. Bogosian notes.
A more realistic plan might be to work two or three years longer than you may originally have expected, to earn additional income and maximize your Social Security income, she said. And workers in their 50s need to think strategically about what skills they need to acquire to keep working longer, whether in their current career or a new line of work.


Are you planning on working longer in retirement? What sort of work do you expect to be doing?

A version of this article appeared in print on 09/01/2012, on page B4 of the NewYork edition with the headline: Not Retiring, Not by Choice.

 

Source: http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/postponing-retirement-indefinitely/?nl=your-money&emc=edit_my_20120904

The Worst Habits for Your Heart

By Lisa Collier Cool, May 07, 2012

Lifestyle factors you can easily change account for more than 90 percent of heart attack risk, a landmark study of about 30,000 people in 52 countries suggests. And making small, positive changes in your everyday habits can have a surprisingly big impact on your heart health—or even save your life.
Here’s a look at six of the worst habits for your heart, and how to turn them around.

Being Glued to the Tube

Spending too much time parked in front of the TV can actually be fatal, according to a 2011 study published in Journal of the American College of Cardiology. The researchers found that people who devoted four or more hours a day to screen-based entertainment—mainly watching the tube--had double the risk of a major cardiac event resulting in hospitalization, death or both, compared to those who spent less than two hours daily on these activities.
Another compelling reason to limit TV time: Those who spent the most time on leisure-time screen-based entertainment had a 48 percent higher risk of dying prematurely, even if they also exercised. Recent research also shows that too much sitting can be just as bad for your heart as smoking.
The Warning Signs of Heart Attack

Having a Negative Attitude

 While stress and depression have long been linked to higher heart disease risk, a new Harvard review of more than 200 earlier studies, published this month in Psychological Bulletin, highlights the benefits of turning that frown upside-down: An optimistic outlook may cut heart disease and stroke danger by 50 percent.
And while you may think that happy people are just healthier, the researchers found that the association between an upbeat attitude and reduced cardiovascular risk held true even when they took the person’s age, weight, smoking status, and other risk factors into account.
Research also shows that laughter literally does the heart good, by expanding the linings of blood vessels and boosting blood flow. A fun way to add more joy to your life—and defuse stress--is laughter yoga, an exercise program that combines self-triggered mirth with deep yogic breathing to  draw oxygen deeper into the body.
Top 10 Simple Ways to Leave Stress Behind

Ignoring Snoring

 Frequent loud snoring can trumpet obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), a dangerous disorder that magnifies heart attack and stroke risk, if untreated. OSA (bouts of interrupted breathing during sleep) frequently goes undiagnosed because people don’t recognize the symptoms, which include waking at night for no apparent reason and unexplained daytime drowsiness.
If you fit this profile, ask your doctor to order a sleep study. Because OSA, which affects 18 million Americans, is most common in people who are heavy, treatment typically involves weight loss and in some cases, continuously positive airway pressure (CPAP), a device that blows moist, heated air in your nose and mouth as you sleep.
Can an Oral Device Treat Sleep Apnea?

Forgoing Fiber

 Not only does a high-fiber diet boost your heart health, but it could add years to your life, according to a recent study of nearly 400,000 people, conducted by the National Institutes of Health and American Association of Retired People.
The researchers found that men ages 50 and older who ate the most fiber were up to 56 percent less likely to die from cardiovascular disease, infectious diseases and respiratory ailments, compare to those who ate the least. For women ages 50 and up, a high-fiber diet lowered risk of death from these causes by nearly 60 percent.
Another study involving more than 300,000 men and women found that eating eight servings of fruits and vegetables a day trims the risk of a fatal heart attack by 22 percent, compared to eating less than three. Researchers from the World Cancer Research Fund also report that if we ate more fiber, and less red meat, more than 64,000 cancer deaths would be prevented annually.

Failing to Floss

 People with periodontal (gum) disease are nearly twice as likely to have heart disease as those with healthy gums. While the reasons for the link aren’t yet clear, one theory is that the same bacteria that trigger gum disease may also spark inflammation inside the body, damaging arteries. Gum disease affects nearly 50 percent of Americans, many of whom don’t know they have it, because in the early stages, it’s painless.
A new study published in Journal of Aging Research adds to mounting evidence that one of the simplest—and cheapest—secrets of long life is taking care of your teeth, with daily brushing and flossing. Conversely, neglecting your chompers—and skipping dental visits—can be lethal, the researchers report. During the 17-year study, those who never flossed were 30 percent more likely to die than were those who flossed daily.

Smoking Even a Little

 Smoking even one cigarette a day increases the threat of heart attack by 63 percent and smoking 20 or more cigarettes a day more than quadruples it.
Need more motivation to quit? Tobacco use also boosts risk for diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and many types of cancer. A 2010 study reports that using a nicotine patch for six months makes it easier for smokers to kick the habit. Munching on low-calorie foods, such as carrot or celery sticks, or chewing sugarless gum, can also help curb nicotine cravings.
——————————
Get the information you need to improve your health and wellness on Healthline.com. 

Source:  http://health.yahoo.net/experts/dayinhealth/worst-habits-your-heart

Will an apple a day keep the doctor away?

It's one of the most recognizable expressions around: "An apple a day keeps the doctor away." But besides the fact that it rhymes, which makes it fun to say and easy to recall, does it really have any value? Could the common apple honestly help a person to maintain perfect health?
The first printed mention of this saying can be found in the February 1866 issue of the publication "Notes and Queries." The publication printed the proverb like this: "Eat an apple on going to bed, and you'll keep the doctor from earning his bread." Nearly 150 years later, variations of this adage are still quoted. It's unlikely that the saying would have maintained such popularity if there wasn't some truth to it, right? With that in mind, let's consider some of the apple's components and their effect on our health:

• Pectin -- Pectin is a form of soluble fiber than lowers both blood pressure and glucose levels. It can also lower the levels of LDL, or "bad" cholesterol in the body. Pectin, like other forms of fiber, helps maintain the health of the digestive system. Apples are an excellent source of pectin.
• Boron -- A nutrient found in abundance in apples, boron supports strong bones and a healthy brain.
• Quercetin -- A flavonoid, this nutrient shows promise for reducing the risk of various cancers, including cancers in the lungs and breast. It may also reduce free radical damage. Free radicals develop when atoms in the body's cells have unpaired electrons, which can lead to damage to different parts of the cell, including DNA. Quercetin may neutralize free radical damage, which has been implicated in a variety of age-related health problems, including Alzheimer's disease.
• Vitamin C -- Vitamin C boosts immunity, which helps maintain overall health.
• Phytonutrients -- Apples are rich in a variety of phytonutrients, including vitamins A and E and beta carotene. These compounds fight damage from free radicals and can have a profound affect on health, including reducing the risk of heart disease, diabetes and asthma.

Apples also act as a toothbrush, cleaning teeth and killing bacteria in the mouth, which may reduce the risk of tooth decay. They're also low in calorie density, one of the trademarks of a healthy food. When a food is low in calorie density you can eat good size portions of the food for relatively few calories. In addition, apples are affordable and readily available.
With all of this information, it's easy to see that, yes, an apple has its health benefits. But does eating an apple every day mean you'll never get sick? And is an apple really healthier than other fruits? Find out on the following page.

Are apples the secret to a long life?

An apple a day can reduce the risk of diabetes, high blood pressure and many types of cancer. But would you be able to avoid the doctor entirely just by eating a bunch of the forbidden fruit? Not likely. Various studies show health benefits when participants eat an apple between three and five times a week, but all ailments cannot be cured by diet alone.

Are other fruits just as good for you as apples? Sure. All fruits are loaded with nutrients that are building blocks to good health. Bananas are loaded with potassium, which is important for a healthy heart and proper muscle function. Blackberries are loaded with fiber, and strawberries contain vitamin C and fiber.
Like cranberries, blueberries help prevent and fight urinary tract infections. They're also a bit tastier than cranberries, which most people only enjoy when combined with plenty of added sugar. Apricots, fresh or dried, are high in beta-carotene.

When choosing drinks, apple juice barely makes the top 10. Pomegranate juice, wine and purple grape juice are high in antioxidants, with apple juice in the tenth spot, right behind tea. One of the things that makes apples so incredibly healthy is the amount of fiber they contain, but that's lost during juicing.

If all fruits are nutritional powerhouses, why are apples the only one to be included in the folklore? At the time the adage emerged, apples were easy to grow (and still are). Once harvested, they could remain in storage for nearly a year. Recent studies have shown that, unlike many fruits and vegetables, the nutritional benefits of apples remain relatively stable as long as 200 days after harvest [source: Boyer and Liu].

While an apple a day will go a long way toward keeping the doctor away, most nutritionists recommend a varied diet. In addition to apples, fill your shopping cart with citrus fruits, tropical treats like mangos, and a variety of berries, which pack a nutritional punch. Eating several servings of a varied selection of fruits each day is truly the best way to keep the doctor away.

Source: http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/family/an-apple-a-day.htm

Top 10 Worst States To Retire To

Worst States to Retire 2012: Northeast and Midwest Come Up Losers Category: Best Retirement Towns and States January 10, 2012 — There are plenty of best places to retire lists. But how about the places where it’s not such a good idea to retire? Last year our “worst 10 states” list caused quite a sensation, so we are back at it again for 2012. The purpose is to try to help baby boomers understand where, all other things being equal, they can enjoy their hard-earned retirement without taking on more problems. To make sure you don’t miss updates to this and other lists like it, sign up for our free weekly “Best Places to Retire” newsletter. Your retirement is unique Every individual has to consider his or her own criteria for identifying the worst or best states to retire. One of the most important factors for anyone is proximity to family and friends. So, if you want to be near your grandchildren the worst state on our list could be the best state on your list. Likewise, you might not share the same considerations we used to develop this list. Tax issues might be most important for you, or you might not care about spending winters in a warm state. Our 2012 list is based on 5 considerations that we think will be important to most people, but freely admit that these factors could be totally irrelevant to many other folks. Our Top Weighting Criteria This year we expanded the criteria we used from 3 to 5 factors. The factors for 2012 are: Fiscal health, property taxes, income taxes, cost of living, and climate. Each criterion was worth up to 1 negative point. If these are not key factors for you, your list might look very different. Also new this year is a page where you can customize your “worst states” list by eliminating criteria that might not be important to you. You will find detailed explanations of these factors along with our sources following the list. The negative point range this year went from 4.05 for #1 CT to 2.45 for #10 WI. The 10 Worst States for Retirement – 2012 Three new states made our list this year: Vermont, Minnesota, and Maine. That means that 3 states were lucky enough to leave the list: Ohio (low property and income taxes), Nevada (in terrible financial shape but no income tax and low property taxes), California (bad financial shape and high property taxes, but almost no income tax on our prototypical couple, plus a great climate). The additions and subtractions do not necessarily mean that these states got worse or better since last year; that probably has more to do with the changes from our new rating factors. And, since the data is always trailing, the ratings might not be a perfect reflection of today’s reality. 1. Connecticut. We actually had a numerical tie for 1st place. CT won the tie-breaker because it has much higher property taxes, income taxes, and cost of living than Illinois. Most pension income is taxable, although there are some significant exemptions for social security, depending on income. CT had the 3rd highest tax burden of any state in 2009. The Nutmeg State does have considerable charm and some terrific places to live like Stonington and Madison, if you can afford to live there. 2. Illinois. Illinois (along with Nevada) faces serious economic troubles. Its pension funding, deficit spending, unemployment, and foreclosure rates are among the worst of any states. The state began to address its problems last year when it raised income tax rates. Although Illinois does not tax most pension or social security, other earnings and investment income are taxed at a fairly high rate thanks to its 5% flat tax rate. 3. Rhode Island. The Ocean State has severely underfunded pension/health liabilities and budget deficits. It has the 5th highest median property taxes paid. Our prototypical couple would face much higher income taxes here than they would in most other states. It does have some great places to live like Westerly, thanks to its extensive coastline and numerous bays and harbors. 4. Vermont. The Green Mountain State has very high median property and income taxes, with a top 10 cost of living. Winters here are better for skiing than golf. 5. Massachusetts. In the Bay State our prototypical retiree couple would face property taxes that are among the highest of any state. Even though social security income is exempt, income taxes would be high for our couple because of the flat rate applied to other earnings. Most government pensions are exempt, but private sector ones are taxed. The cost of living is high. See reviews of great places to retire like Williamstown. 6. New Jersey. New Jersey residents are the biggest losers when it comes to property taxes – the median property tax in the Garden State is the highest in the U.S. at $6579. It also has the highest tax burden (as reported by the Tax Foundation), a large budget deficit issue, and a very high cost of living. New Jersey has both an estate and an inheritance tax. On the plus side, it excludes most pension and social security income for couples making less than $100,000. 7. Minnesota. Another newcomer to our list, Minnesota, would impose the 4th highest income tax on our prototypical couple. That is mostly due to the absence of any pension or social security exemptions. Property taxes are just below the top 10. Minnesota has a large budget deficit issue. Anyone care to winter in Minnesota? 8. New York. The Empire State was essentially tied with #9 Maine. We broke the tie because New York has the 4th highest median property taxes and one of the highest tax burdens. Surprisingly, the state did not earn any negative points for income taxes, since it offers generous exemptions for social security and pensions, along with a high standard deduction. Its cost of living is one of the highest, plus a very cold winter climate. On the plus side, New York’s Governor Cuomo is waging a campaign to limit property tax increases and improve the state’s fiscal condition. College towns like Ithaca can be awfully nice though. 9. Maine. Maine’s property taxes are much lower than New York’s, while Maine’s income tax on our prototypical couple would be about $1000 higher. Winters are even colder, but cost of living is lower. Maine’s governor has vowed to try to exempt retirement income from taxation, although nothing has happened on that front yet. 10. Wisconsin. Property taxes are among the highest in the country. It has a high foreclosure rate. Wisconsin’s high income taxes are mitigated somewhat for retirees because social security income is exempt and because there is a high standard deduction. See our entire list of great places to retire by state. Criteria used in developing this list Fiscal health. Just as the U.S. government is spending more than it takes in, many of the 50 states have serious financial problems of their own. “The Widening Gap:” from the Pew Center on the States provides a good understanding of the problem. To determine the fiscal health component of our rankings we used 4 inputs this year: deficit, unfunded pension liabilities, unemployment rates, and foreclosures. Why do we think these are important things to rate on, you might ask? Just think about the turmoil Greece and Spain are experiencing as they are finally start to address their deficits and borrowing. Social services are being cut, taxes are being raised, and there is civil unrest. Similarly for states that run into financial trouble, the pain will be acute when the piper is paid, and you probably don’t want to be part of it. We combined these factors; if a state was in the top 10 for all four problems it received 1 negative point in the rankings (.25 each). Property taxes. In our opinion property taxes are usually the most oppressive taxes for retirees, since they can be so high in some states and bear no relation to one’s income. The 10 states with the highest property taxes were awarded 1 point on a sliding scale, with New Jersey actually earning 1.1 points since its median taxes are so much higher than any other state. State income taxes. We think too many baby boomer retirees focus too much attention on state income taxes as a reason to move. That’s because unless you have a lot of income, they are not a factor. In our analysis we created a hypothetical couple that has $70,000 in earnings from social security, pension, earnings, and retirement savings; equal to the top earning quartile of people 65+. Using data from the Congressional Research Service we assumed this couple received 20% of its income from social security, 23% from pension, and 47% from earnings and investments. We used those inputs to estimate income taxes for each state at tax-rates.org. Obviously, your earning profile will probably be different. If your joint earnings are significantly below $70,000, this rating component is probably not significant. Here is where you can see the ratings with this component eliminated. The 10 states with the highest taxes on this factor earned up to 1 negative point. Cost of living. Most people retiring today are very concerned about how they are going to make it work financially. We awarded states with the highest cost of living 1 negative point. Climate. We believe the majority of today’s retirees have a bias towards places with warmer winters. States north of the Mason-Dixon line were awarded a negative 1 point for their colder climate. (See also our 2011 article – “Worst Places to Retire for Weather and Natural Disasters“) You can customize your “worst states” list by using the rankings on this rankings page. Other criteria for identifying the best or worst retirement state: While our rankings concentrated on fiscal health, taxes, cost of living, and climate, here is a more complete list of possible criteria for developing your personal rankings of retirement states and towns: - Proximity to friends and family - Sales taxes (Not usually a deal breaker, but annoying) - Inheritance and Estate taxes (Some states have neither, a few have both) - Crime - Recreation - Transportation - Healthcare - Education including colleges - Cultural resources - Natural disasters - Fitting in socially, politically, religiously Should the States Be Trying to Attract Retirees – and What Should They Do? There are some states that actively try to attract retirees – notably Texas, Louisiana, West Virginia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. They have bought into the idea that the “mailbox” economic value of retirees (the pension and social security checks arrive in the mailbox) is as important as attracting new industries. Most of those retirees are being recruited are coming from the high tax states up north, only a few of which are actively trying to stem that tide. Property tax freezes for seniors, taxation of pensions and social security, and investments in infrastructure are some ideas that could help states in the northeast and midwest avoid losing valuable citizens whose retirements are being compromised by indifferent legislators. Share your ideas with them, and us! More about our sources and criteria: Pension/Health Funding and Budget Deficit data – Pew Center Budget Deficit data – Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Unemployment data – Bureau of Labor Statistics Foreclosure rates – CNBC.com Property Taxes – Tax-rates.org Income taxes – here we used the income tax calculator from Tax-rates.org Cost of Living – Missourieconomy.org For further reference: Worst States for Retirement – 2011 State Retirement Guides Tax Foundation Tax Burden by State Tax Friendly States The Most Important Issue Might Not Be What You Think Our 2011 List of the “100 Best Retirement Towns” Best Retirement States for 2011” We were happy to have seen this article extensively quoted by Yahoo.Finance, MarketWatch, and AOL.DailyFinance. Comments: What do you think about our criteria and our rankings? Did your state make the list, or did it deserve to? Please share your opinion in the Comments section below. Posted by John Brady on January 10th, 2012 Comments (33)  Email This Post Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS)

33 Comments »

» Our Worst States to Retire List Topretirements says

[...] The 2012 version of this list came out Jan. 11. December 7, 2010 — The 50 U.S. states are in a beauty contest. Whether they [...]

January 11th, 2012 | #

Charles says

I am interested in retiring to Wisconsin, your article states that it has the highest propert taxes in the nation and states that social security is not taxable. What about cost of living? Health Care? cost of Gas etc. these factors would very helpful for decision making of where to retire. How does the economy in wi compare to other states?

January 11th, 2012 | #

Marian Van Til says

Your list seems quite plausible. I would point out, though, that some of those states are big. And whether one lives in one area of the state or another can make a huge difference. My husband and I live in western NY (on the Canadian border, down river from Niagara Falls). Property taxes vary by county, and in Niagara Co. they definitely are high related to income levels. And income taxes are pretty high; but as you note, retirees can take advantage of exemptions. We couldn’t possibly afford to live anywhere near NY City or Albany. But western NY has very moderate housing prices (nice houses/neighborhoods starting at less than $150,000) and a much lower cost of living than many other parts of the state. And housing costs have not been subject to the extreme rises and falls that they have been in many areas of the country. There is also has an immense amount of natural beauty here and the winter climate is not at all extreme (which you imply it is in NY); and of course, there’s all kinds of boating opportunities in the other seasons. Also tons of good restaurants. A person might simply want to avoid Erie County’s Buffalo Southtowns if he/she doesn’t like a lot of snow and colder weather. Or, just drive south an hour or so to go skiing, and then return home to no snow. Where we live along the Niagara River and a bit south of Lake Ontario, we get far less snow than Buffalo and its southern suburbs does only 30 miles away. Though we are looking for a possible place outside of NY to move to when my husband retires, that mostly has to do with wanting to be near family and nothing to do with a bad climate here, or lack of natural beauty, lack of amenities, etc. I might add that it’s also a plus to live next door to Canada (and an hour and a quarter from Toronto), as that opens up additional cultural and social opportunities. I would say western NY is a well kept secret and a very fine place to live.

January 11th, 2012 | #

Barbara says

I’m responding to Charles’ question, regarding Wisconsin. We have lived in Wisconsin most of our lives. Yes, the property taxes are quite high, but housing costs are much lower than states on the east and west coasts. Cost of living, therefore, is much lower than, say, California, but that would be true of the entire midwest. When we do retire, we will always keep a home there because of family and because the summers are really beautiful. We only use our AC for a week on average during the entire summer. The winters….well, you’ve got to like the cold and snow. And of course, the Green Bay Packers!!

January 11th, 2012 | #

David M. Lane says

Those are precisely the reasons we sold everything in New York State (western NY) and relocated to Florida. We save a huge bundle. have a condo in Winter Haven FL city of 35,000 and 50 lakes within city limits. with homestead takes under $700/yr. total excellent weather, plenty to do and only 40 minutes from Orlando airport with reasonable flights everywhere including worldwide. Beaches on both costs an hour or so away. Lots to do. People need to retire outside of the high cost states listed in your review. Good article. Should be helpful to all those pondering the question!

January 11th, 2012 | #

AJ says

I live in Chicago now. I am 70, still trying to work, and barely making it. The cost of living is extremely high compared to my salary. When I go on straight SS, I will never make it here. Just the rent alone will do me in. I can’t afford to buy so I am looking at good rental areas with good walking to stores, etc. I am torn between the west,AZ or NV, or going south. Not sure about the humidity in FL. I need sun and not gloomy horrid winters.

January 11th, 2012 | #

belleboy says

My wife and I are NJ residents and are trying our best to wave farewell to this state of taxation. In the past four years our real estate taxes thanks to local government tax hikes and their re-evaluation have increased from $4,500 to $7,800. Governor Christie is working to reduce taxes but he is dealing with a generational Democratic State House and Senate who just love to pander to the government employees and to tax and spend.

January 11th, 2012 | #

joeinMA says

I am retired and just moved from Connecticut to Western Massachusetts. I find it much cheaper to live here. Our home is waterfront on a beautiful lake and the property taxes are 1/2 of what we were paying in Newtown CT.

January 11th, 2012 | #

Warbeads aka Glenn says

I’d be interested in a site where you can select the factors important to you that be quantitatively measured. Some things like not too far (or too near) family are qualitative factors only. For me that means minimal allergies like I and my wife endure in Saint Louis (a wonderful region in many ways,) lower median humidity, temperature not too frequently over 99 degrees or frequently under 32 degrees, median or lower cost of living, midway between Missouri (daughters) and California (Brother, sons, niece, nephew,) conservative, and (due to Hispanic/Anglo/Indian family backgrounds,) someplace moderately culturally mixed. Our best answer so far has been Central New Mexico. Multiple Summer visits of 1-2 weeks and a Fall visit of just over 1 week to Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Rio Rancho, and Taos (Evergreen allergies alone killed Taos,) have reinforced our impressions. We want to visit in Winter and Spring before our 2016 retirements to be sure. Gracias, Glenn

January 11th, 2012 | #

» Our 2011 Best Places to Retire List: The Sunbelt Rules Topretirements says

[...] February 22, 2011 – The Sunbelt continues to dominate when it comes to the places that baby boomers are considering for retirement. Topretirements.com has just published its 5th annual list of the 100 most popular places to retire on its site, and this year the trend toward the Sunbelt continues even stronger — 77 of the 100 top positions were held by towns in the Sunbelt. Florida dominated the list, taking 26 of the spots (it held 23 in 2010), followed by North Carolina (11) and South Carolina and Arizona (7 each). Note: We will be updating this article for 2012 in late January, 2012. To make sure you don’t miss our new list, sign up for our free weekly “Best Places to Retire” newsletter. See also “The Worst States for Retirement – 2012“. [...]

January 11th, 2012 | #

BullsFan says

I don’t understand how an assessment of Illinois can conclude Illinois is a “worst” place to retire. Sure the fiscal health is lousy– but that’s not impacting people (yet, I assume). And retirees are incredibly shielded from that fiscal health problem because 100% of retirement income is not taxed in the state tax code. So, you are mostly left with complaining about the weather.

January 12th, 2012 | #

Walter Mead says

I’ve lived in downstate Illinois for 51 years and have been retired for 16 of those years. The state fiscal mess has not yet impacted on the state’s residents and will not likely impact significantly on retirees. Those who were employees of the state (e.g.,I retired from teaching at a state university) are not taxed on any of their pension income that was earned during their employment by the state. Except for the cold winters, Illinois is presently a great state for retirees.:neutral::neutral::neutral:

January 12th, 2012 | #

Bill says

Is there a State by State ranking of best or worst places to retire. I know you published the 10 worst places, but what’s number 11, 12 and so on. Editor’s note: Good question. In 2011 we came developed a list of the 10 Best States to Retire – we will be updating it soon. The worst states after 10 started to fall off quickly – in other words they aren’t nearly as bad as say the top 7 or 8. But in the 11th through 15 spots would probably be MD, CA, WV, NE, and MI.

January 12th, 2012 | #

George W says

Very helpful article. Wouldn’t it have been great to be smart enough to make all the right decisions over the past five decades? Gosh, I would have been both wealthy and well known, I am sure. Alas, I made many, many bad choises, and, from my mistaks, learned little more than bad things do happen to good people. Of course other people and institutions made an equal number of bad decisions that hurt me. Take it all together and what I difference does it make at age 75? For me not too much except to realize that we are not the producer, director and actor in our lives. Best to take life less seriously and try to find a bit of happiness each day as it passes by.

January 12th, 2012 | #

NJ Ranks 6th Worst For Retirement [AUDIO] | WOBM-AM 1160 & 1310 says

[...] a lot of it has to do with taxes.John Brady operates the website, “TopRetirements.com“. His analysis shows northeast states with high taxes put a large burden on retirees. Of Jersey’s [...]

January 13th, 2012 | #

Your Golden Years in Connecticut? Forget about it. | says

[...] just confirms what we have already suspected, but  Connecticut has been deemed the worst state in the country in which to retire.  Thank you Governor Malloy, thank you State Senator Bob Duff, and thanks to [...]

January 13th, 2012 | #

Semi-retired says

As a CT resident and a senior one at that, I can’t think of any place in the US that I like more or appreciate the many wonderful and beautiful opportunities right here at home. Of course, as a senior, I too want to avoid cold weather (even if we don’t have a blizzard this year 67″ of snow last year) and the unfavorable tax rates on seniors here in CT. Please avoid the laying of blame on either political party as the debt problem in CT goes back nearly fifteen years and both parties have run this state. Where I live is extremely affluent and virtually 75% Republican but the reality is that CT economics is largely dependent upon the defense industry from Groton (submarines and naval warfare) to Hartford (weapons production) and Stratford (Skikorsky helicopers) etc. When the defense budgets go up and more people are hired, finances improve. When DOD budgets are cut, the state loses revenue. Also note that most of the country’s hedgefunds are headquartered in CT as are a substantial portion of the insurance industry. So, let’s get off blaming particular people or parties as both parties have suffered through the same problems.

January 14th, 2012 | #

The 10 Worst States to Retire In: They’re Frosty and Costly | Mesa Az News, Weather, Jobs, and Hotels says

[...] has compiled a list of the 10 worst states in which to retire, based on five factors: fiscal health, property taxes, income taxes, cost of living and [...]

January 15th, 2012 | #

Fred says

If Connecticut is the worst state for retirement, why does this Newsletter/blog/discussion post come out of Connecticut? It is my understanding that the person who runs it has retired and this is the job/business he created for his retirement. Editor’s Comment. Yes, I live in Connecticut most of the year. We try to be objective in what we present here (even if it hurts!). We dearly love the State, but it is not a friendly place for retirees for the reasons presented. We are fortunate that we are able to live here where so many of our friends and many relatives also live. Like we said in the article, there are a lot more reasons to retire somewhere than just the financial ones.

January 15th, 2012 | #

Fred says

I understand. I also live in Connecticut and my wife and I are planning to retire in a few years. When we do retire, we will be leaving the state, like so many others. I estimate that I will save at least $1500 a month by leaving Connecticut. We will be moving to either Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, or Florida. Living in the South will not bother us, we have lived there in the past, unlike some other Yankees who have trouble adjusting. The $1500 comes from being able to at least cut my PITI in half for an equal house/condo, no longer having an oil bill for heat and hot water (as I write this it is 11 degrees, electric rates in Connecticut are the second highest in the country, Hawaii is the highest) and not having my Social Security taxed along with so many other taxes in Connecticut. In addition, our children have all fled Connecticut to that area of the South, so it only makes sense for us to go there. They fled Connecticut because of the high taxes and high cost of living years ago. This is a problem for many families in the state. The young people are leaving because it is difficult to find jobs that pay enough for them to be able to live independently and not have to come back and live with Mom and Dad after college. When they head south and west, they can do that. Connecticut is in the business of exporting people, jobs and businesses to the rest of the country because it is so expensive to live hear and do business. Last year, the state imposed the highest tax increase in the history of the state. The fact is, that state is in a similar condition to Illinois or California. It is just that Connecticut does not get a lot of attention because we do not have a major city or media center in the state so people do not pay a lot of attention to what goes on here. We are between Boston and New York, not fly-over country, but drive-through country. A very pretty state to be sure, with a lot of history, beautiful colonial towns, and wonderful places on Long Island Sound, but one you can drive through on your way to a major metro in 2+ hours.

January 16th, 2012 | #

Bob says

Did you know that the state of Illinois has no income tax on retirement income, including pensions and 401-Ks!!! This more than makes up for any other shortcomings. Editor’s Comment: Very true, IL is very friendly about just every kind of retirement pension, including SS. One problem is that IL’s property tax is 6th highest in the nation. Another is that because there is a flat 5% income tax, all non-retirement income is taxed at a pretty hefty rate.

January 16th, 2012 | #

Jack Bolly says

Don’t forget sales tax and gasoline taxes in Illinois – among the highest in country. Also, Gov Quinn is wanting to start to tax retirement income based income level. It’s getting worse.

January 16th, 2012 | #

Jeri gonzalez says

My husband and I retired from South Fla to Western North Carolina. It is just beautiful being in the foothills of the mountains. Taxes are low, expenses are low, insurance is low, health care is fantastic and we find ourselves sharing the area with many “half backs.” Northerners or MidWesterners used to move to Fla, hate it, and then come half way back, which is usual. Four perfect seasons clinch the deal!

January 17th, 2012 | #

Charles Ostin says

West Virginia? Surely you jest! Yes, WV wants retirees’ income, but offers NO INCENTIVES, particularly to the middle class.

January 17th, 2012 | #

David says

This is a “we hate liberal states” list, not a “best place to retire” list. No mention is made of factors such as climate (which is a financial AND a halth issue- how much does it cost to run your air conditioning onstantly in a high-humidity state?) or public services (on which people on fixed incomes are especially dependent?). The state of Texas is in much worse budgetary shape than just about every state mentioned, but it misses your list- why? What about a clean environment- aren’t older folks especially susceptible to toxic air and water? I could go on…really though, the political bias is obvious. Me, I’ll retire where I live and love it, California. Editors note: In an effort to keep politics out of this Forum we made a few small edits to this and some other posts here.

January 17th, 2012 | #

alan says

This state is horrific to live in..highest gas (double) tax in the nation…highest alcohol/cig taxes…highest property taxes…if u have a 400,000 house expect to pay like 10k a year in taxes….sell your house? another tax!….double dip state income tax…sales tax…every tax u can think of …If i didnt have little kids here, id be otta here

January 18th, 2012 | #

Drew Gilliland says

There are so many other factors that are relevant to retirement besides weather and taxes (although both are very important). I believe that family, friends, and familiarity play just as important a role in maintaining a quality of living. A lot of times it seems that moving away is based on fiscal reasons with the expectation that you can travel and visit family and friends. Health issues and comfort issues sometimes get in the way of this.

January 19th, 2012 | #

Cynthia says

I live in Massachusetts and my husband and I are about 5 years from retirement. We have considered some of the Soutern/Western states to retire to, but eliminated them because of things not mentioned in your article – Florida (too humid in the summer), Texas, Nevada, Arizona (too many illegal immigrants), Louisiana (hurricanes, flooding, natural disasters), Mississippi, Alabama (deficient health care and public services). You also make too much of high property taxes – if a retiree wants to dodge high property taxes then RENT, don’t own. My husband and I have definitely decided on Maine as our summer/fall living destination. It has nice beaches, great (not humid) summer weather, and a reasonable cost of living. We are still looking at a winter/spring place, and are currently considering Virginia or the Carolinas. Your article is biased toward the Northern/Midwestern states. I will take Maine (one of those Northern states on your “bad places to retire” list) over Texas or Florida any day of the week!

January 20th, 2012 | #

Tess in CT says

Interesting article. A caution to all before moving, however, to carefully run the numbers. A few years ago we sold 20 acres in Montana we had once considered for retirement and discovered we would have paid more in state tax there that year than in CT. (As for its weather, Montana does reliably hold summer every July.) I also recently considered buying a small condo near my mother in Ohio but after adding to the property tax, the sewer tax, water tax, school tax, town tax, etc, it added to more than ours here. (And Ohio weather? Columbus has more cloudy days than Seattle.) We retired right here. I no longer listen to the Connecticut bashers calling talk radio (who needs nine hours of whining negativity?). So it snowed last night. I saw a young mountain lion race across our property into the woods this morning and just came in from taking photos of its tracks. I’m happy to be alive here.

January 20th, 2012 | #

Jon says

There seems to be an unhealthy obsession with income taxation and cost of living associated with this list. Anyone who is about to retire should be old enough to remember that state fiscal crises are nothing new and cost of living is a more slippery concept for retirees. Remember, this is retirement. I hope no one is realistically considering a 30 year mortgage on a four bedroom house, complete with .5 acres of grass to mow that will be taxed accordingly. Access to good health care institutions and good public services should be heavily weighted with rehspect to any list of potential retirement locations. Moreover, the social environment should be seriously concerned, i.e., availability of intellectually stimulating people, institutions and opportunities.

January 20th, 2012 | #

Diana says

David-We would love to retire to California, but it is too messed up economically; we know, we lived there already once. Politics has very little to do with our decision. We have to think about how far our retirement income will go. That’s the reality of it. Some states are just too expensive for us to even consider. As I read what people write, there is some good advice, some off the wall advice and some some “what the heck is this person thinking” advice. I enjoy this forum. I sure would like to hear more about Conway, SC and that area…

January 21st, 2012 | #

Natalie says

After reading all of the posts, it becomes more clear to me why Prescott, AZ is rated 3rd of 100 in the top 100 list of favored retirement locations. We’ve lived in the Prescott since 2007 and really like it here. The weather is temperate with mild winters and summers that peak at about 99 degrees. The Prescott area took a big hit along with the rest of Arizone in the housing market, so the previous high prices have reduced dramatically. For veterans, the Prescott VA Hospital is highly ranked across the VA Hospital system. My husband uses it exclusively for his medical care and has been very satisfied. Other medical care can be a problem though. Most doctors will either not take Medicare/Medicare Advantage or are not taking new patients. For the most part, Prescott is conservative Republican. The extended area of Prescott Valley adds additional housing, shopping, and entertainment opportunities. If you are still working and looking for employment opportunities, they likely won’t be in the Prescott area unless you are in the medical field or are interested in retail.

January 22nd, 2012 | #

Corey says

Housing still overpriced in Illinois North of I-80 and East of I-39, and property taxes here are brutal. Based off over-inflated “market value”. 2010 Census tells the story of Illinois and as soon as my youngest is done with school, we are fleeing this state. I pay more in property taxes than what most in surrounding states pay for their monthly mortgage payment. Source: http://www.topretirements.com/blog/great-towns/worst-states-to-retire-2012-northeast-and-midwest-come-up-losers.html/