Comments
The most cost-efficient way to convert money into personal health
I just replied to an EA member who raised the question "What is the most cost-efficient way to convert money into personal health?" so I thought I'll share it with you.
I'm pretty biased as a social psychology student, but some measures translates to health (physical and mental) better than cigarettes...the measure that was most correlated with longetivity was relationships and friendships (quantity and quality. It says Longest Study On Happiness but it's not only happiness, it's also longetivity).
So I guess find an affordable social hobby where you can meet new and good people.
Dancing, singing, martial arts (Capoeira is very social), ball games, off course, volunteering (socially). For me it's improvization. :)
And even cheaper (but as far as I remember, less effective than socializing, still more effective than not smoking) - avoid long sitting. Sitting is deadly. Stand up and make a little walk every once in a while.
Thank you so much for writing this. It’s really important to take care of one’s health and so I’m glad you bring this up.
Of course, social relationships are important, but the recent talk about the loneliness epidemic (/ depression) is there for a reason-it’s just quite hard for people to establish satisfying social relationships and I don't think anyone has quite cracked it yet. Quitting smoking, alcohol, salt, and sugar is also hard–they are quite addictive. The jury on sitting seems to still out [1, 2, 3, 4] - it might be that exercise can effectively eliminate associations with ill-health.
If you factor in time costs, willpower and other constraints, then I think the below are better ways to effectively improve your own health.
Disclaimer: this is not medical advice, please consult your doctor before doing any of this. Also, this is based on experiences of a socio-economically-privileged, abled-bodied male.
Lately, I’ve been wondering whether this is a lot of effortful micro-optimization and whether not bigger things in life are not much more effective. For example, moving to a healthier city/country with better public health/ less air/noise pollution. Thoughts on this?
Even lower barrier for exercise is a treadmill desk or recumbent stationary bike, both of which allow reading and computer work.
For most people, cutting salt intake is harmful, not helpful. Salt isn't new to human diets, and it isn't a matter of addiction; it's just a necessary nutrient.
Sugar can be harmful, but only insofar as it crowds out other calorie sources which are better. When people try to cut sugar, they often fail (and mildly harm themselves) because they neglect to replace it.
I agree that, if sustained throughout the lifecourse, then moderate consumption of salt and sugar is not harmful. I wrote this sentence with metabolic syndrome in mind - this affects very many people as they get older.
On salt: I agree that salt is essential and not new to human diets, and that for the majority of people reducing sodium by a lot is harmful.
However, many people have high blood pressure and should avoid excessive sodium consumption [see study, study]. Also, many scholars argue that salt can be described as addictive [see 'Salt addiction hypothesis'] and some implicate it in making food hyperpalatable (also see 'The Hungry Brain' by a former OPP consultant).
On sugar: the WHO recommends a reduced intake of free sugars throughout the lifecourse.
Not sure what you mean that people harm themselves (you mean that they mess with their basal metabolic rate? I think this is only happens in extreme cases, not when, say, just cutting out sugar sweetened beverages). Thinking about this in terms of the reversal test, recommending increasing sugar intake (which is happening anyway) does not make sense to me on average.
Were you under the impression that I was disagreeing with the sodium-reduction guidelines because I was merely unaware that they existed? This is an area of considerable controversy.
No, my model of your view is that you were aware of the guidelines, but believe that sodium-reduction guidelines are on net harmful. Am I correct?
Both too little and too much salt is bad, but based on two the more recent meta-analyses I linked above, that deal with this controversy in the Ioannidis article you linked, I think the WHO salt reduction guidelines are on net good.
As a rule, public health messaging should be tell people to watch their salt intake to reduce their blood pressure, because:
pressure would be harmed because they adapt a very low sodium diet on the basis of sodium reduction guidelines