by Rupe | Nov 15, 2005 | Mad Musings
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Sorry, couch potatoes — the verdict is in: People who exercise regularly really do live longer.
In fact, people who get a good workout almost daily can add nearly four years to their life spans, according to the first study to quantify the impact of physical activity this way.
The researchers looked at records of more than 5,000 middle-aged and elderly Americans and found that those who had moderate to high levels of activity lived 1.3 to 3.7 years longer than those who got little exercise, largely because they put off developing heart disease — the nation’s leading killer. Men and women benefited about equally.
“This shows that physical activity really does make a difference — not only for how long you live but for how long you live a healthy life,” said Oscar H. Franco of the Erasmus M.C. University Medical Center in Rotterdam, who led the study, published yesterday in the Archives of Internal Medicine. “Being more physically active can give you more time.”
Previous studies have found that being physically active has a host of health benefits. It reduces the risk of being overweight and of developing many illnesses, improves overall quality of life, and lowers the mortality rate. But the new study is the first to directly calculate the effect on how long people live.
“This should encourage people to be more active — to take a more active role in their own health and not just sit and wait for a pill to prevent this or that or save your life,” Franco said.
Franco and his colleagues analyzed data from the Framingham Heart Study, a well-known research project that has followed 5,209 residents of a Massachusetts town for more than 40 years, collecting detailed information about their lifestyles and health.
The researchers calculated the effects of low, moderate or high levels of physical activity on life span, accounting for the possible effects of factors such as age, sex, education, and whether they smoked or had serious health problems.
People who engaged in moderate activity — the equivalent of walking for 30 minutes a day for five days a week — lived about 1.3 to 1.5 years longer than those who were less active. Those who took on more intense exercise — the equivalent of running half an hour a day five days every week — extended their lives by about 3.5 to 3.7 years, the researchers found.
The findings show that even for people who are already middle-aged, exercising more can add years to their lives, Franco said.
“This shows it’s never too late to start following a healthy lifestyle. It’s never too late to start exercising,” Franco said. “For example, instead of taking your car to your office, why don’t you take your bike or walk? Physical activity is very important for a healthy lifestyle.”
Other experts said the study was consistent with the growing evidence that exercising on a regular basis is one of the most important things people can do for their health.
“At the end of the day, this is more evidence that the sedentary lifestyle is the most devastating to health, longevity and chronic disease development,” said James O. Hill of the University of Colorado at Denver, adding that he hoped it might motivate more people to exercise. “Putting it in terms of life expectancy is something that’s relevant to people.”
While adding one to four years may not sound like a lot to some people, Franco, Hill and others said exercising regularly also enables people to live healthier lives, free from a host of chronic illnesses that can make it hard for people to enjoy their later years.
In addition, recent studies have also found that exercise has payoffs for the mind, too. It has been shown to improve overall well-being, reduce stress and depression, and cut the risk of Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia, several experts said.
“The benefits of physical activity extend well beyond the effects on longevity,” said JoAnn E. Manson of Harvard’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
The trouble is, many people seem to ignore the evidence, government recommendations and public health campaigns to be physically active.
Most Americans still fail to exercise regularly, and the number who exercise in their leisure time has been dropping, according to a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Franco and others noted that this and other studies show that people do not have to be exercise fanatics to reap the benefits. Adding just a little activity to the daily routine can have major benefits.
“What we’re talking about is small changes,” Hill said. “We’re telling people to get out and walk more. Fifteen, 20 or 30 minutes of walking each day is probably enough.”
by Rupe | Nov 15, 2005 | Mad Musings
Start Air University Graduate Course today. It is an 18 month program, hope to finish it in 8-12. Will make a schedule tomorrow on start compiling notes.
by Rupe | Nov 13, 2005 | Mad Musings
Washington Post Editorial
EDUCATORS ARE still mulling over the results of national standardized test scores released last month, which showed an unusually clear national trend: While there have been some slight improvements in elementary and middle school math scores, the rate of gain is slowing. Meanwhile, reading scores are stagnant. These results contrast sharply with the scores of many states’ own standardized tests, which purport to show clear gains. Already, some have pointed to this gap as evidence that the No Child Left Behind law, the president’s plan to make states set standards and show annual academic improvement, isn’t working.
In a narrow sense, the critics are right: The gap is indeed evidence that many states are still using tests that are too easy, and they have not faced up to the genuinely difficult challenge of improving their schools. But the gap does not negate the value of using standards and high-stakes testing to improve student performance. On the contrary, many of the states that have shown the most improvement are precisely the ones that have been using statewide standards for the longest period. One is Massachusetts, which has long used testing to measure achievement and is now at the top of the country in both reading and math. Another is Virginia, which, thanks to its Standards of Learning tests, has also made gains on national tests over the past five years. States that have not been using standards for quite so long have not done so well: In Maryland, for example, some scores have dropped since last year.
The gap has also set off a discussion of what, if anything, can be done at the national level to help states raise their students’ achievement levels. Some are advocating the setting of national standards, a proposition that sounds nice in theory but seems politically impossible in practice. For the first time, there is a national discussion of teacher quality, too: what it means, how to define it, how to improve it. The administration has launched teacher mentoring and teacher “e-learning” programs. Several states have reexamined their teacher training requirements. Others are arguing that states need to rethink their pay scales: The Education Trust recently surveyed teachers within a single California school district and discovered that the most experienced teachers, and therefore the best paid teachers, were all in wealthier schools. Inequality persists not only between districts, in other words, but within them.
The scores should also cause educators to think about the deeper causes of low student achievement. Teach for America, the charity that sends high-achieving college graduates to teach in low-income schools, recently published a survey of its alumni, who overwhelmingly believe that schools underrate children, fail to challenge them and resist imposing higher standards because they simply don’t believe the students will meet them. Higher expectations, Teach for America argues, can actually lead to higher test scores.
Standardized math and reading tests are, by themselves, not sufficient to improve American education. But without a recognition that higher standards are needed, improvement isn’t even possible.
by Rupe | Nov 12, 2005 | Money Matters
Too many people are living in the dark when it comes to financial matters, and their futures are bleaker than they realize. The annual Retirement Confidence Survey offers some depressing — and surprising — statistics.
By Selena Maranjian (TMF Selena)
November 11, 2005
Things are often not what they appear to be. Take that couple you envy so much — the ones who live next door with the Lexus and the wide-screen high-definition TV. They might be deep in debt. They might even be contemplating bankruptcy (though it’s now more difficult to do, thanks to tougher rules). You might imagine that your buddy at work, who wears fancy suits and has two kids on the honor roll at a good school, has a stock portfolio brimming with all of the companies you wish you’d have invested in. Believe it or not, though, your buddy may have little or no money invested in stocks at all, and perhaps he just lost a bundle on Refco.
Want to peek into the financial lives of your loved ones and other fellow Americans? Look no further than the annual Retirement Confidence Survey, sponsored by the Employee Benefit Research Institute, the American Savings Education Council, and Mathew Greenwald & Associates.
The facts
Here are some shocking statistics from the survey revealing that far too many people are thinking way too incorrectly or insufficiently about financial matters. Consider sending this article to people you care about who aren’t tending their financial gardens — it may be a wake-up call for which they thank you years from now. (Just click on the “Email this Page” link at the bottom of this page.)
Most workers (55%) find themselves behind schedule in their retirement savings. Why? The cost of everyday expenses (49%), child-rearing expenses (39%), and medical costs (35%). Some 51% of workers find that high costs are keeping them from saving for retirement as they want to do.
To this, permit me to suggest another cause: procrastination. Thinking about and dealing with retirement issues is just not so appealing to many of us. It’s easy to wince and put it off. Don’t do it, though. You need to tend to your retirement now. That’s why we offer an inexpensive monthly newsletter to help. Easy to read in a single sitting and chock full of inspiration and practical advice, Rule Your Retirement is well worth trying — for free.)
Just 42% of surveyed workers have bothered to try to figure out how much money they will need in retirement. Of this subset that has tried, 35% consulted a financial advisor, 37% came up with its own estimate, and 10% “simply guessed”!
Oh dear. I can imagine the survey designers tossing in the “I guessed” option at the last minute, just in case it represented a notable portion of respondents, and then being shocked that one in 10 people have done just that.
This is a big, big deal. Your retirement can last a third of your life, or more. It’s a time when your income is typically lower than you’re used to. And since that income is fixed, with no performance bonuses, you’ve got to be careful in order to make ends meet. Yet very few people have any plan for how they’ll get by. They’ve underprepared, have simply guessed about their needs, and are behind schedule. This is a recipe for disaster.
Some 66% of workers believe that they’ll reach their retirement goals on time.
That looks like a good statistic, right? But it’s probably not. It’s most likely just discouraging evidence that too many people are deluding themselves. If they’re behind schedule, how are they going to turn things around? Will their medical costs go down? I doubt it.
Fully 79% of workers expect to have “at least an adequate standard of living in retirement.”
Again, one has to wonder where all this confidence is coming from. Even if you’re invested in some terrific companies, such as eBay (Nasdaq: EBAY) or Dell (Nasdaq: DELL) or PepsiCo (NYSE: PEP), that’s not enough to base a comfortable retirement on. If they grow at a whopping 15% per year for the next 20 years, but you’ve just invested $10,000 in each, you’ll end up with $490,000 or so. Enough to retire on? Probably not. And it’s unlikely that they’ll grow at 15%, too. You should be conservative in your estimates. An annual growth of 8% will leave you with about $140,000.
Just 62% of workers and their spouses are currently saving.
What are the other 38% doing?
About 60% of workers cite significant debt as a problem, with half reporting credit card debt. These folks are among those most likely to be behind in their retirement saving.
This, sadly, does make some sense. If you’re drowning in credit card debt, perhaps paying 20% or more in interest on your obligations, it doesn’t make sense to be investing money that could pay off this debt in something like stocks, which might gain 10% per year. It’s smarter to pay off the high-interest debt first.
Among those who have estimated their retirement needs, 44% said they made changes to their retirement planning as a result.
This should be a wake-up call for all of us who have been putting off examining our retirement needs. A big chunk of people who do so make some changes. This means that there’s a good chance your financial life is in need of some critical changes — you just haven’t taken the time to realize it yet. It would serve you well to assess your situation and take action now.
Medical expenses are causing a lot of stress — 51% of workers said they are not confident of having enough money to pay for nursing home care or other home care. Some 41% had doubts about being able to pay for their medical expenses in retirement.
Living in retirement
Some retirees were also surveyed:
Among retirees, 47% said their income from all sources, including Social Security, employer-provided pensions, and savings, is lower than when they were working.
“Asked to describe their financial lifestyle in retirement, 71% said it is ‘adequate.’ 10% described themselves as well off, but nearly double that number (17%) said they were struggling.”
The solutions
So now you’ve seen the bad news. And it’s pretty bad indeed. Fortunately, there is good news. Financial literacy initiatives are in motion across the nation, targeting adults and young people alike. There’s much to be hopeful about.
by Rupe | Nov 9, 2005 | Military-Political
By SCOTT SHANE
Published: November 8, 2005
WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 – In an apparent slip, a top American intelligence official has revealed at a public conference what has long been secret: the amount of money the United States spends on its spy agencies.
At an intelligence conference in San Antonio last week, Mary Margaret Graham, a 27-year veteran of the Central Intelligence Agency and now the deputy director of national intelligence for collection, said the annual intelligence budget was $44 billion.
The number was reported Monday in U.S. News and World Report, whose national security reporter, Kevin Whitelaw, was among the hundreds of people in attendance during Ms. Graham’s talk.
“I thought, ‘I can’t believe she said that,’ ” Mr. Whitelaw said on Monday. “The government has spent so much time and energy arguing that it needs to remain classified.”
The figure itself comes as no great shock; most news reports in the last couple of years have estimated the budget at $40 billion. But the fact that Ms. Graham would say it in public is a surprise, because the government has repeatedly gone to court to keep the current intelligence budget and even past budgets as far back as the 1940’s from being disclosed.
Carl Kropf, a spokesman for the office of the director of national intelligence, John D. Negroponte, said Ms. Graham would not comment. Mr. Kropf declined to say whether the figure, which Ms. Graham gave last Monday at an annual conference on intelligence gathered from satellite and other photographs, was accurate, or whether her revelation was accidental.
Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, expressed amused satisfaction that the budget figure had slipped out.
“It is ironic,” Mr. Aftergood said. “We sued the C.I.A. four times for this kind of information and lost. You can’t get it through legal channels.”
Only for a few past years has the budget been disclosed. After Mr. Aftergood’s group first sued for the budget figure under the Freedom of Information Act in 1997, George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, decided to make public that year’s budget, $26.6 billion. The next year Mr. Tenet did the same, revealing that the 1998 fiscal year budget was $26.7 billion.
But in 1999, Mr. Tenet reversed that policy, and budgets since then have remained classified with the support of the courts. Last year, a federal judge refused to order the C.I.A. to release its budget totals for 1947 to 1970 – except for the 1963 budget, which Mr. Aftergood showed had already been revealed elsewhere.
In court and in response to inquiries, intelligence officials have argued that disclosing the total spying budget would create pressure to reveal more spending details, and that such revelations could aid the nation’s adversaries.
That argument has been rejected by many members of Congress and outside experts, who note that most of the Defense Department budget is published in exhaustive detail without evident harm.
The national commission on the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, recommended that both the overall intelligence budget and spending by individual agencies be made public “in order to combat the secrecy and complexity” it found was harming national security.
“The taxpayers deserve to know what they’re spending for intelligence,” said Lee H. Hamilton, the former congressman who was vice chairman of the commission.
Even more important, Mr. Hamilton said, public discussion of the total budgets of intelligence agencies would encourage Congress to exercise “robust oversight.”
The debate over whether the intelligence budget should be secret dates to at least the 1970’s, said Loch K. Johnson, an intelligence historian who worked for the Church Committee investigation of the intelligence agencies by the Senate in the mid-1970’s. Mr. Johnson said the real reason for secrecy might have less to do with protecting intelligence sources and methods than with protecting the bureaucracy.
“Maybe there’s a fear that if the American people knew what was being spent on intelligence, they’d be even more upset at intelligence failures,” Mr. Johnson said.
