Health for life

As with war, politics, and solving a Scooby Doo mystery, when it comes to saving cash and eating well, nothing is more important than having a plan. Grocery lists keep you from blowing dough on extraneous stuff. Price books give you the best possible food costs. Menu planners ensure you’re not scrambling to put dinner on the table, thus preventing dangerous bouts of crazy.

My own time-tested system combines a half-baked price book, hastily scrawled grocery lists, and yelling, “HON?! What are you in the mood for?” It works for now, but I’m thinking of going the pen-and-paper route. It’s working for Leigh, after all.

Fortunately, there are gazillions of downloadable menu planners, grocery lists, and price books all over the web. Unfortunately, many aren’t free, and involve some kind of weird sign-up or registration. Unless it’s for health insurance or Idol voting (Bowersox 4-evs), I hate doing that.

So, for your organizing pleasure, here are 36 free templates that’ll get you cooking. To know:

• There are no memberships or sign-ups required.
• All files are printable images, PDFs, or Excel spreadsheets.
• To make sure the sites were kosher, I downloaded/opened at least one form from each page. My computer has not virusized yet. (KNOCK ON WOOD.) Still, use at your own risk.
• Again: free.

If you’re craving more than a basic Word document, starred (*) entries go beyond the usual cells and tables. Their artsy graphic designs are Etsy worthy, and will look particularly cute hanging on your fridge.

Readers, if you know of any good templates/spreadsheets/whatever I missed, add ‘em in the comment section. Prettified ones will receive extra bonus points. (Meaning: a quiet “yay” in my small Brooklyn apartment.)

MULTIPLE RESOURCES
These websites include many different kinds of templates.

Better Budgeting
Basic weekly menu planner and weekly dinner planner, along with a grocery list organized by aisle.

Free Printable Grocery List
Dozens of grocery lists and menu planners, both blank and with pre-formatted checklists. Some have cute (but minimal) designs. Click on the sidebar and start printin’.

I’m an Organizing Junkie
Grocery list and weekly menu planner/grocery list combo. Formatted in boxes. A twist!

Keep and Share
Nice compilation of grocery lists for diet restrictions, including gluten-free, kosher, diabetic, lactose-free. Includes a pair of massive two-pagers, as well.

Mom’s Budget
Weekly and monthly meal planners, price logs, pantry inventories, and grocery lists in blue, green, orange, pink, and purple.

Money Saving Mom
Fourteen free downloads, including weekly, bi-weekly, and monthly menu planners as well as a master prep, ingredient, and shopping lists.


COMBINATIONS
Each of these single documents will do double-duty as say, a menu planner AND grocery list.

*A Feathered Nest
Menu planner/grocery list combo that’s super cute without being twee.

About.com
Weekly menu planner and shopping list.

*Carina Gardner
Anthropologie-esque weekly menu planner with a grocery list on the bottom. Nice! (Its the one pictured at the top.)

*Design Sponge
A weekly menu planner/grocery list combo, as well as blank and checklist-style grocery lists. Cute!

Organized Home
Weekly menu planner and shopping list

*The Project Girl
Menu planner and shopping list, with the best design out of everything here. Very pretty!

Saving Your Cents
Weekly menu planner and shopping list. Simple and clean. Use #1. (The others are already on this list.)


PRICE BOOKS
Excel documents unless otherwise noted.

Cheap Cooking
You have to do a little deleting here, but it should work otherwise.

It’s Your Money
A larger file requiring unzipping.

No Credit Needed
Uncomplicated and easy to figure out. My favorite of these options.

Organized Home
This one’s not an Excel spreadsheet. It’s a fill-in-the-blank-with-your-own-pen-style price book.


MENU PLANNERS

Busy Bee Lifestyle
Weekly planner with separate columns for kids and adults. With a picture of a bee! (Note: I like bees.)

*Disney Family Fun
Dinner planner only, but with a cute, kid-oriented design.

*From the Kitchen of…
Super fun weekly planner. Be aware that it’s a big file, and has to be unzipped. I don’t know why, but it reminds me a little of a Lynda Barry cartoon.

Home Life Weekly
Rainbow colored weekly planner.

The Home School Mom
Has one with a weekly activity planner on the side, and one without. Pretty basic.

Main Street Mom
Super, super basic design. But effective.

Meal Planning Mommies
Weekly plan with “I’m a meal planning mommy!” written across the top. Helpful if you forget who you are, not helpful if youre male.

Organized Home
Weekly menu planner made especially for notebooks.

*Petit Elefant
This one involves some re-sizing, but has a totally cute format and design.

Unclutterer
Available in spreadsheet or PDF form. Clean and efficient.

Vertex 42
Basic weekly, bi-weekly, and monthly menu planners in both portrait and landscape print styles.


GROCERY LISTS

Excel Template
Three printable spreadsheets of varying sizes, for general-to-specific shopping.

Mom Ready
Simple and straightforward checklist for your weekly trip.

Painted Gold
Simple blank list organized by department.

Pike’s Pickles
PDF files with both a blank list and formatted checklist.

Split Coast Stampers
Another checklist-style Excel spreadsheet. Also in PDF format if you scroll down a little further

Squawkfox
Landscape-style one-page checklist with many attractive boxes. Pretty thorough.

The Ultimatest Grocery List
Huge single-page checklist, with a massive bonus list for vegetarians! Maybe the best option if you’re looking for this kind of thing.

Vertex 42
Blank template organized by category. Handy.

Readers, whatchoo got? The comments are open!

~~~
If you like this article, you might also enjoy:

• Cheap Healthy Good’s Ultimate Guide to Kitchen Equipment
• Information Central: 32 Free Food Charts, Checklists, and Wallet-Sized Guides
• Pantry of the Gods

When pundits claim that health care spending is out of control, what do they mean?

Does it mean that Massachusetts outlawing of hospitals excessive price increases is a good thing? That rolling back the Affordable Care Act will automatically usher in a new round of price gouging? That when the DMCB generates another medical co-pay, the DMCB spouse is right to wave a copy of the bill around and demand that the DMCB do something now to orm the U.S. health care system?

As the Disease Management Care Blog understands it, what the pundits, Massachusetts legislators, patient advocates and the DMCB spouse mean is that more and more of our nations gross domestic product (GDP) is being spent on health care services.

That assumes wed all be better off if the U.S. were spending its national treasure on stuff like manufacturing, technology, education and innovation. So, instead of committing just under 18% of our output on hospital care, physician services, nursing homes, medical devices and drugs, wed all be better off if we spent it on the production of solar panels, Facebook, public school vouchers and iPhone apps.

That way we wouldnt be struggling with the prospect of another 1% gain on GDP (to 19%) and the looming possibility that well soon be spending a whopping fifth of our economy on health care.

But is the spending on health care really that bad?  As noted here, the DMCB pointed out that non-government-insured health care costs have been moderating for years.  Whats more, recent year-to-year increases in health care spending in the U.S. are actually lower than much of the developed world.

And now theres one more reason to doubt the prevailing wisdom about rising health care costs. Charles Roehrig, Ani Turner, Paul Hughes-Cromwick and George Miller of the curiously name Altarum Institute point out that the normally rising and falling GDP associated with routine economic cycles can make steady health care costs look relatively worse or better than they appear.

To dampen the impact of a cyclic economy on the assessment of health care spending, the authors compared health spending to U.S. "potential GDP." Apparently, this obscure economic metric has been used by economists to portray what GDP would be if the economy were operating at full employment of the current population and without any idle production capacity.  This metric has the advantage of "smoothing out" many of the peaks and valleys of the normally measured GDP.

Using potential GDP as the comparative baseline, the authors found that health care spending growth gained less than 1% of the economy starting in July of 2005, well before the onset of the Great Recession of 2008. In other words, during that time, the health care industry grew pretty much at the same rate as the "potential" GDP. 

Whats more, in June of 2009, health care cost growth gained an additional 1% of potential GDP, only to fall back below 1% again in May of 2011.  Most of the increases seemed to be accounted for by Medicare Part D spending; if that particular cost is backed out, excess growth would have been 1% or less throughout the measurement period.

The authors can only hypothesize on why health care costs didnt outstrip the U.S. economy. While it could be partially accounted for by the rising numbers of uninsured (who would have avoided going to hospitals or seeing doctors), the authors point out that other trends could have played a role: changing physician practice standards, increasing numbers of salaried physicians, market pressures pushing down on fee schedules, increases in patients out-of-pocket expenses making them less likely to access the care system, new care models (including disease management?), the increasing use of generics, previously expensive drugs going off patent and the drop-off in the number of "blockbuster" pharmaceuticals.

This means when the economy bounces back and/or Obamacare results in more insured Americans, there is no guarantee that underlying health care inflation will return.

Weve hit the $200 mark! It took less than an hour! YAY!

Sweet readers, thank you so so so so much! Thank you especially to:


You guys are the best. Betsy, Dolinda, Leigh, and I really, really appreciate it. We cant wait to see Alines new kitchen!

People think Im crazy.  When I say things like "grains arent healthy" or "saturated fat might even be good for you", people probably tend to ignore me; everyone knows grains should be the foundation of a healthy diet, and saturated fat causes heart disease.  Today, Id like to bring up a few historic examples of the ridiculous "facts" we used to know.  Brace yourself.

1.  Doctors dont need to wash their hands.  Before the 1920s, it was not common practice for doctors to wash their hands with soap before working with a patient, or even between surgeries.  Doctors didnt realize its importance until a Hungarian physician, Ignaz Semmelweis, discovered it was an effective means of preventing common diseases.  Could you imagine a doctor performing a surgical procedure on you, right after he had his hands all up inside another patient?  It used to happen.

2.  Frontal Lobotomy for mental illness.  In the mid 1900s, a procedure called the lobotomy was used in an attempt to cure mental illness.  In fact, Antonio Egas Moniz received the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 1949 for his discovery of the therapeutic value of the procedure in treating certain conditions.  So what exactly is a frontal lobotomy?  Doctors would impale a patients head with a large needle, forming a rather large hole from the inside of the left eye socket all the way to the prontal cortex of the brain.  Yes, they literally stabbed patients in the head.  The procedure may have been somewhat effective in reducing symptoms of mental illness, but it predictably had side effects.  As many as 3% of patients were killed by the procedure, according to the 1970 Psychiatric Dictionary.  But besides that, it essentially made the patients easier to control by reducing their mental capacity.  Good for nurses in the psychiatric ward, bad for humanity in general.

Even if you didnt eat your veggies or drink your milk as a child, your height is still in your hands, reveal new findings by economists from the University of Southern California, Harvard University and Peking University.

Using unique data from a new massive longitudinal survey of 17,708 adults beginning at age 45, the researchers show for the first time that lifestyle choices we make in adulthood — and not just the hand were dealt as children — influence how tall we stand as we age.

"Had we only examined the correlations between measured height and health, we would have missed this important insight," said John Strauss, professor of economics at USC, and an investigator on a study published in the April 2013 issue of the American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. "The evidence shows that it is not only early-life events that are associated with how we age, but health decisions in later life as well."

While prior work has looked for the connection between height and health — both in childhood and adulthood — the researchers are the first to examine height loss as we age. They show that regardless of your maximum height, the loss of height over time is also an important indicator for other health issues as we age.

For example, the research reveals an especially strong relationship between height loss and cognitive health. Those who had lost more height were also much more likely to perform poorly on standard tests of cognitive health such as short-term memory, ability to perform basic arithmetic and awareness of the date.

Among the socioeconomic factors that correlate to height loss, urban dwellers had much less height loss than those in rural areas, the researchers found, in a country where there has been significant migration to urban areas in the last few decades. In addition, having completed primary school, rather than being illiterate, is associated with 0.9 cm less height shrinkage in men — a large difference when considering that overall average height loss for men is 3.3 cm. Completing high school meant an additional 1 cm less in shrinkage.

For women, having completed primary school was the difference in 0.6 cm of shrinkage, compared to average overall height decrease of 3.8 cm.

"Height has been recognized as an acceptable proxy for childhood health conditions, but there are complications there," says USC economist Geert Ridder, a co-investigator on the study. "Some of adult health might be determined by childhood circumstances, but people shrink differentially, and that shrinkage is also a measure of adult health conditions."

All humans go through physical changes with age, including an increase in body fat and decrease in bone mass. But a decrease in height can be further exacerbated by certain kinds of arthritis, inflammation of spine joints or osteoporosis, which other studies have shown are associated with such lifestyle choices as diet, exercise and smoking.

The researchers used new data from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study, a groundbreaking sampling project led by USC economist Strauss, Yaohui Zhao of the China Center for Economic Research (CCER) at Peking University and Gonghuan Yang of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, that covers 150 counties randomly chosen throughout China.

The baseline for the survey was collected from June 2011 to March 2012 and includes both subjective self-reported responses to survey questions as well as objective physical measurements such as blood tests. These physical measurements and personal interviews will be followed-up with the same 17,708 people every two years — capturing, for the first time, critical data about human aging in the most populous and most rapidly aging country in the world.

For example, recent changes in social security policy and health insurance in China provide a valuable opportunity for researchers to study how health care actually affects health and aging in a large population, with insights for other developing health care systems worldwide, as well as an opportunity to identify possible under-diagnosis of various chronic conditions.

The researchers will also be able to examine the role specific historical events in China may have had on long-term health, including whether there are health and aging differences among those who were "sent-down" during the Cultural Revolution.

The authors of this study aimed to examine the conclusions, statistical significance, and reproducibility in the literature on associations between specific foods and cancer risk.

Design: We selected 50 common ingredients from random recipes in a cookbook. PubMed queries identified recent studies that evaluated the relation of each ingredient to cancer risk. Information regarding author conclusions and relevant effect estimates were extracted. When >10 articles were found, we focused on the 10 most recent articles.

Results: Forty ingredients (80%) had articles reporting on their cancer risk. Of 264 single-study assessments, 191 (72%) concluded that the tested food was associated with an increased (n = 103) or a decreased (n = 88) risk; 75% of the risk estimates had weak (0.05 > P ≥ 0.001) or no statistical (P > 0.05) significance. Statistically significant results were more likely than nonsignificant findings to be published in the study abstract than in only the full text (P < 0.0001). Meta-analyses (n = 36) presented more conservative results; only 13 (26%) reported an increased (n = 4) or a decreased (n = 9) risk (6 had more than weak statistical support). The median RRs (IQRs) for studies that concluded an increased or a decreased risk were 2.20 (1.60, 3.44) and 0.52 (0.39, 0.66), respectively. The RRs from the meta-analyses were on average null (median: 0.96; IQR: 0.85, 1.10). Conclusions: Associations with cancer risk or benefits have been claimed for most food ingredients. Many single studies highlight implausibly large effects, even though evidence is weak. Effect sizes shrink in meta-analyses.
Related article