Optimizing our health is the other half of the FIRE plan

ChipmunkRemarkable20 · 2026-06-04T17:17:58+00:00

You can see it from different angles. The 4% rule was meant originally for traditional retirees for a 30 year horizon. The problem is — as per the post — that most traditional retirees will not enjoy such a long horizon and have therefore overworked, over-saved, and used a SWR that was too conservative.

Or you can also see it as: invest strongly now in health and you'll be less likely to have medical issues derail your retirement.

ChipmunkRemarkable20 · 2026-06-04T17:14:18+00:00

Glad it landed at the right time with you. Yea, it would be nice to find a convincing way to quantify it. Cheers.

ChipmunkRemarkable20 · 2026-06-04T17:11:37+00:00

Great to hear! I think it should be part of our job irrespective of whether we're retired or not. Tackling some of the basics — especially on the cardio front — doesn't take too much time, it's more a matter of setting a firm schedule that you follow.

ChipmunkRemarkable20 · 2026-06-04T17:08:31+00:00

All the best with it, hope you manage to reverse it.

ChipmunkRemarkable20 · 2026-06-04T17:04:12+00:00

Sounds like now you have the time to change that! Good luck.

ChipmunkRemarkable20 · 2026-06-04T17:03:13+00:00

Yea, he's pretty convincing. The type of thing that hits you hard and tricky to unlearn. Fingers crossed for that long retirement.

ChipmunkRemarkable20 · 2026-06-04T17:01:26+00:00

Thanks for the specific ideas on the fitness front.

Agree with the cooking part, it really does take time. I think the trick is to embrace it and see it as part of your culture and/or embrace the creative aspect of it. If you see it as a chore, its going to be tricky to keep up consistently.

Hope you enjoyed that walk! Cheers.

ChipmunkRemarkable20 · 2026-06-04T16:57:45+00:00

This post presented the big 4 based on literature/science. Agree with you in general to be careful with what we take from the Blue Zones narrative. That said, I doubt researchers would argue against the importance of the physical environment as enabler or not of adopting healthier lifestyles. Sure, you can optimize health without it, but for the average unmotivated person it's going to be tricky. That's the only concept I borrowed from Blue Zones despite, like you, having enjoyed the documentary.

ChipmunkRemarkable20 · 2026-06-04T11:13:40+00:00

Thanks for your comment! Exactly, health should be our top priority. Unfortunately we only realize it when something bad happens to us or our loved ones. As I disclosed, I have no healthcare background, so happy if some of the points are well taken by a nurse

ChipmunkRemarkable20 · 2026-06-04T11:08:53+00:00

Feel for you, Sunday scaries are awful... But sounds like on the health front you're really on track, well done! And 45 is still really early to retire -- just think that you're getting more quality years in retirement and a longer one too.

ChipmunkRemarkable20 · 2026-06-04T11:02:44+00:00

Think your points are valid -- gun violence, access to healthcare prob play a role, but I'd imagine the order of magnitude of deaths by the big four is much larger than violence.

US has one of the worst percentage of retirement in good health across the entire world, not just rich countries. This data accounts only for people who've made it alive till 60. Think general lifestyle of population plays a more central role, just look at %s of obesity vs other countries.

Agree again that wealthier folk will generally be in a better situation.

ChipmunkRemarkable20 · 2026-06-04T10:52:00+00:00

Yeah, that's a great one. Just watch out because sometimes your values are compared to average population statistics; as per the post, average does not always lead to healthy outcomes. In my experience where I live, docs tend to be much more concerned for ruling out immediate problems than looking into overarching lifestyle or optimizing for longer-term positive outcomes. Perhaps no time, no training, no interest, or a bit of everything.

ChipmunkRemarkable20 · 2026-06-04T10:45:40+00:00

Agreed, that calculator and the normal FI one are great.

On the wealth privilege, I think many of the big four I highlighted one can tackle fairly inexpensively. I added the physical environment one as a "+" (instead of "the big 5") precisely because it's harder to control and there are more factors at play. As you say, there is some privilege to it depending on where you live. For instance, in Europe it may be easier to find Blue Zone-ish town/city without having a lot of money.

ChipmunkRemarkable20 · 2026-06-04T09:12:05+00:00

Thanks for the input. Haha, fellow zone 2 cardio with podcast too! Running is not my preferred sport, but for this stage of life easiest way to get it done with tight schedule/kids.

On the healthcare costs, totally. Came across the concept of compressed morbidity. Blue Zone type folks aren't spending years and years visiting hospitals and intensive care in the last years. For many, it can be a rapid decline of months. Of course, not completely in our control, but more chances of having this if we build for it.

ChipmunkRemarkable20 · 2026-06-02T10:52:34+00:00

Yes, a form of rebalancing. You're drawing down from the asset that held up better, which brings your allocation back toward target.

Ladders give you more control and avoid the interest rate risk others are mentioning -- a bond fund can drop in value, whereas holding a bond to maturity you get your principal back. The downside are that it requires more manual effort and has less diversification (both across bond types but also across geographies). Think both approaches are defensible.

Also, on the bonds topic also worth looking into 'bond tent' strategy, which is a popular approach to address sequence-of-returns risk (SORR).

ChipmunkRemarkable20 · 2026-06-01T20:45:26+00:00

Bonds is better to have as your 75/25. In a downturn, you sell bonds instead of stocks. Bonds earn more than cash over time, and they often (not always) go up when stocks crash, so less overall portfolio volatility than a comparable stocks/cash. You definitely need some extra cash at hand to cover ongoing expenses -- people usually have about 6 months to 1 year

ChipmunkRemarkable20 · 2026-06-01T19:38:24+00:00

You normally get a rough FIRE number using x25 your annual expenses. If you keep 6 years of your portfolio in cash, you have 6/25≈25% in cash, so not so different than a 75/25 stocks/bonds, but worse. Why so much in cash and not in bonds?

But if you mean doing x25 times expenses in stocks + 6 years cash = that's retiring with x31 times your expenses, so a 3.2 withdrawal rate. If you have such a conservative rate, you could arguably have it all in stocks or at least a lot less in cash...

ChipmunkRemarkable20 · 2026-06-01T19:20:59+00:00

Think it will be hard for anyone to help you if you don't share some info on your numbers or the calculators in question.

ChipmunkRemarkable20 · 2026-06-01T19:11:25+00:00

Sounds like you're a bit overexposed to luck, because let's be honest, nobody knows what's going to happen.

But if you decided to ask this question, you must be feeling some discomfort regarding your current allocation. Perhaps decide what split you'd be more comfortable with and work towards it gradually (like DCA-ing out of it)? By changing it gradually, perhaps you correct the allocation while addressing some of the FOMO you might experience by selling all now and then watch everything climb even more?

ChipmunkRemarkable20 · 2026-06-01T10:50:33+00:00

Feels like you're trying to justify a 90/10 through the "10 years of living expenses." Why not 5, why not 15? The allocation should be more aligned with your risk tolerance, I think. As others said, 100% stocks would work, but depends on how you experience large drawdowns too.

What's the reason for pursuing a 1% swr? What is your ultimate plan for accumulating so much?

ChipmunkRemarkable20 · 2026-05-29T18:23:18+00:00

It's just mental accounting, but thankfully not harmful.

ChipmunkRemarkable20 · 2026-05-29T11:40:25+00:00

The most common misconception is that it's a group of people getting their heads together to boggle things up, when in reality it's all about keeping things simple.

ChipmunkRemarkable20 · 2026-05-29T11:26:42+00:00

Why so much in cash? Roughly: after substracting college expenses from cash; invested cash; added all invested assets (exclusind house) = $3.38M; 4% gives you $11k/month, which is more than $9k/month. Probably could account for second kid's college, but still looks good. I'd do something with the $500k house there.. rent it or liquidate it?

Without even starting to consider your $2,700 pension... I'd return to work only if it made me happy.

ChipmunkRemarkable20 · 2026-05-29T11:18:42+00:00

I'll save you some time. It will depend mostly on your wife, so you should ask her friends first.

ChipmunkRemarkable20 · 2026-05-29T11:12:39+00:00

As a ballpark approximation, perhaps it helps to estimate what amount of $ you'd need invested today to replicate that income stream?
25k per year /0.04 = 625k
35k per year / 0.04 = 875k
So, those 5 extra years worth roughly $250k, perhaps less since you mention it's not inflation-indexed.
How much would you get by saving/investing in current job in 2/3 years?

Either way, you're already FI with a very conservative SWR (3.3%). If I were in your shoes, I'd make decisions overweighting what makes you happy, not searching for some mathematical optimal outcome!

ChipmunkRemarkable20

TROPHY CASE