Rethinking: Cohabitation, an Old Shirt, and Digging that Big Hole in the Sand

Today I give you a three part meditation. The theme? Things to re-think, or think about for the first time.

Re-Thought #1: Meditation on Cohabitation
I am currently cohabiting with my significant other, which is a recent development. This is not a meditation on regret, but rather a time to revisit the idea of this particular living arrangement, as it is not a situation to be entered into lightly.

The non-profit organization Child Trends recently published a study about young adults ideas about relationships and cohabitation. They surveyed 12,000 young adults ages 20-24. As you can see in Figure 1, about the same percentage of those young adults are married as are living together, 35% are currently in a relationship and a quarter are not currently in a relationship.

Interestingly, 57% of young adults think it's "all right" for unmarried couples to cohabit, whereas 24% disagree and 19% could care less about this issue (Figure 3).

So, ok. These numbers are higher than they were ten years ago, which were higher than they were ten years before that (source? common sense). Is this the decline of the American family in action?

The press release from Child Trends also pointed to a USA Today article which cites the study, among others.

The article vaguely cites a study conducted by researchers at the University of Denver, which found a couple pretty surprising things:

• Most couples didn't consciously decide to live together; two-thirds of cohabitors said they either "slid into it" or "talked about it, but then it just sort of happened." Just one-third talked about it and made a decision to live together.
• Almost half of cohabitors of both sexes in the study cite spending more time together as a reason they moved in together; just 9% of men and 5% of women cited "to test the relationship before marriage."

Well jeez you guys. Only 1/3 of couples talked about living together and made a conscious decision to do it?! Less than 10% of both men and women are actually living together to "test the relationship"?!

You know, I'm generally not super concerned about the rise of divorce and the "downfall" of the American family, but these statistics are a little shocking. Maybe if people weren't so blase about MAJOR LIFE DECISIONS, they would choose more wisely. Personally, I decided to make the jump into cohabitation for many practical reasons (it's cheaper to live, we practically lived together anyway, we both needed to get out of crazy living situations, etc.), but ultimately the Big Plan was TO FIND OUT IF THIS WORKS. If it does, fantastic. Full speed ahead. If it doesn't, then thank God we did this now and got it over with. Moving on.

(Disclaimer: I do not profess to be some sort of expert at relationships. Lord knows that I'm not even close. However, I do strive to act with intention and make big decisions with my eyes open. I'm only surprised that more people don't appear to act similarly.)

Re-Thought #2: Things I Used to Wear
This is a series that has played out infrequently between my other blogs over the last 6 months (which you can find here, here, here and here). It has been abandoned due to my lack of follow-thru, but I think it is relevant in this discussion in a sort of This-American-Life kind of way.

So. Here it is. My first ever Forever 21 shirt. Purchased 10 years ago on a shopping trip with a gal pal specifically intended to find "killer" outfits for a friends' upcoming 15th birthday party. But this was no ordinary 15th birthday party.

Oh. No.

First of all, this was a joint party. Question: What's more fun than one birthday girl? Answer: TWO birthday girls!!! Especially when those two birthday girls are arguably the most popular (and wealthy) in the freshman class and can therefore throw a party a'la my Super Sweet Sixteen.

With a DJ.
At a country club.
On a golf course reserved for the PGA tour.

Ok sure. So I got invited. Looking back, it was an invitation I accepted with delight and spent little to no time wondering why I had been put on the guest list. Now I suspect that it probably would have been awkward NOT to invite me, since one of the birthday girls in question was my co-captain on the freshman girls basketball team and we had 4 classes together.

In any case, I bought this shirt, threw on a knee length black skirt and these shoes (probably) and headed to the party.

Now, before we discuss the party, let's take a moment to ruminate on this shirt. I bet you didn't know that Forever 21 sold shirts that were this modest. Well, let me tell you -- this was the MOST modest shirt I could find. It was at the beginning of Forever 21's heyday, when the majority of their stock could only fit 90 lb sixth graders, everything was adorned with tiny, non-functional straps and rhinestones, and they sold specialty pieces like purple jumpsuits (see photo). Actually, I don't think anything has changed... now they just have MORE.

The good thing about Forever 21, which is still true for the most part, is that since everything is made by Chinese school children, it is SUPER CHEAP. I think I paid $9 for the shirt, hopefully less.

Anyway, back to the shirt. The fabric was a stretch poly-knit with a geometric + flowers pattern, accented by glittery threads. I thought it was delightful, albeit busy. The V-neck was fairly deep (although I had nothing in the way of cleavage) and it completely hid my bra straps, which was a middle school taboo that I had yet to relinquish.

The one reason I never, ever wore this shirt again (only one?) is because while the glitter thread allowed me to subtly sparkle in a shadowy corner while I gawked at boys, it was SO ITCHY. Like a wool sweater. I tried to wear a second tank top underneath, but it created unsightly bunches in odd places.

In truth, my shopping friend was not too supportive of my outfit decision, and tried to gently suggest a few strappy, rhinestony pieces. I did appreciate the attempt to make me less of a grandmother, but straps and rhinestones were in direct conflict with my entire moral code, as they still are today. I doubt there is anyone that would look like more of a jackass than me adorned in faux jewels.

Unfortunately, none of the other 15-year-old girls at the party had any moral qualms about straps or rhinestones in large quantities. They were all bustier, bolder, sluttier and drunker than I (the last one because I was not drunk at all... I probably just had a little indigestion from sucking down gallons of Sprite). No game indeed.

The one shining light of the evening was Erica: the girl in a pencil skirt and matching sweater set. Bless her Ralph Lauren heart, she managed to arrive in something more modest than me. I don't really remember much else about the evening, but I'm sure we spent it doing the shopping cart dance and making fun of the sluttiest girls and sweatiest boys of the bunch.

I'm just glad I survived to tell the tale.

Re-Thought #3: Meditation on Sand Castles

Children and adults who build castles and dig in the sand at the beach are at greater risk of developing gastrointestinal diseases and diarrhea than people who only walk on the shore or swim in the surf, according to researchers from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

People who played in the sand at the beach -- buried themselves, erected sand fortresses, dug big holes (the best!), etc. -- seem to have an increased risk of stomach problems in the days following their beach adventures.

The culprit? FECAL MATTER. In the sand. Awesome.

"Beach sand can contain indicators of fecal contamination, but we haven't understood what that means for people playing in the sand," said Dr. Heaney. "This is one of the first studies to show an association between specific sand contact activities and illnesses."

Oh man! That is pretty disgusting. I mean, it makes sense. If you sit down and really think about what is in the sand, especially at really crowded, sweaty beaches in the summer... wait. Don't do that. You might never go to the beach again.

But don't despair! Here is the good news: Less than 10% of people who played in the sand got sick later, so it's not necessarily a sure thing. Plus, Dr. Tim Wade, an EPA epidemiologist and the study's senior author, says

"People should not be discouraged from enjoying sand at the beach but should take care to use a hand sanitizer or wash their hands after playing in the sand."

And also, try not to eat the sand. Or get it in any major orifice. That is just my advice, though. The blurb for this new study was published in last week's Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH) Friday Letter.

"And I'm... I'm real. I'm a real boy!" -Pinocchio

Having recently taken my first biology class since I was 15 (how did I graduate from college again?) I've been getting inordinately excited about biology-related news, articles, references in conversation, etc. because now I GET IT. A little.

Naturally, I was interested in the chromosome talk in We're all intersex at Salon. Thomas Rogers interviewed Gerald N. Callahan, a professor at Colorado State University, about his new book "Between XX and XY: Intersexuality and the Myth of the Two Sexes." As the title implies, Callahan argues that our strict male/female labels ignores a large amount of variation:

In between what we call the ideal biological male or ideal biological female, there's a whole range of other possibilities that don't differ from our basic preconceptions to the extent that we have names for them or call them a disorder. Just like with every other human trait, there are an infinite number of possibilities... We might say two people have brown eyes but that doesn't mean that they're brown in exactly the same way, or what is seen through those eyes is the same.

The Intersex Society of North America (ISNA) goes on to explain this idea in terms of a spectrum:

Intersex is a socially constructed category that reflects real biological variation. To better explain this, we can liken the sex spectrum to the color spectrum. There’s no question that in nature there are different wavelengths that translate into colors most of us see as red, blue, orange, yellow. But the decision to distinguish, say, between orange and red-orange is made only when we need it—like when we’re asking for a particular paint color. Sometimes social necessity leads us to make color distinctions that otherwise would seem incorrect or irrational, as, for instance, when we call certain people “black” or “white” when they’re not especially black or white as we would otherwise use the terms.

I highlighted the term "only when we need it" because I think that's the key here. We shouldn't be bothered by a person living their life part way between male and female, and I think most people probably don't care too much. However, feathers get ruffled when we try and classify or categorize people who can't or don't want to be assigned a gender.

I wonder... Could one even go so far as to relate this to Kinsey's Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale? You know, how everyone is just a little bit gay? JK! That's not exactly what the scale represents, but it does illustrate the idea that options exist outside the socially constructed labels. Beyond the gay-straight-bisexual labels exists a world of possibilities.

Furthermore, Deborah Blum's review of the book at New Scientist even pokes fun at the traditional gender binary:

Callahan's argument arises from the fact that human sexuality spans a slippery biological spectrum. The stereotypical view of two sexes - me Tarzan, you Jane - is not only cartoonish, it limits our understanding and appreciation of our own biology.

From a strictly scientific view, Callahan appears to have an important, well-documented point. There can be a large amount of variation at the chromosomal level beyond the perceived 46XX for a woman and 46XY for a man. In fact, statistics compiled by the ISNA suggest that 1 in 1,667 babies has a chromosomal variation other than XX or XY, and 1 in 100 babies have bodies that differ from the standard male or female (including genitalia that just look a little different, but still function normally; see What is Intersex?).

The problem arises when Callahan concludes that "In truth, we're all intersex."

I haven't read the book, so it's unclear whether he means this literally, or in a more euphemistic we're-all-children-of-the-world kind of way (i.e. the instance of intersex is so high that we probably know more biologically intersex individuals than we think/you may be intersex and not know it).

That statement is what really seems to piss people off, as witnessed in the letters section of the Salon article. One contributer, "aeschylus", writes:

Horse shit. Sometimes there's a glitch in our genes: a cleft palate here, a flipper baby there. They are deviations from the norm and we should want to correct/prevent them. And no, I'm not talking about homosexuality. But this type of transgender chromosomal mash-up needs to be recognized for the disorder that it is.

There are several offensive things about this comment (one being the fact that he/she didn't read the article well, because Callahan goes out of his way to say intersex does not equal transgender), but the biggest issue is that this person fails to make the distinction between "variation" and "disorder". A deviation from the norm does not a disorder make, but when a clear gender has not been chosen and adhered to, people get very uncomfortable. This is where the social-biological worlds clash, which is not always pretty. (At least he/she isn't "talking about homosexuality". Ha!)

In any case, I'd like to point out that I am not necessarily an intersex advocate. Like I said before, I have a new found appreciation for science-y news, and I also enjoy reading bone-headed comments like the one above. I don't know why.

The final thing that piqued my interest in this article, was Callahan's discussion of biological sex versus sexual preference.

Gay and lesbian people can fairly easily identify with the classic binary of male and female, and intersex people for the most part cannot. They have to me a much more complex and graduated series of events they need to deal with [than do gay and lesbian people]. I think that people have a tendency to group all of that together -- sexual preference, gender dysphoria, transgender, intersex -- and they're really in my mind very separate sorts of things.

Right. This is an idea that is very clear in my mind, that often gets muddled amongst the vast array (rainbow?) of GLBT issues. The "T" in GLBT doesn't exactly fit for me, because gender identity is a completely separate issue from sexual preference. It's true that all of the sexual and gender minority groups tend to get lumped together sort of reluctantly, even when the different facets have little to nothing in common with each other.

What I do understand is that the GLB community is very accepting and happy to include the transgendered folk in the parades and dance parties and whatnot, and I am happy to make their acquaintance at such events. This inclusion also provides greater awareness for trans issues and a bigger community to participate in. So, just to be sure -- I'm not complaining about the inclusion, just wanted to clarify for my own peace of mind.

To conclude the intersex discussion, let's just hope this never becomes a modern day witch-hunt, with mandatory genetic testing to see who is a "real" man or woman and who is NOT. That is a bad, bad idea. But personally, I'd be kind of psyched if I was a XXX superwoman, or if my legs had some XY cells. Maybe I would run better.

REVISITED: NY Times Reporter's File on Obesity

In April, a tip from a loyal reader lead me to check out the NY Times Reporter's File on Obesity (because apparently the Times needs to be the authority on EVERYTHING).

In my response which you can find here, I discussed the issue of diet as presented by the Reporter's File. The File proposed that the rise in obesity was more due to the increasingly sedentary lifestyle of Americans than a deteriorating diet. I disagreed with the statement about diet, citing the gargantuan proportions of burgers, fries and soda that McDonald's currently serves in a typical combo meal, as opposed to the seemingly dainty single-patty burger of yesteryear.

If that example of growing portions didn't convince you, maybe you'll find this interactive quiz from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute more enjoyable: Portion Distortion!

I'm not entirely sure how accurate the calorie counts are for all the foods, but if nothing else, it's interesting to note how much HUGER things like bagels and meatballs have become. (Meatballs? Really?)



















Note: I took this quiz with Jared and we both failed. It is truly challenging.

Fitness Links in Honor of the Fairfield Half this weekend!

Ah, yes. The time has come to run great distances, sweat profusely and hopefully avoid injury along the way. Wooohhoooyeaahhhh! The 29th Annual Fairfield Half Marathon is on Sunday, and I have a feeling it's going to be AWESOME.

In the spirit of this athletic event, I've been keeping my eyes peeled for articles that might make running thirteen miles marginally easier. Here are two gems from my files:

To Sit Up or Not To Sit Up (thanks Simone)
How many different sit-up philosophies have you heard in your life? Maybe 5, 10? "Don't sit all the way up" vs. "only flex your abs"; "feet on the floor" vs. "legs in the air," etc. Shoot! I personally adhere to the "crunch" ideology and occasionally I use the exercise balls to do my ab-work.

However, here's another to add to the list! A recent blog post at Newsweek claims that sit ups don't work at all. More specifically -- they hurt more than help.

“We stopped teaching people to do crunches a long, long time ago,” says Dr. Richard Guyer, president of the Texas Back Institute. That’s because the “full flex” movement—the actual “crunch” part of crunches – puts an unhealthy strain on your back at its weakest point. The section with the most nerves (and most potential for nerve damage) is in the back of the spine, which is the very part that bends and strains during a sit-up.

Interesting. I have heard that the best way to do sit-ups/crunches is on the exercise ball with your lower back supported. The article says nothing about whether this is a "safe" way to exercise your abs, but instead they offer this old fave as an alternative:

Consider the pushup. Not usually thought of as a great ab move, the pushup forces you to work several muscles at once: it forces your core muscles to stabilize your trunk as your arms and back work to move the body up and down. “Do you see how a pushup is a full body challenge?” says McGill. “It challenges abdominals, front of your legs, your arms and your back. That is how you use those muscles in real life.”

Woah. The pushup seems to be typically thought of as an arm-only workout, but actually it is one of those amazing exercises where you use ALL THE MUSCLES IN YOUR BODY. I presume that is why pushups are so hard, and not only because my arm muscles are puny. (I don't care what you saw on FB, Laura, they are puny.)

The article also recommends planks, which I have always loved because they are so damn hard.

So if you have back issues (particularly lower back), try laying off the sit ups/crunches for awhile and increase the number of pushups in your workout. Then, report back and tell me your conclusions. Please.

Sleep Loading, something like Carb Loading
Based on a very small study of Division 1 female tennis players, some researchers recently presented findings that suggests sleep has a more significant effect on athletic performance than previously thought.

Then the players were told to extend their sleep to 10 hours a night for five to six weeks. After increasing sleep, the athletes performed better on all the drills. Sprinting drill times dropped on average to 17.56 seconds from 19.12 seconds. Hitting accuracy, measured by valid serves, improved to 15.61 serves, up from 12.6 serves, and a hitting depth drill improved to 15.45 hits, up from 10.85 hits.

When the tennis players cracked down on their sleep debt, they performed significantly better than before... when they were *technically* sleep deprived. Um, awesome? Let's go take a nap!

Furthermore, in this article at Medical News Today, the study's lead author, Cherie Mah, M.S., suggests that it's impossible to physically perform at your best without proper sleep:

"Traditionally, elite athletes dedicate numerous hours to daily practice, strength training, and conditioning as well as work closely with nutritionists in hopes of optimizing their athletic performance," said Mah. "However, very little, if any, attention is focused on an athlete's sleeping patterns and habits. While most athletes and coaching staff may believe that sleep is an important contributing factor in sports, many do not realize that optimal or peak performance can only occur when an athlete's sleep and sleep habits are optimal."

Seriously. Notice that she qualifies her opinion by only including "elite athletes," but I'm just going to go ahead and include those of us who once practiced or played five to six days a week as well. How much better would I have played in college if I'd been able to sleep more than 5-6 hours a night?! Between class, homework, work study, and practice/games/other team crap, there were just not enough hours in the day to get everything done and also get adequate rest.

Now, if only this study had been published about 2.5 years ago... I would have had fantastic support for my one-man campaign against lifting at 6AM three times a week. Ugh, and I'm still mad about it!

Your Workout Forecast

This is cool: The Weather Channel's Fitness Forecast.

Enter your zip code and you'll get the hourly forecast for your area accompanied by a "Fitness Comfort Index". They even tell you how many hours of daylight you have left (so get off your ass soon) and what to wear! Maybe this seems silly--just look out your window, fool --but it's also reassuring.

Similarly, you can search for parks in your area... although they don't tell you WHERE they are, just that they exist.

And, last thing: check out the Hydration Needs Calculator to figure out approximately how much water you should be drinking every day. It only asks your zip code, your weight and how much time you spend working out so it's not going to be totally accurate, but it's funny to see how much water you should be drinking. When I plugged in my info and put 1 minute for duration, it suggested I drink 57 oz. When I put 60 minutes for duration, it suggested 59 oz. Huh.