Most Adults Do Not Finish Their Peas, Shouldn't Get Dessert

When we were young, our parents decided what we ate. Example: "No dessert until you finish your peas!" As we got older, though, it was exciting to to make our own food decisions. Perhaps too exciting. Suddenly dessert came first, coffee became an acceptable breakfast, and Pop Tarts and Easy Mac constituted complete meals.

Some people never grow out of (what I'd refer to as) the "Student Diet". On a daily basis, sweets are consumed early and often and the later meals are usually fatty and convenient. For most of the people I know who adhere to this regimen, this routine evolved from the undergrad/grad mantra that all time must be spent studying. Time not spent studying should be used to either talk about studying, worry about studying, or engage in completely unproductive and/or illegal activities. This leaves zero time for thinking about food, let alone preparing your own meals.

As the study-obsessed student graduates and gets older, the "studying" gets replaced by other things. Work. Relationships. Hobbies. More work... and so on forever. Then one day, these adults procreate and pass their attitudes about food and nutrition onto the offspring, and new little crazy people are made. The point is, there are lots of adults who have pretty terrible eating habits, and I think it's because it is difficult to re-value food and nutrition if a person has neglected these things for a very long time.

Case in point: the CDC recently published a report on fruit and vegetable eating habits in the United States. Guess what?

• 33% of adults consume the recommended 2 or more servings of fruit every day.
• 27% of adults get the recommended 3 or more servings of vegetables.
  
• 14% of adults eat BOTH the recommended daily fruit and vegetable servings. (See map)

I bet you saw that coming.

The report, called State Indicator Report on Fruits and Vegetables, 2009, is the first to break down fruit and veggie consumption by state. It seems more reports with a national scope are doing this often, which makes a lot of sense. Since the U.S. is so incredibly huge and diverse, the state breakdown makes these statistics a bit more manageable. Also, we get a better idea of who's not eating their peas!

The fruit and veggie consumption data from the report was collected as part of a progress report for the Healthy People 2010 initiative, which aims for 75% of adults to eat the recommended fruit and 50% of adults to eat the recommended vegetables. Right, good luck with that.

The State Indicator Report does include 3 key policy recommendations to increase fruit and veggie consumption:

1. Healthier food retail, encouraging groceries and markets to stock fresh, affordable produce.
   
2. Make healthier foods more available in schools. (Because the "Student Diet" gets started early)
   
3. Increased food system support, primarily by increasing the number of local food councils that will "make recommendations about policies and programs such as farm–to–school programs, community gardens, farmers markets and availability of fresh produce in supermarkets."

These recommendations seem to be aimed more towards the state and local municipalities, and less towards individuals, but I'd thought it was important to mention.

Now, the percentages of people reporting they eat fruits and veggies are low, but I suspect the actual numbers are even lower. The data was collected through voluntary phone interviews, so we're dealing with self-report and selection biases probably. Who even participates in those interviews? And are people actually honest about how often they eat carrots? (Which was one of the questions.) I know these government-funded studies typically include thousands of participants which eliminates the margin of error and blah blah blah... but it still makes me wonder how accurate people are when reporting their food habits. I'm not sure even really sure how I would answer!

It's very noble to want to eat enough fruit and vegetables every day, but do you actually do it? I know that I make a good effort, but it doesn't always happen. And in truth, although the government recommends 2 servings of fruit and 3 servings of vegetables, it's unlikely that eating more will hurt you.

So what is there to do? Eat more salad? Ugh. This is the point in the conversation where a lot of the experts make vague allusions to steaming vegetables and eating less french fries, which always makes vegetables sound like they are something you have to choke down. The truth is vegetables can be delicious if you cook them properly, i.e. move beyond the lettuce-tomato-ranch salad. To start, here are a few examples the CDC gives for a single serving of fruits or vegetables:
Ok, now that we've established a possible list of ingredients and quantities, I wanted to share a few of my favorite veggie heavy recipes. Before the list, though, I want to emphasize that while this is not a food blog and I am not a foodie, I do appreciate good food. In my new job, I also do a lot of cooking (at least one meal a day for up to 20 people), so food is front and center on my radar nowadays.

• Garlic Ginger Tofu Stir Fry (via VegCooking)
• Vegetable Frittata (via Epicurious. A fantastic option for incorporating whatever is in the fridge.)
• Kale (or Spinach) and Olive Oil Mashed Potatoes (via 101cookbooks)
• Green Beans Amandine (almonds browned in a bit of butter over cooked beans, from my Better Homes & Gardens cookbook. easy peasy)
• Sweet Potato Fries (with an Avocado Dip) (via Food Network)

Also, I typically eat a lot of fajitas, veggie-heavy wraps/sandwiches, and anything sauteed with garlic. So there are a few ideas!

This is obviously not a very extensive list of dishes requiring 1-3 servings of vegetables, so please share yours in the comments! Or if you'd rather not write a novel, email me and I'll put together a few more recipes for a future post. For my own peace of mind, I just needed to break the trend of saying EAT MORE VEGETABLES and then providing no practical means for doing that.

Enjoy!

Frenemies and Facebook

I know, I know, it's been awhile. But in my defense--I warned you this was coming! There are only so many hours in the day and I can only be expected to be alert and productive during a small percentage of those hours... specifically the ones during which I am paid a salary to perform job related tasks. The remaining hours have recently been a flurry of used cars, human resource forms, insurance policies, and The Office: Season 2. You understand.

Fortunately, I've been moderately productive in the last couple weeks. Car? Check. Financing? Check. Trip to Portland, Maine to visit long lost college friends and new baby? Check. And how lovely it all was! Have you been to Portland? It's really very nice and small and filled with lobster. I bought a tiny stuffed lobster that makes strange lobstery noises to put on my Christmas tree. Check!

On the drive back home, we listened to a recent episode of "This American Life" called Frenemies. That is, people who are your friends-slash-enemies. (Note: The word "frenemy" is incredibly annoying to me, as I'm sure it is to you. I would never, ever utter "frenemy" to genuinely describe one of my relationships. However, for the sake of this discussion, I'm going to use "frenemy" as un-sarcastically as I can, and I'm even going to take the quotes off. Frenemy. See? That's better.)

This episode shocked me. I was expecting a segment on adolescent girls and an analysis of "The Hills" with maybe a little "Bromance" tied in somehow. But in true TAL fashion, none of those things occurred. I don't want to ruin the episode if you haven't heard it, but there is some serious heavy lifting. Heavy brain lifting.

One particularly interesting bit was a brief interview with researcher Julianne Holt-Lunstad who is something of a frenemy expert (and has been featured on Oprah). Holt-Lunstad found that interactions with people we have both positive and negative feelings for can cause substantial increases in our blood pressure. The weird thing is that this jump in blood pressure only occurred when people interacted with the frenemy types; interactions with people they openly felt negative about had little to no effect on blood pressure.

Moreover, Holt-Lunstad estimates that half of our relationships could be characterized as the frenemy variety. Fifty percent?! As Ira explains, these are people that "we care a lot about, we feel positive towards. But we also have real conflicts and negative feelings about as well." This includes friends who are very competitive, unreliable, inconsiderate, etc.

Right now, maybe you are thinking one of two things:

1. Shut up, that is not the Urban Dictionary definition of frenemy.
2. OMG! Are all my friends really my frenemies? Do I have any friends AT ALL?!

If you had Thought #1, shut up yourself. For the sake of this discussion, I'm not using "The Hills" definition of frenemy, but rather a broader, more inclusive way of describing difficult relationships... be it the relationship with your mom, your boyfriend or your BFFAEAEAE. (Best Friend Forever And Ever And Ever, etc.)

I had Thought #2. For many minutes after hearing Ira drop the Half Of The People You Know Raise Your Blood Pressure Bomb, I wondered if only 50% of the people I knew could be considered frenemies. I have conflicts and negative feelings about events and people fairly often. Is my percentage of frenemies more like 75%? 90%? 100%?! Aaahhhhhhhh

At this point, a very wise friend chimed in from the back seat. "Duh, Chloe," she said, rolling her eyes dramatically in the rear view mirror. "Obviously you can have small spats and disagreements with your friends and family, but that doesn't mean your relationships are inherently flawed. Gaw-d." She then mumbled something about Wellesley College and smacked her gum whorishly. (JK!)

My Wellesley friend is right, albeit dramatic. It is impossible to feel completely positive about a fellow human being ALL the time. Let's be real here. Yes, you love your family, your siblings, your BFF's and the like, but let's face it--you question their decisions sometimes. Their choice of clothing, their opinion on diet soda, their inability to resist sleeping with their ex-boyfriends. Sometimes the things they do are extremely annoying and cause us to have anxiety, but only occasionally. Its the people in our lives (maybe even the same family, siblings and BFF's) whose actions annoy us on a consistent and regular basis that we can categorize as part of "The 50 Percent."

I considered sitting down and taking inventory of my social and familial circles to find out who is in my personal "50 Percent." But then I thought, why? It will inevitably end in a big emo mess, and I'm sure my blood pressure will skyrocket just thinking about all the reasons people could potentially be in "The 50 Percent." Bad idea.

But oddly enough, after watching this video from the author of Friend or Frenemy?: A Guide to the Friends You Need and the Ones You Don't, I feel like a freak for having a "50 Percent" at all.

Note: Sorry that the picture is a decoy. The video is un-embeddable for some reason. Stupid Amazon! Click here to watch it.

"I wouldn't allow it," says one woman when asked if she's ever experienced a frenemy. Granted, I think this Andrea Lavinthal person has a stricter definition of frenemy than I've been using in this post, which is why most of the women are appalled at the idea of having a frenemy. Also, these are women on the streets of New York City being interviewed by an editor at Cosmopolitan magazine, so obviously this is a far cry from any sort of honest discussion about difficult relationships.

Still, the reason I included this weird video in this post is Lavinthal's question about Facebook (and presumably other social networking sites), which got me thinking. How does Facebook factor into the frenemy/"50 Percent" discussion?

Here's my theory: Pre-Facebook (before 2004) there wasn't really a good way to stay in touch with the hundreds of acquaintances you accumulated through life. People typically lost track of their high school sophomore Spanish classmates or their middle school basketball teammates, unless they were the center of a juicy piece of gossip or you ran into their mom at the grocery store. On the one hand, it was tragic to lose touch with people you liked and cared about, albeit inactively. On the other hand, that's life! Yes, people lost track of peripheral friends, but they also lost track of the marginal friends, the frenemies and the regular enemies. Yay!

But now in the post-2004 Facebook world, all those peripheral/marginal/quasi/frenemy type friends are now a part of your daily life. One would presume that graduating from both high school and college and moving across the continent would eliminate a sizable chunk out of "The 50 Percent". But thanks to Facebook, "The 50 Percent" can follow you wherever you go.

From personal experience, an annoying status update by a frenemy sort of person is enough to make my blood boil a bit. A cynical, anti-Facebook person would probably sneer at me right now and say, "Then quit already if you hate it so much." I suppose thats an option, but it misses my point.

Basically, there are 3 questions I'd like to ask:

1. Does Facebook make it easier or harder to maintain "The 50 Percent"?
   
2. Are passive online interactions (like reading a status update or browsing a photo album) enough to elicit the same physiological responses that Holt-Lunstad found in face-to-face interactions? (i.e. a hike in blood pressure)
   
3. Does it even matter?! Is having a "50 Percent" an inevitable and unavoidable part of life?

Tell me what you think, and I'll be following up with some research one day.

ADA Weighs in on Benefits of Organic Foods

A few weeks ago I posted about a recent study out of the UK that claimed that organic foods are not nutritionally superior to conventionally grown foods. For some reason, the popular media interpreted the study to say, There Are No Compelling Reasons to Buy Organic Food (Unless You Are An Elitest Foodie Jackass Who Cares About Taste and Not Being Poisoned).

There are many reasons why drawing such bold conclusions from a very limited study is not only annoying but irresponsible. To fully capture the various issues associated with organic foods, a broader perspective is needed to explore the production, processing and nutrition of organic foods and how each step impacts human health, the environment, labor practices, etc.

...And here's a good start! The American Dietetic Association recently published a review of organic foods as part of their "Hot Topics" series. The review, "Perspective on the Benefits of Organic Foods", is by no means an exhaustive discussion of the research, but it touches the major issues that surround organic foods.

When considering benefits and costs of organic versus conventional agricultural production, it is important to consider benefits and costs to consumers, farmers, communities and the environment. For example, current research in numerous areas is showing both short-and long-term benefits to our population and the planet with organic and other sustainable production systems. Documented environmental benefits of organic production systems include reduced nutrient pollution, improved soil organic matter, lower energy use, reduced pesticide residues in food and water and enhanced biodiversity.

Additionally, the "Perspective..." lists nine discussion points, or considerations, with regards to the organic. Briefly summarized, here they are:

1. Organic produce may contain more phytochemicals than conventionally grown produce.
2. "Organic meat may reduce the development of human antibiotic resistance and lessen air and water pollution."
3. Organic dairy products may be more beneficial to young children than regular dairy.
4. Organic = no pesticides.
5. Organic typically = sustainable farming.
6. Small and medium sized farms are able to participate in the organic marketplace, not just giant ones.
   
7. Insects, bees, birds and other wild life will not be poisoned by pesticides.
8. "Organic agricultural systems offer multiple opportunities to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and counteract global warming."
9. Biodiversity is enhanced, making farms more resilient.
   

So, are there still "no compelling reasons" to choose organic foods? Unfortunately, information like this gets very little circulation in the media. God forbid all those news outlets that reported the UK study do any homework whatsoever or publish a follow-up. Fair and balanced reporting, my butt!

Furthermore, I think it's important to practice what you preach. I try to buy organic produce as much as possible, but I also can't afford to spend $20 a week on carrots. Luckily, the farmer's market is in high gear right now, so I've been rolling in vegetables for less than $10 a week (actually less than that, since I split the bounty with my S.O.)

In any case, buying all organic all the time is not realistic for 99% of the people I know. What you can do though, is look up your favorite produce on the Internet and find out which ones are better to buy organic (For example, The Daily Green's Dirty Dozen). You can also go above and beyond and read Marion Nestle's What to Eat, because she is very smart and will tell you lots of things about food.

In conclusion, this post reminded me of a Howard Zinn quote that I love: "You can't be neutral on a moving train." Things are happening in the food world that have can have a big impact on your life, whether you like it or not...

So you better like it.

Guess who's back? Back again... On Exercise, Water and My Vacation

Hello! I went on vacation, hence the lack of posting. Many exciting things have been happening, including I got new shoes, one of my friends got married, and, oh yeah... I got a new job! Which means I will probably have zero time to blog during the day, i.e. the time when I do the majority of my work (shhh don't tell the boss!). I'm not sure exactly how things are going to turn out, but I will persevere. You can count on that.

And now, 3 random tidbits on exercise, your water, and my vacation.

...Exercise is Worthless...

I know this is so three weeks ago, but I didn't want to completely ignore that Time article published on August 9. You know, Why Exercise Won't Make You Thin.

If you didn't read it, the thesis of writer John Cloud's lengthy piece is essentially this: Exercising to loose weight is worthless. Diet is more important in weight loss because exercising just makes you hungrier. Sure, ok.

The basic problem is that while it's true that exercise burns calories and that you must burn calories to lose weight, exercise has another effect: it can stimulate hunger. That causes us to eat more, which in turn can negate the weight-loss benefits we just accrued. Exercise, in other words, isn't necessarily helping us lose weight. It may even be making it harder.

There are many things about this article that are very ridiculous. Fortunately, the response has been big, so I will defer commentary to two people who are more qualified to criticize than I.

First is Amby Burfoot, blogger at Runner's World. In her August 10 post on the blog Peak Performance, she makes a couple interesting points.

My problem with the story is that it's more an extended blog--a personal essay--than a true research roundup. Even worse, it never examines the reasons why one might want to lose weight. If you want to get healthier, for example, which I hope is most people's prime motivator, there's a ton of research indicating that exercise will make you healthier even if you can't do much to budge the pounds. Many studies have shown that it's possible to be "fat but fit."

I do think its possible to summarize current research in an informal way while including personal anecdote, but only if you do it responsibly. Cloud seems to have good intentions, but he often misrepresents the available information.

Burfoot's second point is interesting as well. What is the motivation to lose weight? Are you less likely to adhere to an exercise program if you're just doing it to look better? There seems to be something to the idea that if you perceive more benefits from exercise, you'll enjoy more benefits.

Burfoot goes on to discuss a 2009 publication by the American College of Sports Medicine that talks about this VERY ISSUE: adults and exercise and weight loss. This document gets into the technical aspects of exercise that the ACSM recommends, like the duration, intensity and frequency of exercise, and how it can be a useful part of a healthy weight loss program. Basically, all the key points that Cloud leaves out of his article... probably because they sort of blow his thesis out of the water.

The second expert I'd like to quote is a friend's father, who is a professor of kinesiology and has two sons who played college football (which I mention to illustrate his personal, as well as professional, interest in these issues). He explained that overall, he agreed with the article's "calories in-calories out" argument. The problem, he said, was that,

They fail to mention that if you examine weight loss programs and look at the rate of recidivism that this is where the differences lie. The rate of recidivism from diet alone is very high, almost 95% of those who lose weight on a diet alone will gain it back. The diet industry thrives on it. If you look at the rate of recidivism for diet and exercise programs of weight loss, the rates are lower.

(Recidivism is the tendency to relapse, FYI.) Exercise is an important part of any healthy weight loss program just like fruit and milk are part of the "balanced breakfast" you hear about from cereal commercials. Lots of people like to talk about exercise and diet as if they are two mutually exclusive ideas: it's either one or the other. It seems though, that both exercise and diet work best when they are working together as a team! Like toothbrushes and floss. Or cheese and macaroni. Or cheese and round, flat dough with tomato sauce on it. (Well, really cheese and any other food...) Anyway. Teamwork. You get the idea.

One last point I'd like to address is Cloud's assertion that exercise makes you hungry. Yes, it certainly does. But is there a reason you can't eat a banana or half a bagel after you exercise if you're ravenous? Does it have to be a Frappucino or a muffin? It's fine to eat if you're hungry, but not every hunger needs to be satisfied with a bacon cheeseburger. Just wanted to throw that out there.

...Water!...

Yesterday I came upon the newly designed Environmental Protection Agency website. (Actually, I have no idea if it's a new design... it seems like the first thing the Obama IT team did was redesign all the websites using Flash and soothing colors, so I'm assuming.) It's very pretty and there are many widgets to entertain you.

My favorite is the MyEnvironment widget. Just enter your zip code and it will show your air quality and UV indexes, some stats about your health (which mean nothing to me... anyone care to define "cancer risk estimates"?) and the most interesting section, information about your local water source. Tap water! Yay!

People seem to always been complaining about tap water and how gross it is. My last roommate used to scold me if she caught me filling up a glass from the faucet... when there was a perfectly good Brita pitcher in the refrigerator! Did I have a death wish?!

I don't mind drinking tap water at all--in fact, I enjoy not experiencing the faint anxiety I get from drinking bottled water. It still seems completely ridiculous to me to buy water, when all you have to do is turn a little knob in your house and it comes pouring out. Gushing, if you wish. Do you remember when they first started selling bottled water? I was in middle school and one of my friends bought a bottle from the vending machine in the cafeteria. I threw a fit. "Seriously?!" I ridiculed. "If you're thirsty, just get a drink from the fountain! Give me the 75 cents!" And then we listened to the Spice Girls. The end.

I do find it interesting, though, that in such a short time we've gone from loving our water supply to tolerating it to loathing it. Why? Has it become more contaminated in recent years? Or are we just that susceptible to marketing?

In truth, I don't know very much about safe levels of contaminants and bacteria in water, but I want to have faith in my municipal water provider. I checked out the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority on the intraweb and was surprised to see that they publish monthly Water Quality Reports here. I have only a basic knowledge of biology, so the report for July was a little over my head.

Still, I am impressed that the MWRA publishes monthly reports. On the EPA website, it says that public water suppliers are only required to publish an annual report, so the fact that the MWRA provides additional reports is a good sign, I think. Transparency is never bad in my book. Also, WBZ reported in March that Boston "may have the tastiest water in the country", although the lack of supporting data leads me to believe that they made that up.

...Vacation...

Lastly, I vacationed for 10 days in my homeland of Oregon, and came to several conclusions:

1. If it is 90 degrees in Portland, it will certainly be 65 and foggy at the coast. Regardless, I will still get burned.
   
2. Lunch tastes better when you eat it outside under the grape vines.
3. I wish my life took place a private karaoke room.
   
4. My certainty of the start time of an event is inversely related to the likelihood that I'm right, i.e. if I'm VERY SURE something starts at 7pm, it probably starts at 6pm.
5. There needs to be about 250% more Happy Hours in Boston (preferably including drink AND food specials).
6. People from high school will always surprise me (for better and for worse).

Fin.

Wise Up! Bits of Fashion, Love, Body and Aging Wisdom (from someone who has no idea what they're talking about)

"Wise" is not an adjective often used to describe 20-somethings. Ever. Maybe long ago (and in other parts of the world) when the average life expectancy was 35, a person in their mid-20's would have been considered to possess a modicum of wisdom since they were middle-aged.

But now? No. People in their 20s are probably considered to be the LEAST wise (stupidest?) second only to the inconsistent and often irrational wisdom of adolescence. Sure, you might consider children and pre-teens to truly be the dumbest of all the age brackets (youth!), but I'd argue that at least they aren't acting on the pretense of possessing any wisdom. They are just trying to get from point A to point B without getting beat up.

In any case, this week I've brought together four items having loose ties to wisdom. Enjoy!

I. Fashion wisdom
Now, I have a little knowledge about certain topics, but fashion is not one of them. I have gut feelings about things that look bad (red and pink separates, socks with sandals) and I learned a few things in high school (black+ navy blue = bad, brown belt + black shoes = bad, etc.), but that is sort of the extent of my expertise, if you could even call it that.

So! When skinny jeans came onto the scene in full force a few years ago, I first got them confused with tapered jeans. Then I got them confused with the goth/punk uniform. And then I bought a pair. Not too tight, but you know, fitted.

Apparently, as MSNBC reports, many women wear skinny jeans that are very, VERY skinny, and now some of those fancy-pants ladies are reporting pain in their thighs. The pain is a type of nerve damage known as meralgia paresthetica or, for the more literal-minded, "tingly thigh syndrome."

On top of THAT, skinny jeans may be the cause of gastrointestinal issues, bladder infections, yeast infections and blood clots, according to Dr. Roshini Raj, medical editor of Health magazine. Just watch this video from the Today show with Meredith Viera.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

True, only 3 or 4 women in 10,000 will suffer from "tingly thigh syndrome", but millions more will probably get bladder and yeast infections. Millions!

So why do women put themselves through physical pain and potential crotchitorial itchiness for skinny jeans? "They are the antithesis of 'mom jeans,'" says Cindi Leive, editor-in-chief of Glamour and Today. LOL!

This segment is uber ridiculous. Of all the things to do a four minute "health" segment on, they chose to demonize skinny jeans?! The fact is, bladder and yeast infections are sort of a normal lifetime occurrence, so I don't think theres any need to create a crisis over them. (Unless, you know, you get a yeast infection like once a week.) Nerve damage and blood clots, on the other hand, are not anything to mess around with. But how common are these things in women and men who wear skinny jeans? How tight are the pants? Are people wearing these things 24/7? The vague speculation by Meredith and the lady doctors about these factors do not make for a very convincing argument.

A comment on the Newser post about this pretty much sums up my thoughts: "Women can be so retarded." JK!

P.S. Did you notice that NBC showed a picture of the Jonas Brothers to illustrate that men often wear skinny jeans? Ha.

(Via Wellness in Practice)

II. Relationship and sex wisdom
Dan Savage is awesome. He is a relationship and sex advice columnist with a podcast and a blog. People call and write to him with their problems and he gives them amazing no-bullshit advice.

Example: Here is today's advice for a single gay dude who had testicular cancer resulting in the loss of one of his testicles. Will this affect his love life? Dan writes,

There may be a handful of gay guys out there who won't want to date a guy with one ball, and they'll make their excuses and refrain from seeing you again. But so long as you're not an insecure, tormented bag of slop always bemoaning his half-empty sack, it shouldn't interfere with your love life.

I've been listening to the podcast a lot recently, and I just love it more and more. Savage is able to be both sensitive when people sincerely have issues, and sort of a jackass when people are being idiots.

Above all, Savage encourages people to be confident, open and compassionate about their problems. Although sometimes he can be a little bitchy, for the most part Savage is right on with his advice, and it's nice to hear from someone who is confidently open-minded and not afraid to call people out when they are acting like fools.

Lastly, you should watch this video of Savage describing the weirdest letter he's every received. You won't regret it.

III. Love-your-body wisdom
I'm not a big sort of touchy-feely your-body-is-a-wonderland advocate, but I wanted to point out the recently launched "art action" initiative called Beautiful Just The Way You Are.

Created by Massachusetts artist Lillian Hsu, BJTWYA aims to

intervene in the space between all who stand before the magazine rack and the engine of advertising and mass culture. In that space of daily life it places an alternative.

Here's how it works:

1. Print out BJTWYA 8.5 x 11 inch posters. (PDF on their homepage; also pictured)
   
2. Place them in front of women's interest magazines to highlight the abusive and absurd headlines (i.e. "10 Easy Ways to Lose Weight", "Get that Bikini Body!", etc.) in your local newsstands.
   
3. Stand back and bask in warm glow of bodily acceptance.
4. Optional: Run from store clerks, owners and disgruntled shoppers.

(Via Our Bodies, Our Blog)

IV. Aging wisdom

Gray hair. Ugh.

My significant other INSISTS that I have a few errant gray hairs, although there is no physical evidence to back up the claim. I do not agree with this assertion. (My hair is dirty blonde, so it's incredibly hard to look at a single strand of hair and definitively establish a color.)

Last weekend, I found a weird kinky hair sitting in my lap while chillin' in the backseat as we cruised around Syracuse, NY. I inspected it carefully, holding it against the black leatherish interior of the car, and finally proclaimed that there was nothing to worry about, everyone! This was NOT a gray hair.

My S.O. grabbed the hair from my hand and began to loudly contradict me. Front Seat Friend jumped on the bandwagon immediately, and my S.O. passed the hair to her. Within seconds, FSF had declared that I was wrong, this WAS a gray hair! And how could she tell, I asked?

"Because it feels gray," she said.

BUT YOU CAN'T FEEL A COLOR, I said.

Huh... I'm going to start dyeing my hair.