Facebook, Schmacebook: Privacy & Positivity

After I wrote the Frenemies and Facebook post about a month ago, my FB usage dropped off dramatically. My new job duties leave exactly no time to mess around on the computer, which isn't the worst thing in the world. Now, instead of obsessively checking the "Live Feed" on my FB homepage, I fill my working hours interacting with loads of strange people and time-consuming tasks of the cooking and cleaning variety. I've gone from working with one person and exchanging a handful of spoken sentences every day to engaging in near-constant conversation with upwards of 40 people (not all at once, but throughout the day). Have you ever attempted to make meatloaf and salad for 20 people while pretending to be interested in a monologue on Japanese school girls and supervising unnaturally perky nursing interns?

It's a little like herding cats. In heat. Who are on a cocktail of anti-psychotics.

Anyway, two Facebook related things caught my eye recently. One was extremely useful, while the other was extremely annoying. Here they are.

Extremely Useful: 5 Easy Steps to Stay Safe (and Private!) On Facebook (Via the New York Times Technology section)

I expected to know everything in this article because I consider myself to be a Facebook expert. It turns out that I have an inflated sense of self, I am not an expert, and this article offered up a few important housecleaning tips for the FB.

#1 Make Friend Lists: I have done this a little bit, and I can see how it could be very useful to put people in categories, so you can block certain groups. But am I really going to spend an hour or two sorting through all my "friends"? No. (Maybe you can though?)

#2 Who Can See What On Your Profile: Check out the privacy settings! There are lots of options now for who can see the various bits of info you've put up on your page.

#3 Who Can See Your Address and Phone Number: Um... why are you putting this on your page in the first place? I suppose if you must include your digits, you can use the privacy settings to restrict random people from calling you.

#4 Change Who Can Find You on Facebook Via Search: You can become invisible with the click of a button. I imagine this option as a sort of FB Witness Protection Program.

#5 Stop Sharing Personal Information With Unknown Applications: Seriously! I had no idea about this. If you are a compulsive quiz taker, please go to Edit Applications and purge some of those long-forgotten apps that still have the right to view your profile information. You can either delete apps or restrict their ability to email you and post things about you under "Edit Settings" for each one. Take back control on Facebook!

Extremely Annoying: My profile, myself (Via Boston Globe Sunday Magazine)

I understand the concept of a "puff piece" and I accept that it has a place in print media. Not every article needs to be a hard hitting exposé on Mexican drug lords, because that would just be silly. But some puff pieces try too hard to be witty or playful or poignant... and they just annoy the bejesus out of me.

Example: "My profile, myself". Kara Baskin waxes poetic about Facebook and the compulsive urge to be optimistic, as evidenced through status updates, photos and other public correspondence.

One early-morning browse through Facebook a couple weeks ago, I encountered a woman who had it all: She got massages, partied in New York City, and was perpetually off to fabulous restaurants. When she wasn’t dining out, her loving husband was preparing gourmet meals. She was popular, too -- 630 friends! I took a swig of coffee. That person was me. The same me who was nursing an unrelenting zit while listening to that gourmet husband hiss about a $2,000 car part.

I took another gulp of coffee and updated my status: “Loves caffeine!”

Baskin admits that even she is annoyed by her own inane positivity. Well, maybe not annoyed, but ashamed to some extent. She goes on to relate her attempt to publish more even-handed status updates, which included references to her husband's brief unemployment. But then at a party, an acquaintance references a status update in regular life, and it freaks her out. "Wait, I'm not trying to be popular... I just am popular?! Awesome! I mean... weird??"

And that fake quote sums up the article.

In all seriousness, I agree with Baskin that the daily "sugar-spun epiphanies" that appear in many profiles are generally unnecessary. Sharing the occasional good news is one thing, but adding ten exclamation points to an update about watching movies and eating dinner is excessive. Also, daily Zen-ish adages like "Life is truth" or "Friendship is life" are just silly. Don't do that.

So, what is my point? At the end of the day, Facebook is not that interesting. And talking about Facebook is even less interesting. Plus, a few other things... like, "Practice forgiving yourself for being human. Then pass that forgiveness on to others." (Courtesy of a recent status update)

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.

Why Does Everyone Hate Organic?

That would seem to be the case the last few days following the publication of a new study by researchers at the Food Standards Agency in England. The study (200+ pages! Click if you dare) analyzed the last fifty years worth of research on the nutritiousness of organic foods versus conventionally grown foods. A year and £120,000 later, what did they find? There are some differences between organic and conventionally produced food but these were not sufficiently important to make any difference to a person’s health or give nutritional benefit.

That is, as the Boston Metro put it, "Organics not really better for you."

Ok, so my first reaction was, "Duh." Food is food is food. An organic carrot is not more magically nutritious than a genetically modified carrot grown with pesticides. There seem to be slightly higher amounts of some minerals and other things, but overall, they typically provide the same amount of basic nutrients.

It is true that some organic products are purported to be more amazing than they actually are, and there are many people that swear by organic produce because of it's health benefits and whatnot. The one good thing about this study is that it silences those annoying people and products for now.

However, the retarded media is spewing the conclusions of this new study like they've just blown the lid off the Organic Industry's tightly sealed jar of LIES. Um, no, not really.

The Times Online says, "Shoppers pay more for organic fruit, vegetables, chicken, beef and milk but the food gives no nutritional enhancement to people’s diet." Who's talking about enhancement? Organic products are not like other items you might see on late night infomercials.

Or check out this short local news report from WPRI Channel 12 in Providence, Rhode Island:

"There is no compelling reason to buy organic." ????? And I thought the news media was supposed to be unbiased.

But don't take my word for it. Let us defer to an expert. I've been reading What To Eat by professor/food expert Marion Nestle and she discusses this issue in some depth. (In fact, she just posted on this very topic yesterday on her blog!) When asked if organic farming methods have any effect on the nutritional effect on foods, Nestle says, "Don't go there":

I can't think of any reason why organically grown foods would have fewer nutrients than conventionally grown foods, and I have no trouble thinking of several reasons why they might have more, but so what? I doubt the slight increase would be enough to make any measurable difference to health. Just as people differ, carrots or heads of cauliflower differ, and the differences in the nutrient content of one carrot or cauliflower and the next can be substantial.

The thing is, (HERE'S THE THING) there are other reasons to buy organic! Choosing fruits and veggies and dairy products and meats that are produced without pesticides and chemicals and hormones and other craziness may not have a huge health benefit to you personally, but that doesn't mean there are no reasons at all to buy organic.

To explain these reasons, Nestle quotes Joan Gussow, the former head of the nutrition department at Columbia University. She asks:

shouldn't we hope that people will choose organic foods on grounds more reliable than whether they contain a little more carotene or zinc? Isn't the most important story that organic production conserves natural resources, solves rather than creates environmental problems, and reduces the pollution of air, water, soil... and food?

Conservation of natural resources, eh? Resolving environmental problems? Reducing pollution? I would consider these to be fairly compelling reasons.

"But what's in it for ME?" you ask. Sure, organic products cost more and there may not be a direct benefit to your health by consuming them. What can you do? I'd say, the best you can, people! Obviously, no one can eat organic stuff ALL THE TIME without running out of money for their light bill.

So you do the best you can. Eat an organic potato once in awhile. At least now you know whats up. Don't be a h8r.

On Self-Pity

Self-Pity
I never saw a wild thing
sorry for itself.
A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough
without ever having felt sorry for itself.

-D.H. Lawrence (1929)

Here we are with a particularly bad case of the Mondays. Missed my usual bus, late to work, forgot to process payroll last week, had to confess to forgetting to process payroll, etc. It's been a rough morning. Poor me!

But really things aren't so bad. They never are. I had an absolutely lovely weekend with friends and softball and booze and fun. For some reason, all those good times just go down the drain the moment that first ray of morning light hits the pillow, shortly followed by the annoyingly familiar melody of my alarm. Oh, poor me! I have to get up and go to work!

Fortunately, I snapped out of my own wallowing when I came across Judith Warner's Domestic Disturbances blog on the NY Times. In particular, her recent post on the supposed American hatred of educated women. Talk about self-pity.

Warner leads this rambling post with an anecdote about a female professor from Montana who was arrested two years ago for dropping off her 12-year-old daughter and friend at the mall... and putting them in charge of three younger children, 8, 7, and 3-years-old. She thought they would be safe at the mall while she went home and took a nap. Um, what?

Warner describes how the police intervened when the 2 older children wandered away from the younger ones (as you might expect 12-year-olds to do) and then called the mother at home. When the mother arrived, she wasn't allowed to explain herself. The police even told her to "Be quiet." Ouch! But she was really tired!

The state prosecutor (a successful woman herself?) seemed to have some sort of personal vendetta against the mother, and her attorney encouraged her to plea guilty to the child endangerment charges. And the worst of it? The mom was forced to take a parenting class. A PARENTING CLASS. Could there be anything more humiliating? (sarcasm)

Somehow for Warner, this story illustrates a growing theme in American society:

What really sent my head spinning after reading Kevane’s story was the degree to which it drove home the fact that our country’s resentment, and even hatred, of well-educated, apparently affluent women is spiraling out of control.

Warner goes on to lament about the Patriarchy, the history of misogyny, Sarah Palin and blah blah blah. WHAT'S YOUR POINT? Oh, here is it:

The hatred of women — in all its archaic, phantasmagoric forms — is still alive and well in our society, and when directed at well-educated women, it’s socially acceptable, too. Think of this for a second the next time you’re inexplicably moved to put an “elite” woman in her place.

Poor elite, educated women! How hard it is to know so much! The weight of the world is carried on their shoulders, and they can't be troubled with petty things like, say, RESPONSIBLY CARING FOR THEIR CHILDREN. So please, be nice to them. Especially when they hit you with their cars while you cross the street because they were distracted trying to find NPR on the radio dial. Or when their children run rampant through the shopping malls, unattended and hooting like baboons.

Just because you are educated and you are a woman and you are an IDIOT does not mean that when you get in trouble for being an IDIOT, the world is against you.

It just means you are a self-pitying idiot.

(Also, there is a magazine called "Brain, Child: The Magazine for Thinking Mothers"? As opposed to non-thinking mothers?)

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!