Healthy, Wealthy & Wise

WIN/LOSE: Patenting genes, HFCS in sodassss

2010-11-09T13:57:00.000-05:00

I've returned from my sabbatical to bring you a new feature I'd like to call WIN/LOSE. It's pretty straightforward, but please pay attention: One news item will be good news (i.e. a "win") while the other will be bad news (i.e. a "los--"... hmm. The verb doesn't work in that context, does it?)

So, do you want the good news or the bad news first?

LOSE: High Fructose Corn Syrup in soda... Liars, liars, pants on fires

Remember how HFCS is supposed to be virtually identical to regular cane sugar? Well, it's possible that the HFCS in soda pop is actually sweeter than advertised, making it not identical to regular sugar.

A recent study suggests that the HFCS added to soda actually has upwards of 30% more fructose than previously thought. The NPR report acknowledges that the study is controversial, and people on both sides are not totally convinced yet. They even quote Barry Popkin of the University of North Carolina (author of The World is Fat) admitting, "We have no real indication that the science of just a small amount [of] more fructose matters."

But then, blamo! Here's Marion Nestle on the study:

The metabolic problems that result from sugar intake are mostly due to the fructose content. Less is better for health. More is better for the soft drink industry, however. Fructose is sweeter than either glucose or sucrose, and sweet is what sells sodas.

At most, HFCS is supposed to be 55% fructose, as compared to the 50% in table sugar. Most foods and drinks are supposed to be using HFCS that is 42% fructose. A percentage of 55 is not much different biologically than 50, which is why the assumption has been that there is no biologically meaningful difference between HFCS and table sugar. This study, if confirmed, means that this supposition may need some rethinking.

In fact, analysis of the study has produced a number of possible issues in the methodology, which you can read about at Nestle's blog, if you care. But the study does raise some interesting questions, and needs to be replicated more responsibly.

If it is found that soda companies are commonly using HFCS that is 60% fructose and calling it table sugar, there are some major legal issues to address, as well as the public health concern. Among them, violations of federal law against food adulteration, false and misleading food labeling, and false and misleading advertising.

What I always find the most interesting in these situations, is the industry's response. In this case, Audrae Erickson, president of the Corn Refiners Association says via press release,

"Consumers should know that fructose is safe... Fructose is commonly found in many fruits and vegetables, as well as honey, maple syrup, processed sugars, and high fructose corn syrup or corn sugar."

Uh, ok. We know.... Wait, corn sugar? Yes. The Corn Refiners Association has petitioned the FDA for the right to change the name of HFCS to "corn sugar."

This has nothing to do with all the bad press HFCS has gotten in the last few years, right?

WIN: US Justice Department says you can't patent a "naturally occurring" human gene

This isn't exactly breaking news, but I thought I'd spread the word. Marion Nestle talked about this on her blog last week and points to the New York Times articles that highlighted a newly released friend-of-the-court brief outlining the issue.

The practice of isolating and patenting human genes is fairly common, but became a contentious issue when Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah Research Foundation patented two genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, that are linked to breast and ovarian cancer. Owning the patent to these two genes has enabled Myriad to charge $3,000 for a test that detects genetic variations associated with a high risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. The patents prevent other companies from developing similar tests which would drive down the price.

To compare, the Times reports that it costs at least $10,000 to get a personal genome sequence, but that the cost is expected to fall to around $1,000 in a few years. Myriad's outrageous price to test for just two genes simply seems greedy and unethical.

So exploiting the very real health fears of women is what capitalism is all about, right? Kevin E. Noonan, a patent lawyer in Chicago who represents biotech companies like Myriad, put down his sippy cup long enough to complain to the Times:

“It’s dumb,” Mr. Noonan said of the government’s brief. “It shows a singular ignorance of the technology and the law at the same time.”

Attorney Noonan also opined that

the government’s stance would endanger innovation because the same philosophy against patenting products isolated from nature might be extended to protein-based drugs and antibiotics.

Forgive me, but it's these bullshit ideas about "capitalism" that created the stupid system we've got today. Innovation and discovery existed looooooooooonngg before the United States was around letting everyone patent every g.d. picture their preschooler drew in class. If the only goal of innovation is to make a buck, then yes, this Justice Department ruling is the pits. Who's going to want to discover anything if they can't get all the credit, prestige and cash?

However, innovation is also driven by the desire to further the progress of humanity... you know, curing diseases and all that jazz. Which is sure to continue indefinitely, because we're naturally curious and we also kinda like it here. It's nice. Sunsets are pretty. Wine is good. Cheese is tasty.

So, please stop worrying about biotech companies and their shareholders. They will be fine. Or they will go bankrupt and other, more worthwhile enterprises will arise in their wake.

Just Kidding! Also, Not JK-ing About Facebook

2010-05-14T10:40:00.001-04:00

Awww... you actually thought I was going to follow through with this?!

That's sweet.

I do have a follow-up post to People in their 20s and The Sex nearly finished, so that will arrive shortly. Clearly, you are on the edge of your seat, so I will try to be prompt in my delivery.

Additionally, I came across a Lifehacker post from a couple days ago that highlighted a NY Times' diagram concerning Facebook's privacy options. There has been a LOT of discussion about FB's ridiculous new privacy policies and weird profile design and a lot of confusion about both. This nifty diagram attempts to make sense of all the privacy options and maps them out. If you love infographics, you will thank me (or the Times. Or whoever.)

I STRONGLY suggest checking out the new privacy options and adjusting them accordingly. Some crazy stuff has been going on over at Facebook and everyone should be aware of who can see your information and who you may be unwittingly sending your info to. I've been tempted to just delete the whole blasted thing, but I'm not that extreme. However, if this is an appealing option, I'd suggest reading Lifehacker's manual for How to Quit Facebook Without Actually Quitting Facebook.

Things I Used to Wear: HOMECOMING EDITION

2010-05-03T23:02:00.002-04:00

Holy hair trends! Cleaning out old bathroom drawers can be dangerous. Especially when they are filled with MILLIONS OF OLD HAIR CLIPS.

Gross.

This picture represents the bulk of the bounty I recovered from a small drawer and a cabinet. What's not pictured are the many bottles of nasty smelling lotions, the used shower puffs, the sparkly shower gels or three bottles of solution to clean piercings. All from Claire's. Anyway.

Notice the bag in the back on the right. It is a bag of plastic curlers. My mom used some of those curlers to curl my hair for Easter festivities when I was 2 (see photo below). They were also used to curl my hair for Easter festivities for the next TEN YEARS. Or thereabouts.

Perms aren't for me.

On the far left are some giant clip thingys. What were those called? Claws? Anyway, I have no idea why there would be so many in my bathroom. Everyone in my family has very fine hair, so those claws would have been outrageously huge on the backs of our teenage heads holding our little bit of hair, half slipping out. Now that's just impractical.

At the bottom of the picture, you can find some teeny tiny sparkly claws. I have to say that I don't remember wearing these, but I could have blacked it out. Were they a Spice Girls fashion trend? A high school dance hair accessory? It's unclear. I suspect that my sister used these items more than me, but I'd hate to falsely accuse her of something so horrific as wearing tiny clips when she was 12. That was sarcasm.

One thing I'm sure of is this: neither my sister nor I wore 1/4 of this crap. For real. I would not lie to you about this. Our hair decorating days were in elementary school, and most of this accumulated after. Those giant clips were just impractical and we were WAY more into scrunchies anyway. The most popular (and therefore, hideous) of those scrunchies were disposed of long ago, because elastic bands can only withstand so many scalding water washings. I think it's for the best.

People in their 20s and The Sex

2010-05-02T22:56:00.000-04:00


Creative Commons photo courtesy of Flikr user peachy92

Ah, yes. The Sex. Capital T, capital S. Let's discuss it for a minute.

Yesterday the LA Times published an article about Us and Sex. Us, meaning people in their 20s, and Sex. Let's just say the news isn't all good.

GOOD NEWS:

Percentage of sexually active unmarried people ages 18 to 29, according to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy: 86%
Percentage of that same group who reported they are not ready to have kids: 87%
Also, in 1970, 21% of 25-year-olds were unmarried; by 2005, the percentage had jumped to 60%.

I mean, depending on your perspective, you might consider these nuggets of data "good news", or maybe it's more neutral. Either way, it's clear that people in their 20s are unattached and having lots of The Sex.

And now, the BAD NEWS:

Percentage of pregnancies in the 18-29 age group that are unintended: 7 in 10
Percentage of sexually active unmarried people ages 18 to 29 who predict they'll have unprotected sex within the next three months: almost 20%.
Percentage of sexually active unmarried people 18-29 who reported that "they know everything they need to know about how to avoid pregnancy": 90%
Percentage of women from the last group who said they know "little or nothing" about the birth control pill: 30%
Percentage of men from the last group who said they know "little or nothing" about the birth control pill: 80%
Percentage of sexually active unmarried people 18-29 who believe that wearing two condoms provides double protection (when in fact it increases the chance of breakage): 24%
PLUS, men and women in their 20s have among the highest rates of sexually transmitted infections of any age group, including chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis.

YIKES.

To recap: lots of people having sex, not a lot of those people are doing it safely.

I think a lot of people will see these statistics and FREAK OUT, and probably blame the homosexuals for being so sex-positive. Also, Europeans. And probably Mexican immigrants. (Right Arizona?)

But if you ask me, these stats highlight the fact that sex education has not kept up with the increase in sexual activity. I can't speak to the type of sex education being offered, although I suspect that the abstinence-only education could be part of this problem. It'd be interesting to look at the history of the abstinence-only curriculum versus a more comprehensive sex-ed and how those two have effected rates of unplanned pregnancy and STIs (if at all).

I haven't tracked down precisely where these statistics come from on the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy website, because there are LOADS of reports, but I'll dive into it tomorrow and hopefully find a gem or two.

30 Posts in 30 Days

2010-05-01T17:16:00.003-04:00

Last week I attended an Etsy Virtual Lab about jump-starting creativity. Artist Noah Scalin talked about his project, Skull A Day, in which he created one skull every day for a year and posted them on his blog. Giving himself a deadline and an audience, Scalin was forced to buckle down and get working! Which is exactly what I plan on doing.

SO HERE WE GO: 30 Posts in 30 Days. We'll see what happens.

Look, I even made a banner for the event! There's no backing out now people.

Even though I'm only marginally employed right now and therefore have an obscene amount of free time, these posts will not be the hard-hitting and lengthy exposes that you've grown accustomed to. Ha! You'll be fine.

BIG THINGS

2010-04-09T11:10:00.001-04:00

I left Boston. I'm in Chicago. Back in Portland on Tuesday... where I will hopefully pull together the various pieces of myself and reassemble my life.

Until then, I leave you with this little gem of inspiration.

The really important kind of freedom involves attention, and awareness, and discipline, and effort, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them, over and over, in myriad petty little unsexy ways, every day. That is real freedom. That is being taught how to think.
-David Foster Wallace
Kenyon Commencement Speech, 2005

Masticate on THAT, hump day

2010-03-09T23:31:00.006-05:00

Man oh man. It has been quite the week! Oh wait, it's only Tuesday. That would make tomorrow "hump day", which is a name (or euphemism?) that I despise. It makes me think of a bell curve, which doesn't really make any sense if your time-line is Sunday through Saturday. I suppose if we were tracking general displeasure throughout the work week it might peak on Wednesday, making it the day of the hump in data. The bell curve is about probability though, right? So that makes any reasoning completely nonsensical.

Also, I think we should discourage the use of the word "hump" as much as possible in everyday conversation. It's weird and awkward.

You know what else is weird and awkward? The modern history of diets. Particularly the Fletcherizing movement of 1903, encouraging people to chew their food 32 times. The founder, Horace Fletcher, ingeniously reasoned through rhyme that, "Nature will castigate those who don't masticate." (Masticate means chew. Get your mind out of the gutter.)

In more urgent and important news, President Obama needs to cut down on the desserts according to his doctor. From Obama's other health downfall @LA Times:

The famously self-disciplined president who seemingly can't miss a morning workout has a secret craving: pie.

Skipping dessert won't be easy. The Thanksgiving menu at the White House included six kinds of pie.

SIX (6) KINDS OF PIE? As in, 5 + 1 = 6? WHO WOULDN'T TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SIX KINDS OF PIE?! I would be disappointed if Obama wasn't eating loads of gourmet pies, cobblers, tarts, et al. More disappointed than health care.

And also, who doesn't love pie? Even the most disciplined eater cannot resist a flaky, buttery crust with a warm, fruity filling. I don't think there is a more American vice. Well, maybe hydrogenated oil. Or Pop Tarts. (Actually, my ex did not like pie. We were clearly incompatible on a very deep level.)

Lastly, Chloe's Show and Tell time.

I took this picture last week. The date stamp ruined it. I have a lot to learn.

Monthly Post to let you know I am still Alive

2010-03-07T23:57:00.002-05:00

It's official! I'm still Alive (capital A). And my newest hobby is consuming large quantities of off-brand Cheez-its. LARGE QUANTITIES. The grocery store had a sale today: 2 boxes for $5. What is a girl to do...

This evening, I am proud to present several brief items, in no particular order.

1.) Part-time Carnivore
My dear friend Simone alerted me to a new campaign called Part-time Carnivore. Launched just a few days ago, Part-time Carnivore reasons that eating less meat has a big effect on climate change and on world hunger, because current meat producing methods are irresponsible and unsustainable.

Part-time Carnivore encourages people to eat less meat by pledging to follow one of several options, such as Meat-Free Mondays or Meating-Out (only eating meat away from home).

I haven't signed up for anything specific, because (I'm lazy and) I already have a casual system is place where I allow myself to include meat in 1 or 2 meals a week. I've been reading Jonathan Safran Foer's Eating Animals, which has unsettled me a lot and made me confront a lot of uncomfortable truths about our modern food system. I would highly recommend this book if you like being uncomfortable and grossed out and very, very angry. Or also if you care about eating meat produced by morally bankrupt corporations.

You know, at some point, you have to make a decision.

2.) Making some sense of supplements
David McCandless is an extremely talented author, writer and designer who likes to put data, ideas and information into really cool visualizations.

One of his latest projects is called Snake Oil? Scientific Evidence for Health Supplements. This interactive graphic organizes a variety of supplements by the amount of research conducted and the strength of the evidence supporting health claims. Um, awesome! Check it out.

3.) Sexual Assault on Campus
I suppose I try to stay away from issues in this realm, because although I am a feminist and I care about the well-being of my fellow woman, it's not really the focus of this blog. However, since I write this thing and no one pays me and like 3 of you read it, I've decided I can do WHATEVER I want.

Anyway, I follow a few women's health type blogs, one of them being Women's Health News. Today Rachel noted a recent NPR story, Myths That Make It Hard To Stop Campus Rape. I appreciated this article for it's non-hysterical discussion of sexual predators on college campuses, which profiled a typical predator and emphasized the role of alcohol in attacks.

I'm not going to get into the issues at the moment, so suffice it to say, NPR brings up some interesting points. Hit it up.

4.) Target Women on Current TV

On a strong recommendation from Wellesley friend, I checked out Target Women hosted by Sarah Haskins. A mix of cheese, camp and sarcasm (or something?) Target Women is sometimes awkward, but entertaining always. I particularly enjoyed this episode on security systems, and now I am encouraging you to partake in the insanity. Bon appetit!

Staus Quo: Football vs. Women, Howard Zinn

2010-02-03T23:45:00.001-05:00

Ah yes, the status quo. It's nearly impossible to escape. The Super Bowl defines it, while Howard Zinn defied it.

Football vs. Women

Jaclyn Friedman wrote an interesting piece at The Nation referencing the Focus on the Family's upcoming ad to be aired during the Super Bowl, that I talked about a week ago.

Friedman discusses the objectification and general poor portrayal of women during the big game in "The Second Sex at the Super Bowl," which in and of itself, is nothing new. The Focus on the Family's ad, however, brings the debate to a new level:

Enter the Focus on the Family ad, thirty seconds of squeaky-clean "family values" that make the astonishing claim that women shouldn't have abortions because they might be gestating a future male sports star. There's a lot wrong with this argument, not the least of which is the statistical reality that it's significantly more likely that women who choose to carry their fetuses to term will give birth to rapists or murderers than to Heisman Trophy winners. But what makes it such a perfect fit for the Super Bowl is its blatant cynicism about the role of women when it comes to the big game. It's not enough that we be always available, conventionally beautiful sex-objects. Now we have a CBS-sanctioned ad telling us that if we get knocked up as a result of all that (relentlessly heterosexual) sex, we have only two choices: have the baby, or become an enemy of Football Nation.

This is the point I tried to make in my post, although Friedman puts it much more eloquently. (which is probably why they pay her the big bucks at The Nation. Ha.) "Enemy of Football Nation," eh? Doesn't sounds like the Tebows' and Focus on the Family are going to give women much of a choice.

Furthermore, Friedman argues that CBS and the media should be more responsible about their portrayals of women, considering the huge viewership:

There are few events in the American calendar that bring together more people than the Super Bowl--nearly as many people will watch next Sunday as voted in the 2008 presidential election. If it really is the love of football, friends and family that brings us all together, then it's time to stop helplessly accepting an event that treats half the population like expendable fodder for the other half's entertainment.

Not a bad idea.

(via Feministing)

Howard Zinn

I don't typically find myself feeling sentimental about the passing of celebrities, but for Howard Zinn I need to make an exception. Zinn died last week, at the age of 87. He was an outspoken activist who made his living as a historian. His tenacity and courage of conviction have always been an inspiration to me.

I first read A People's History of the United States for a high school class, which seemed ridiculous at the time, but now I recognize it as the fantastic opportunity it was. About a year ago I read Failure to Quit on a whim when I came across it at the library. I loved hearing from the Zinn the Activist and would highly recommend it. (You can read my review at Goodreads here.)

Revere at Effect Measure, a public health blog, published two Zinn-themed posts last week that are worth a read: Howard Zinn, 1922-2010 and Advice from Howard Zinn.

Lastly, here is one of my favorite quotes from Failure to Quit. When times are tough, it always makes me feel optimistic about the future.

History has always belonged to the people who controlled whatever present there was. They control history. So it’s not a matter of taking it back. Very often people will say, Let us restore America to what it once was. To what? Slavery? Let us restore the good old days? The good old days lie ahead.

Things I Used to Wear: S.T.A.R.S.

2010-01-25T23:43:00.001-05:00

Look you guys, I need to get something off my chest: I used to volunteer as a abstinence-only "teen mentor" for middle-schoolers.

Seriously: in the Students Today Aren't Ready for Sex program, or S.T.A.R.S. for short. This is the shirt I wore every week to brainwash the young and impressionable minds of 12- and 13-year-old boys and girls.

I'm so embarrassed. I was going to confess this yesterday in my Blog for Choice post because it seemed relevant. But then, on the other hand, it didn't seem relevant.

In my defense, I was young and foolish. I needed to pad my college applications with something more versatile and substantial than athletics. S.T.A.R.S. was perfect in this capacity. To the casual viewer, this activity demonstrated that I was compassionate and interested in current affairs; a leader among men. However, to anyone else I probably seemed like a spineless d-bag, easily persuaded into selling her soul by empty rhetoric and the possibility of interacting with conservative Christian boys.

You know, the funny thing is that sometimes being a spineless d-bag has it's advantages. In the 3rd week of my second year doing S.T.A.R.S. (no, I didn't get enough the first time around), both of my co-mentors were going to be out of town for some super-fab spring break trip I wasn't invited to. There were a number of fellow mentors who could fill in for the one session, but I decided to impose on a guy I'd been interested in for the past few months. Why not? The fact was I needed someone to help me run the session, and this was innocent enough. Plus, he had a car.

So, what happened? Did we hook up wearing our S.T.A.R.S. shirts? Um, no. This is not that story. The boy in question, let's call him Val Kilmer, agreed to assist me for the one session. We were alone in his car. We got lunch. We talked about music and mutual friends. It was one of those very strange situations that when you're in them, you have no idea what's going on. Afterwards, you think that maybe it could have been almost a date, but it was definitely not a date because either you or the other person was being weird. And you only realize that it could have been sort of a date a few days later, and by then it is much, much to late to do anything about the fact that you blew it. (Those last couple sentences sound like they could have been part of a monologue in the movie "He's Just Not That Into You." Which, bt-dubs, is the worst movie in existence. Or at least top 10.)

Obviously, I was the one who blew it, for reasons that would be foreign to me except for I don't think they even exist. Being a teenager and trying to get a little action is hard enough, and it is nearly impossible when the irony of your self-righteous, abstinent douchebaggery is staring you in the face. Ay, ay, ay. (Looking back, the writing was on the wall. A popular strip club in my hometown shared the name of the program, so I was often teased about working for Stars Cabaret when I wore this t-shirt to school. In my dreams, people.)

When I found the picture of this shirt tonight, that was the first memory that popped into my head. Ridiculous, huh? For the record, the second memory was of a fellow teen mentor roleplaying the part of a 12-year-old during training. For some reason she was also playing the part as if she were a Chinese-Italian exchange student. "Wat iz dees prega-nancy?" she wondered obnoxiously.

I think this video pretty much sums up the situation.

*********************
Things I Used to Wear is an irregular series featuring strange items from my former wardrobe. Past entries have included a tank top, shoes, a shirt, glittery makeup and another tank top.

Blog for Choice Day 2010 (was 2 days ago)

2010-01-24T14:20:00.003-05:00

Friday was NARAL's 5th annual Blog for Choice Day. I had every intention of dedicating a post on HWW to the event, which is held on January 22 to commemorate the anniversary of Roe v. Wade (37th this year!).

Obviously, I am a slacker and no such post exists. In my defense, I had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad week, so you should all feel very sorry for me. I cried at work. Who cries at work?! I'm 25 years old, for Chrissake. A huge chunk of my pride is gone forever. Which will be followed by another huge chunk of my pride the next time it happens. And the next time, and so on. Lovely.

Anyway, the theme of this year's Blog for Choice Day was "Trust Women," which is an homage to the late Dr. Tiller who typically wore a button carrying the sentiment.

Before I get into a discussion of "Trusting Women", I wanted to talk about this theme in relation to a upcoming commercial. The commercial in question is Focus on the Family's pro-life/anti-choice ad, which is set to air during the Super Bowl. In a completely inexplicable move, CBS is allowing Focus on the Family to be the Super Bowl's first "issue ad" to ever appear. In the past, Moveon.org, PETA and the United Church of Christ have attempted to buy Super Bowl real estate, but CBS has turned down their requests, according to AlterNet.

Although representatives at CBS refused to talk to the Advocate (weird), spokesman Dana McClintock told the NY Times: “Our standards and practices continue to adhere to a policy that insures that all ads on all sides of an issue are appropriate for air.” I'll believe when I see it.

The 30-second, $2.8 million ad will feature the notoriously obnoxious--I mean, religious--University of Florida QB Tim Tebow, and his mommy, Pam. According to Wikipedia, Tebow's mother became seriously ill during her pregnancy and the medications used to save her life threatened the Tebow fetus. Doctor's recommended she terminate the pregnancy, anticipating a still-birth which could put Mama Tebow at serious risk. Obviously, the abortion did not occur, and the little Tebow grew up to be (against all the homeschooling odds) an NCAA football megastar.

The Tebow's will presumably relate this story during Focus on the Family's commercial.

So, ladies listen up! Please consider the odds of your fetus growing up to become a professional athlete (supposedly 1 in 22,000) before you terminate a pregnancy. I think that's what Focus on the Family is getting at. We'll see on February 7.

Now back to "Trust Women." Jos at Feministing writes:

Since Roe v. Wade became law 37 years ago abortion access has been under constant attack both from antis in the streets and legislation like the Hyde Amendment. Regardless of intent many of these actions send a clear message that women can't be trusted. Abortion, a medical procedure that is only needed by members of a marginalized population, has been singled out from all other procedures as something the state will not support financially and that often requires crossing medically unnecessary hurdles like waiting periods, parental consent, and harassment by antis. The implication is both that abortion should be controversial and taboo and that women can't be trusted to decide if they should have the procedure, even with the help of doctors and counselors.

"Trust Women" is a reminder that access to abortion shouldn't be limited because of politics or religious ideology. And it's a reminder that no one but the woman seeking an abortion is qualified to decide if it's the right decision. "Trust Women" means recognizing that each individual woman can make her own decisions about what is best for her.

Jos is pretty smart, and these things make sense to me. The logistical and financial hoops that women have to jump through in order to get an abortion are often excessive, and are put in place by people who out of touch with the reality of the situation.

"Trust Women" reminds us that the decision to terminate a pregnancy is not a simple one that a woman takes lightly. Young, middle-aged, single, married, whatever-- an unwanted pregnancy is a scary situation, and I think it's ignorant to assume that women carelessly choose to abort.

On the other hand, (yes, there is another hand) it takes two to tango, right? While I firmly believe that a woman should have the final decision in whether she wants to carry a pregnancy to term or not, should her opinion be the only one that matters? What about the father? Does he have no voice?

Sure, you're probably rolling your eyes right now. If you came to this blog on purpose (ha!), you probably know me and we're probably similar people: women, liberal, open-minded. But there's more to it than that. Honestly, I used to think that the man's opinion was irrelevant. Whoever he was, it didn't matter! It's not his body, it shouldn't be his choice.

But what sort of man-hating bullshit is that? Of course the father should get a say! There should always be a discussion. That's all I'm saying. If you can be an adult and have sex and get pregnant, then you can be an adult and talk about the consequences.

If nothing else, look at it like this: why should women carry the entire burden of deciding to have an abortion? It's not fair. Share the experience, share the emotional toll.

And that's all she wrote on Blog for Choice Day (two days late).

Happy New Year!

2010-01-01T00:15:00.001-05:00

2010! Whoa! Can you believe it? Time flies when you're living your life.

Speaking of which... I've taken an unintentional hiatus from Healthy, Wealthy & Wise, and I'm sad about this. Life has been overwhelming the last couple months, but I plan on getting back into the blog soon. Promise.

While I have your attention, I wanted to relate a short anecdote, which has given me great cause for concern recently. A couple days ago, a coworker found out that he has some major health problems, and is undergoing a serious medical procedure next week. He's in his 6o's and strives to be active and healthy, leading a weekly "health and wellness" group for our clients. So how did Mr. Healthy get sick? He stopped drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes a number of years ago, doesn't touch red meat and sprinkles seaweed on nearly everything (which has arguable benefits). He's been unable to get much exercise in the last year due to a prolonged rehab from illness, but in a previous lifetime, he was very active.

It blows my mind that my coworker is going through this right now (and only partially because I'm selfish and his absence virtually doubles my work load). He works so hard to advocate healthy choices, and seems to practice what he preaches. I think that heredity plays a significant role in these situations, but to some extent, is this also a cautionary tale? (See picture.) Will the decisions we make now affect us more significantly down the road? Food for thought.

Take care of yourself, please. And Happy New Year!

Facebook, Schmacebook: Privacy & Positivity

2009-11-09T23:15:00.001-05:00

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

2009-10-18T23:15:00.001-04:00

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 a nd 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:

Healthier food retail, encouraging groceries and markets to stock fresh, affordable produce.
Make healthier foods more available in schools. (Because the "Student Diet" gets started early)
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

2009-09-30T22:23:00.005-04:00

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:

Shut up, that is not the Urban Dictionary definition of frenemy.
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:

Does Facebook make it easier or harder to maintain "The 50 Percent"?
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)
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

2009-09-08T15:17:00.001-04:00

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:

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

2009-08-28T17:38:00.002-04:00

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:

If it is 90 degrees in Portland, it will certainly be 65 and foggy at the coast. Regardless, I will still get burned.
Lunch tastes better when you eat it outside under the grape vines.
I wish my life took place a private karaoke room.
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.
There needs to be about 250% more Happy Hours in Boston (preferably including drink AND food specials).
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)

2009-08-07T17:00:00.001-04:00

"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:

Print out BJTWYA 8.5 x 11 inch posters. (PDF on their homepage; also pictured)
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.
Stand back and bask in warm glow of bodily acceptance.
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?

2009-07-31T16:10:00.004-04:00

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

2009-07-20T16:55:00.002-04:00

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

2009-07-14T10:52:00.001-04:00

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 Tren ds 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

2009-07-09T12:40:00.005-04:00

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

2009-06-30T16:55:00.000-04:00

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!

2009-06-25T16:08:00.001-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your Workout Forecast

2009-06-14T14:05:00.001-04:00

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

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

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

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

Organic Alcohol and You: An Introduction

2009-06-12T12:46:00.001-04:00

Whilst perusing Gourmet.com for new things to cook, I came across a drink recipe for The Brad Pitt:

2 wedges of organic lime
2 thin slices fresh organic cucumber
Sprig of organic mint
2 oz (1/4 cup) Crop Organic cucumber vodka
3 to 4 oz seltzer

Because only an "organic" adult beverage created in your honor can ease the searing pain caused by six screaming children, while simultaneously offsetting the fact that your family goes through enough diapers every 3 days to fill a dumpster. It's all about the carbon footprint, brother.

So--Organic alcohol, huh? It's an interesting concept, albeit one that has not entirely convinced me.

I attempted to Google "organic alcohol facts" but of course, like any good organic product, the most thorough and convincing statistics and "facts" are right there in the caption of the stock photos of the dazzling organic spirits.

TRU Vodka has the best arsenal of information answering the question, "Whats the point?" According to the post Is organic liquor more pure or just pure hype? from the TRU blog, "In 2008, the U.S. consumed more than 184 million cases or 2.2 billion bottles of distilled spirits. That took more than 1.1 million acres of farmland to produce, which is slightly smaller than the state of Delaware." They go on to detail the amount of fertilizer, pesticides and water it takes to conventionally farm this area, which is to say A LOT. By cultivating the crop organically, they eliminate chemical fertilizers and pesticides from the equation. Additionally, TRU uses special recyclable bottles and soy-based ink for the labeling and oh, by the way-- they also plant a tree in South America for every bottle they produce. (So, are they actually turning a profit?)

More telling, perhaps, is an FAQ for the Advertising, Labeling and Formulation Division of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. As we get more obsessed with living "greenly", companies obviously realize that if they're able to advertise with some sort of organic claim, they're likely to see an increase in profit. Here are the four basic National Organic Program Categories for alcoholic beverages:

“100% Organic” has all organic ingredients with no chemically added sulfites.
“Organic” has at least 95% organic ingredients with no chemically added sulfites.
“Made with Organic [Ingredients]” has at least 70% organic ingredients and may contain chemically added sulfites.
Products containing less than 70% organic ingredients and products that are not processed by a certified organic handling operation may only disclose organic content in a non-conspicuous “Ingredients Statement”.

Good to know, huh? You never realize that to be labeled an "organic" product you don't even need to have purely organic ingredients. I often wonder why the code is necessary, though--couldn't you just write "95% organic ingredients"? God forbid we use the package label to accurately disclose what the product contains. One time in high school, I got into a heated argument with a classmate about the nature of marketing and how it is evil and misleading. I may have suggested that grocery stores simply print the name of the food item on the package and nothing more. Example:
Simple, tasteful, uncluttered by health claims. Looking back, I may have been *bit* unreasonable in my Stalin-esque need for simplicity and uniformity. Still, should we have to decipher 1,000 different carefully worded claims to health? What's the point of having such specific labeling regulations if the average consumer has no idea what the hell anything means?!

Whoa. Sorry. Moving on.

So far I've only mentioned organic liquors, but the organic wines and brews are probably more popular. The Organic Consumer's Association offers a bit more information on organic wine, and specifically about sulfites, which are used as a preservative. Interestingly, Real Green encourages consumers to drink organic beer, wine and spirits not only because it's good for the environment blah blah blah, but also because it tastes better. Hmm. This is a claim I cannot personally confirm or deny, but I'd like to volunteer to participate in the taste tests.

As with any organic product, health claims also arise. A NY Daily News article from last summer suggests that the reason you should ingest organic alcohol has less to do with your carbon footprint and more to do with your sorry ass the morning after a bender. Writer/drinker Sean Evans conducted a "scientific experiment" where he drank a lot of organic alcohol one night and then two days later drank a lot of regular alcohol.

The morning after the organic binge:

And it wasn’t that bad. There was no headache, and at first everything felt groggy. But despite being slightly slow, after a quick shower nearly all symptoms had dissipated. There was no nausea, no stomach pain; no normal hangover feelings.

The morning after the regular alcohol binge was a bit rougher, to say the least. However, a post at Fermentarium responding to this so-called experiment points out some important facts about hangovers:

Hangovers are caused by dehydration, the breakdown of ethanol, and natural by-products from the fermentation of the beverage... Ethanol dehydrates your body. When you drink a lot, you tend to urinate a lot. The removal of water from your system causes headaches, nausea, and makes you tired. The only possible way organic alcohol could have less of a dehydrating effect would be if it had less ethanol. The author claimed he matched the alcohol content for his drinks in his experiment, so there should be no difference in the effect.

Touche. Despite how the grain or grapes or whatever is cultivated (conventionally or organically), alcohol is produced by the same biological process. It seems unlikely that organically grown fruit or grain would have a huge effect on the impact of alcohol on the body. More likely, the Fermentarium points out, Evans just wanted the NY Daily News to pay for two nights of drinking and he had to come to SOME conclusion.

Lastly, let's talk about price. How does the organic wine, beer and spirits compare cost-wise? According to a quick Google, the organic varieties compare pretty favorably. No, you're not going to be able to pick up a handle of organic vodka for $7.99, but there appear to be some brands in the $20 range. Also, one brand appeared on the website of my favorite Boston-area liquor store chain, Blanchard's, so hopefully it's something I can pick up in the store if I feel so moved. (Which I probably won't, but the chances are higher if I can actually see and touch the bottle. Because let's be honest: what self-respecting 24-year-old would buy alcohol off the internet?! The S&H fees alone could pay for like 2 meals.)

So that's the 411. I'd like to try some of this organic booze, but cost and availability are big issues. Does anyone have any experience they'd like to share?

P.S. Speak of the devil-- The North American Organic Brewers Festival is taking place in 2 weeks in my lovely hometown of Portland, Oregon: June 26-28. Follow the link for more information and tell me how delicious the beer was if you make it!

Are you there Blog? It's me, Chloe.

2009-06-05T15:40:00.001-04:00

Oh heeeeeyyyyyy.

It's been awhile. I bet you forgot what it looked like when I updated.

Me too.

There are a lot of things to talk about, but in order to get off the ground and running in the great month of June 2009, let's not write a novel. Let's start with a little something more modest... a paragraph on metabolism? And a list of books for you to read.

Paragraph on metabolism:

I've had this lying around in my Google Notebook and I thought now would be a good time to bust it out. A few months ago I came across The Female Athlete's Body Book by Gloria Beim, MD and Ruth Winter, MS (links to Google Preview! Exciting!) at my local library and geeked out a little. The book offers a whole lot of useful information that is specific to the female athlete, as the title implies. It breaks down typical injuries and concerns by sport and has a great section on nutrition. I'll post the nutrition stuff another time, because it's lengthy and all I promised was ONE paragraph.

On metabolism, Dr. Beim and Ms. Winter write:

Men metabolize energy differently than women. Metabolism is the way you process food into tissue elements and into energy for use in the growth, repair and general function of your body. A women's resting metabolic rate (RMR) is 5-10 percent lower than a man's. If you have developed your muscles through sports, however, your RMR will burn increased calories while you are at rest. If you don't exercise and are on a weight-loss diet, you will deprive your muscles of protein and conditioning, decrease the size of your muscles, and lessen your RMR. So commit yourself to regular exercise. It will increase your metabolism and assist you in maintaining a healthy weight.

Here's some more evidence that it's allllll connected. More developed muscles will increase your metabolism making you burn calories more quickly and easily, and exercise not only burns calories, but increases muscle mass. Coolio.

I'd also like to note the language of the last sentence: "... and assist you in maintaining a healthy weight." Not losing weight, but maintaining it. It's an important distinction to make, because this is not a weight-loss advice book, Couch Potato. It is a tool to learn about the magical wonders of your body, Female Athlete.

And a list of books for you to read:

If you're interested in learning more about food issues (not diet foods that will make you skinny and leotarded), I recently came across this list on a listserve to which I subscribe.

To get started:
- Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser
- The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan (Read it! Awesome.)

To continue the education:
- Animal, Vegetable, Miracle by Barbara Kingsolver (see my review @Goodreads)
- Appetite for Profit by Michele Simon
- Closing the Food Gap by Mark Winne (see my review @Goodreads)
- Diet for a Dead Planet by Christopher Cook
- Diet for a Small Planet by Frances Moore Lappe
- Food Politics by Marion Nestle
- Grub by Anna Lappe and Bryant Terry
- Holistic Management by Allan Savory
- Hope's Edge by Frances Moore Lappe
- Mad Cow USA by John Stauber
- Mad Sheep by Linda Faillace
- Safe Food by Marion Nestle
- Seeds of Deception by Jeffrey M. Smith
- Teaming With Microbes by Jeff Lowenfels, Wayne Lewis and Elaine Ingham
- What To Eat by Marion Nestle

I've only read three of the books, but I've been meaning to read the Nestle books for awhile. Anyway, they're all getting added to the ol' summer reading list. Ha! My eyes are always bigger than my stomach (or reading stomach).

Be sure to give your 2 cents about any of the books on the reading list--I'd love to hear any/all comments! Ok! Back next week.

Save a Little, Save a Lot... More Than You Realize

2009-05-12T14:46:00.000-04:00

The first sites I ever added to my Google Reader were financial blogs, namely Poorer Than You and Get Rich Slowly. This was a couple years ago when blogs were becoming more specialized and a lot higher quality, and less about what people watched on TV last night and what their boss said to them this morning. Actually, I'm sure this happened much earlier, but in my own personal History of the Internet timeline, that's how it went.

Recently, I came across Queercents which obviously is a financial blog for the GLBT peeps. It's pretty fantastic whether you identify as "queer" or not. Practical financial advice transcends all sexual boundaries, it turns out. Weird!

Anyway, a post published last week by Carol seemed appropriate to highlight in this blog. The Financial Component of Wellness briefly discusses the relationship between savings and stress and links to a pretty interesting study that looked at the two factors.

The study (which you can find at MSN Money) was conducted by Stephen Brobeck of the Consumer Federation of America. Brobeck looked at the savings trends of a low income group and a high income group and the issues and variables that accounted for why some saved and other did not.

There is a lot of interesting data from the study, but the most relevant statistics are those concerning the psychological impacts of keeping "emergency funds" (or EF) or at least $500 in the bank. The participants were broken up into two groups: low-income (earning less than $25,000) and moderate-income (earning $25,000-$50,000). Here are two tables reflecting the results:

For both groups, nearly two-thirds of people with less than $500 saved worried about money frequently compared with about a quarter of those who had at least $500 saved. Of those frequent worriers, A LOT of people are losing sleep: 68% of the low-income group and 60% of the moderate-income group.

The gap between the savers and non-savers widens even further when respondents were asked about their health. Fifty percent of the low-income, non-saving worriers reported that their health was negatively affected, as well as 35% of the moderate-income non-saving worriers. Of those who saved, 19% of the low-income and 22% of the moderate-income worriers reported worse health.

Interestingly, those respondents who had $500 or more saved typically used one or more of the following techniques to manage their finances:

Knew net worth
Had a spending plan with goals
Had a saving plan with goals
Had a spending plan that allowed meeting saving goals
Outside of work, saved automatically through pre-authorized transfers from checking.

Like any study, this one has some flaws (they used self-reporting and phone interviews to name two), but I don't think it clouds the issue too much. Clearly, people who worry about money suffer more than just a lack of funds, but some of those effects can be offset by giving yourself a little cushion and employing some basic money management techniques.

To be honest, I was pretty surprised by these percentages. I worry about money sometimes, and while I will occasionally wake up with a start because I forgot to pay a bill, I wouldn't say that I lose sleep over it. However, I have over $500 saved and a relatively stable job (although I had a dream last night that my boss had to let me go because his business was failing... yikes).

Lastly, what fun is it to talk about finances if I can't use this opportunity to blast the recession?

Thank you someecards, as always.

Time for a little pick-me-up...

2009-05-07T16:08:00.006-04:00

I really hate that the "Our Deepest Fear" speech has become such a cliched Facebook quote. Every Tom, Dick and Harry has it posted on their "About Me" section, and it seems to have become some kind of justification for acting like a ho-faced drama queen.

Despite all that--I can't help but love these two lines. Sometimes they just pop into my head (like today, when I'm feeling SUPER emo) and it makes me want to be a better person. And give you a hug.

"...Ultimately goals can't protect us from ourselves."

2009-04-30T16:40:00.000-04:00

I'm from the school of thought that finds goals essential to life. From everyday to-do lists to Five Year Plans, I've always considered goal setting to be a crucial piece of success. If you're not working towards something, then what's the point?

I came across Ready aim... fail: Why setting goals can backfire while perusing the Boston Globe website, or Boston.com. The Ideas section of the Sunday Globe always has some really interesting pieces, but I thought it best to cancel my subscription a few months ago because the mere existence of newspaper in my apartment was a major point of contention for my roommate. Oh well.

Anyway--goals. This article explores the idea that goals are not always the profound agents of motivation and productivity that they are always purported to be. In fact, some goals are very destructive and bad.

For example, take the "notoriously combustible" Ford Pinto. Stop laughing, this is serious!

In the late 1960s, Ford CEO Lee Iacocca, determined to take back the market share the company was losing to smaller imports, announced a crash program to create a new car that would be under 2,000 pounds, under $2,000, and would go on sale in 1970. Desperate to meet the conditions and the deadline, company executives ignored and then played down questions about the safety of the car's design. As a result, the Pinto, with a fuel tank just behind the rear axle, was uniquely prone to igniting upon impact, and 53 people died in such fires.

Clearly, putting a fuel tank in the rear of a car is hardly a good idea considering the high number of rear end collisions that occur EVERYDAY. Cars are not supposed to immediately ignite upon impact, unless you live in the movie Speed, or some equally explosive action film.

But who in the Ford corp voice their concern? Who halted production? Apparently, nobody. Executives at Ford were so goal-crazed that they opted to forgo reinforcing the rear end (at a cost of $121 million) because the projected payout to victims was less ($50 million). See The Ford Pinto Case: A Study in Applied Ethics, Business and Technology if you want to get the full story.

The Pinto catastrophe is a super extreme example of goals gone awry and exemplifies the evil-ish nature that lurks beneath the corporate surface of such things as "cost analyses" and other business tools I only vaguely understand. Now, how does this model of corporate greed relate to individual goal setting?

A professor at the University of Toronto is quoted as saying, "You know how Shakespeare wrote that the fault is not in our stars but in ourselves? Well, the fault is not in our goals but in our values."

Hmm... looking at goals as a reflection of our values, eh? That is an interesting way of thinking about it. This is probably an exercise that few people consciously engage in, but seems like a good way to check in with yourself and make sure you don't value Greed, Gluttony or any of the other Deadly Sins. Here is a possible dialogue to get started:

"Hey self! How u been?"
"Oh not too bad. And you?"
"Well thanks for asking! I've been alright, although that blueberry muffin I ate yesterday was sort of nasty. I might be off muffins for awhile."
"Really? I didn't think it was too bad. Maybe below-average for a muffin, but still edible."
"Yeah, well maybe you should raise your muffin standards. Hey, by the way, what are my goals?"
"Oh you know...." *Thoughtful consideration of various goals*
"Great! Now what things do I value that made me select these goals?"
"Wow, that's a toughie! I'd say..." *Thoughtful consideration of values*

End.

The Globe article doesn't go into the details of personal goal setting too much, but I think the lesson learned from Ford, Enron and possibly our entire banking system is this: Set goals, but be sure to re-evaluate them from time to time to make sure your efforts are going towards a reasonable, worthy cause. It seems like the re-evaluation part becomes increasingly important as you work to attain "life goals".

But really, what do I know? I wouldn't consider myself the poster child for goal setting in any capacity. My latest goal (which was conceived this morning) is to write a screenplay for the Juno-ish version of this movie, which frankly, looks awful but is a good concept. I expect Fox Searchlight will buy it for $5 million, at which point I will quit my temp job and move to Mexico (post-Swine Flu). At quarterly intervals, I will fly my friends and family down to visit me so they can learn Spanish, eat the most delicious food in existence, and get sunburned.

Huh. It sounds like it has Pinto potential. Maybe I'll only ask for $1.5 million, so I have to stay domestic. We'll see.

NY Times Reporter's File on Obesity: Could you BE more pessimistic?!

2009-04-23T15:36:00.001-04:00

Dear Laura,

I received your email re: NYTimes.com: Reporter's File: Obesity. Per your comments concerning the content of said "file", I have responded below in an itemized fashion.

(I would like to note that I am NOT a medical professional, nor a professional of any kind (besides being on the Board of the North American Jackass Association, NAJA). Therefore, my comments are purely my own opinion and do not reflect the established opinion of the Western medical community. However, I would like to note that I have read widely on the subject of obesity in the United States because it is a curious problem and besides, everyone and their mom seems to have their own idea about why the U.S. is so fat, so why shouldn't I?!)

1. Let's start at the beginning, shall we? On the issue of genetics, Reporter's File says:

Diet and exercise do matter, they now know, but these environmental influences alone do not determine an individual’s weight. Body composition also is dictated by DNA and monitored by the brain. Bypassing these physical systems is not just a matter of willpower.

You already knew this. People look different and have different body types and are able to consume different foods to different effects. Some people are going to have an easier time gaining weight that losing it just as others will stay thin forever.

Is this an excuse for obese people? Should we all just get over the fatness because it's genetic?! It might sound like that at first, but I don't think it is. There are several factors at play here, and none of them reign supreme in determining weight. Genes, diet, exercise and willpower are all important parts of the equation here. They are clearly not EQUAL parts of the equation, but they are contributing factors nonetheless.

The article also completely seems to miss the influence of other factors like stress and sleep deprivation, not to mention the higher prevalence of obesity among people with low SES. Maybe those things are considered "weaker" or maybe just more boring. It's hard to say.

2. On the issue of diet, Reporter's File says:

The nation’s poor diet has long been the scapegoat... The recent rise in obesity may have more to do with our increasingly sedentary lifestyles than with the quality of our diets.

It seems there is evidence that we Americans have been eating a lot of crap for quite awhile now, but I would argue that the definition of "crap" has deteriorated to an even lower level of crappiness.

Case in point: The article points to the fact that in 1966, McDonald's had already sold about 2 billion hamburgers. What they don't say is that in 1966, people were washing down those hamburgers with a 10 ounce can of Coke, or more likely, a 6.5 ounce bottle. Today, it's more likely that people are eating Big Macs (not introduced until 1968) which weigh in at 540 calories, a large fries (500 calories) and drinking a 32 ounce Coke (310 calories). Can you do that math? It's 1350 calories. I SERIOUSLY doubt that a meal at McDonald's in 1966 was 1350 calories. Yes, we sit around on our asses a lot more, but there is no doubt in my mind that we are consuming a lot more calories to go along with it.

(Which is to offer no explicit comment on the increasing size of individual soda quantities. A year ago, a Pepsi spokesperson explained the reasoning behind the introduction of 26- and 16-oz bottles into convenience stores: "[It] is about giving consumers more choices, and if that leads to more frequent transactions and greater volume, it's also a win for our customers, our bottlers and us.")

3. On the issue of exercise, Reporter's File says:

The leisurely after-dinner walk may be pleasant, and it may be better than another night parked in front of the television. But modest exercise of this sort may not do much to reduce weight, evidence suggests.

The key word here is "modest." A meandering 20 minute walk will hardly get your heart pumping. Unless, of course, you are extremely overweight and you just ate the McDonald's Big Mac, fries and Coke for dinner and also the walk is uphill. This sort of modest exercise *might* help you maintain your weight so you don't gain any more, but it's not going to reduce weight.

The Reporter's File fails to mention exactly what type of exercise can aid weight loss, so it seems like exercise is worthless. Obviously that is not the case. Have you seen The Biggest Loser? Have you noted how hard they work out? So hard! And how long? Hours! A huge amount of effort is expended to lose all of that weight. And once they get to their "goal weight", whatever that may be, it's going to be more hard work to maintain that weight. This effort does not fall under the "modest" exercise category. It's hard f-ing work, but exercise can help.

However, for the average person, I think that if you only exercise to lose weight, you are going to be disappointed. It takes more than 30 minutes of cardio twice a week to see significant weight loss. Fortunately, the benefits of exercise are far-reaching! Exercising affects your muscles and bones--from your legs and arms to your heart and lungs--is incredibly important to your physical and mental health. The Reporter's File mentions nothing about this (since it has nothing to do with obesity) but it's useful to note that exercising isn't just about weight loss.

4. On the issue of the body's/brain's determination, Reporter File says:

Scientists now believe that each individual has a genetically determined weight range spanning perhaps 30 pounds.

I really don't know anything about this. It's the genetic thing again. Obviously, this 30 pound span is not a hard and fast rule. If that's true, then how does a person grow to be 40, 60, 100 pounds overweight?

I don't want to get touchy-feely, but if this "30ish pound span" idea is correct, there is clearly a pretty big disconnect between what we think our bodies want and what they actually need. People must be seriously ignoring the subtle signs they receive from their body in order to gain so much weight. Does your body really want a Big Mac or is your brain just mesmerized by the fluffy bun, the sizzling patty and the glistening cheese? (Yes, sometimes cheese glistens with delicious cheese sweat.)

5. On the issue of maternal diet and pregnancy, Reporter's File says:

According to several animal studies, conditions during pregnancy, including the mother’s diet, may determine how fat the offspring are as adults. Human studies have shown that women who eat little in pregnancy, surprisingly, more often have children who grow into fat adults. More than a dozen studies have found that children are more likely to be fat if their mothers smoke during pregnancy.

I believe this. This research is fairly new it seems, but it's pretty compelling and scary as hell. The Reporter's File was updated August 2007, and already there have been some new updates in the role of the maternal diet. In January, researchers found that a high-fat diet can lead to fatty liver disease in newborns, which sounds like a fantastic way to start a new life.

Overall, on the first read the Reporter's File comes across as hopelessly pessimistic. But after I read it a second, third, fourth time, there really isn't any content that you haven't heard before. The difference is that you usually hear bits of this information accompanied by tips and tactics to combat the somewhat depressing information. But the File lays the bad news on thick and without relief.

But that's the point. The title is "For the Overweight, Bad Advice by the Spoonful," not "I'm Going to Tell You a lot of Bad News, and Then Make You Feel Better About It." The facts are that it's hard to lose weight and there are a lot of factors stacked against the obese.

A little awhile ago I posted a quote from an editorial in the American Journal of Public Health. Essentially, people are starting to recognize that the epidemic of obesity (and yes, I'd call it an epidemic if 66% of Americans are overweight or obese, according to the File) is not just a personal problem shared by of millions of individuals. It's systemic. The way We eat, the way We teach our children, the way We do business, etc. is quickly becoming one giant, intertwined mess of misinformation.

The File makes it seem like there is no hope for the obese Individual, and maybe there isn't a lot. But I think there is hope for the obese Society, if we start making some difficult changes in the way we live our lives.

Love,
Chloe

Divine Digesting of the Blogs, V. 2

2009-04-13T18:10:00.001-04:00

A couple things from the All Mighty Reader...
Chapter I. Religious folks and saving lives;
Chapter II. A sports career in retrospect;
Chapter III. Running in (pretty much) my parents' backyard!

I. Religious folks and saving lives
Toni at EverythingHealth noted an interesting study in the New York Times a couple weeks ago. Terminally ill cancer patients who were very religious (specifically Christians in the U.S.) were more likely to request intensive life-saving procedures in the last week of life than other people. These other people included Christians who were not quite so religious and people who chose other coping mechanisms altogether. You can find the abstract here.

The lead author, Dr. Holly G. Prigerson offered her explanation of this curious finding in the Times article: “To religious people, life is sacred and sanctified and there’s a sense they feel it’s their duty and obligation to stay alive as long as possible.”

While that may be the case, the procedures used to squeeze out every last drop of life are the most costly. The Times estimates that Medicare spends about 1/3 of it's budget on people in their last year of life, and most of it at the very end. I suppose that statistic isn't really as outrageous as it sounds though--obviously most people want to do whatever they can to hold onto someone a bit longer, regardless of cost.

Invasive procedures performed at the end of life can also be emotionally taxing. The article suggested that prolonging life for these terminally ill cancer patients created more physical pain for the patient and emotional pain for loved ones.

So, is this another reason to chastise evangelical Christians, or is their fight a good one?

II. A sports career in retrospect
Completely changing gears-- Megan at ...Because I Played Sports posted about her experience at the 2009 WNBA Draft, along with a little background as to why this event was so special. I really appreciated reading the back story to the development of her blog and everything that has followed. It's always great to hear Plan B success stories! (And no, that was not a birth control reference.)

My back story is probably not as interesting or as poignant (since I'm not writing this from my ESPN dressing room or whatever), but in the last two years since I haven't been playing softball, spring season is bittersweet. I too started playing softball when I was a little girl, and I loved it right from the beginning. I don't hesitate to say I still love it to this day, but my career was so full of highs and lows and insecurities and frustrations that it's extremely difficult to look back on it with any detail and not cringe in agony. Why didn't I try out for that team? Why wasn't I more confident? HOW DID I MISS THAT BALL?!

As a whole, I loved and continue to love it. I have no doubts that playing the game for so many years has had a direct effect on the person I am today. But at times I have to wonder--Why put myself through it? There wasn't a season I didn't cry or complain or threaten to quit, up until the very end (when I probably should have thrown in the towel). There were times I could have strangled my coach or my teammates or my "captains."

But despite all the headaches and knee aches and stomachaches... maybe it's all about the struggle. Without it, what's the point? It makes life thoroughly interesting and without it, I would (well, we ALL would) just be a puddle of goo in a LaZ Boy. Which is not to say that sometimes that doesn't sound awesome...

III. Running in (pretty much) my parents' backyard!
Quickly--Watch this video that was posted at Women Like Sports.

Watch until Marni Renison starts talking to you. Now hit Pause. This is Tualatin Hills Park and Rec complex and it's like a 3 minutes walk from where I grew up. That big white building over Marni's right shoulder? That's where I played basketball most of my life. And the path right behind her? It goes down the hill and off to the left, past the soccer fields and TO MY HOUSE. Oh Oregon, how I miss thee.

What a nice, end of the work day surprise!

The (Un)Fair Copyright in Research Works Act

2009-04-08T14:05:00.003-04:00

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is an agency of the US Department of Health and Human Services, and is primarily responsible for doling out funds for biomedical and health-related research. The recipients of this funding include it's own organizations that put the plural in Institutes (for a total of 20 institutes and 12 centers) and everyone else outside the NIH umbrella. But you probably knew all that already.

According to the NIH's Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool, in 2008, NIH handed out 45,887 research grants to 2,538 institutions for a total of over $20 billion of government (i.e. taxpayer) funds. The total awards, which include training and construction grants, fellowships, etc., are upwards of $21 billion.

I know that the recent bailing out of several of our nation's major banking institutions makes $20 billion seem like chump change, but let's pretend like we don't have anything to compare it to. That is A LOT of money. And we're handing out to people who are doing really fantastic and cutting-edge research that will benefit all of mankind in the long run (hopefully). However, a bill introduced by US Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich, threatens to limit public access to the findings from all that research, unless you pay a fee.

HR 801, also known as The Fair Copyright in Research Works Act, would prohibit the government from requiring scholarly journals to make federally funded studies accessible to the public. Supporters of the bill include 5 cosponsors and obviously, the guys set to lose money, the publishers. Currently, the NIH has an "open access" policy for all manuscripts to be made available via PubMed Central.

The concept of open access seems obvious, but it's not. The NIH's policy was just put in place a mere 12 months ago! Seriously. Already people have been excited and the content on PubMed has increased substantially, according to this great article at Science Progress.

The NIH's open access policy is a good start, but it's not amazing. First, the policy states that manuscripts have to be submitted to PubMed no more than 12 months after being accepted for publication. Which means there will be a delay for many studies to be made available. Second, the nature of scientific study is such that only studies that get positive results are published. If some people do a study thinking they're going to find something fantastic, and then they get nothing or something very small, they're not required to make that public knowledge. I'm sure they report it to the NIH (all funds come with many strings attached), but since their non-results won't get published in a peer reviewed journal, we'll never find out about it. Maybe this isn't a huge deal, but I just hope someone somewhere is keeping track of money the NIH has spent on "statistically insignificant" research, aka crap.

But wait a second, you say. Maybe I don't care to know about current research, because I'm not a student. Maybe I prefer to get my scientific information from the local news at 11 and, I don't know, MY DOCTOR!

Well sure, your primary care physician is probably a great source of information. However, due to the VAST and VARIED amounts of research being conducted, it is virtually impossible for any one person (MD or not) to be 100% up to date on the latest and greatest research. Especially if your doctor is seeing upwards of 20 patients a day. When do you think he/she has time to peruse the last 10 studies regarding your weird foot fungus? And that is even assuming that he/she cares enough to do so. Ideally, doctors and specialists stay up to date with new findings, but they're only human and they only have 24 hours in the day, like the rest of us slackers.

So, you think this "Fair Copyright" Bill is BS too? What is one to do? There are several options.

Follow the progress of the bill here.
Check out the Alliance for Taxpayer Access here.
Look at this huge list for ways to promote open access for faculty, universities, foundations, journals, etc.

In any case, it's somewhat mind-boggling that open access is just now being achieved to some extent. The need for transparency and accountability in our nation's research centers should not be underestimated, as well as other areas of government. Clearly, we don't want people wasting time studying, oh I don't know, Moon Robots or something. Let's just leave that one to Japan.

Resources:
Research copyright bill would end access to free health info(3/5/09)
Open Access News blog
Open Access Overview by Peter Suber
Open Access Directory

The odds are against you

2009-04-05T21:31:00.000-04:00

"Governments and public health researchers who are serious about tackling obesity must consider the toxic environment that has led to the current epidemic. Proposals for reform that focus solely on individuals--be it on their knowledge, willpower or decision-making ability--will not be successful in reversing our society's body weight trajectory.

We need measures aimed at changing the context, not the individual.

Rather than simply encouraging consumers to make healthier choices, we must recast the environment so that healthy options are far more accessible, available, and desirable than unhealthy alternatives. A fruitful area for further exploration is corporate practice, because it is so influential in shaping consumption patterns and because it must be carefully regulated in new ways if we are to achieve any change in the epidemiology of obesity."

From the editorial "Why Education and Choice Won't Solve the Obesity Problem" in American Journal of Public Health, April 2009.

Is abstinence ever an effective marketing tool?

2009-03-26T17:35:00.001-04:00

... except with this someecard. Theres no greater thrill than babysitting-slash-chauffeuring your intoxicated, non-Irish pals. Gee, thanks!

I had planned to write some sort of booze-themed post about St. Patrick's Day, but it was a poor, half-hearted attempt. I'll admit that much. And now it's over a week later.

Oh well! Get over it! I'm still talking about St. Patrick's Day and you're going to read it and love it.

Actually, St. Patty's got me thinking about abstinence-- that is, abstaining from alcohol, not sex. The concept of sobriety, if you will. And what better holiday to muse about a lack of alcohol than the booziest holiday of the year? Pass the green O'Doul's.

There are lots of people who don't drink alcohol or who don't consume large enough quantities to get "crunk", or whatever the kids are calling it these days. It's funny though, because you never hear about Sobers People once you're out of college. Sure, a recovering alcoholic will bring up the concept on occasion, but the real Period of Crisis seems to be during the college years when people go way overboard (or they want to pretend like they do via retarded pictures).

Naturally, many college health centers offered "safe drinking tips", which, much like safe-sex tips, always begins with the obligatory pleading to abstain from drinking at all.

"There's no such thing as risk-free drinking," said a counselor in University of Michigan's DrinkWise program.

This quote seems unnecessarily foreboding, and depends a lot on your definition of "risk", which will be relative to the amount of alcohol consumed and the context of the situation. For example, if I drink a glass of wine while I watch TV before bed, the foreseeable risks are few to none. I'm not going to get roofied and be sexually assaulted, I'm not going to pass out and asphyxiate on my vomit, and I'm surely not going to fall down a flight of stairs. The major risk will be plaque, because I will become so relaxed and sleepy, I'll be too lazy to get up and brush my teeth. Gross.

Obviously there are some real risks (without the quotes) that go along with pounding brews, but there seems to be a huge difference between the perceived risks and actual risks for novice drinkers. When kids are unfamiliar with the effects of alcohol on their sober bodies, they can surely do stupid things.

For the people who'd like to prevent the occurrence of these stupid things, the promotion of alcohol abstinence is a favorite tactic. One college website (which I stupidly neglected to bookmark) displayed pictures of students wearing a t-shirt proclaiming, "Kiss me, I'm sober!" for the students who prefer to leave no doubt.

Another option is the sober party. Royal Purple offers a blueprint for the typical Anti-Whatever Sober Party, which always boils down to eating a lot and watch movies. Instead of getting fat off beer, get fat off pizza!

To me, the message of sobriety is aimed at a very specific group--namely, Christian white kids--and is a totally inappropriate way to begin a productive discussion about responsible drinking. Yes, underage drinking is illegal, but the fact is it happens, so let's accept it and deal with the actual issue at hand.

Abstinence from alcohol's sister programs have fared equally terribly in the world. You know them as abstinence-only sex education and the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign.

The first has been researched extensively and time and time again, abstinence-only sex ed has been shown to "run the serious risk of leaving young people, especially those at elevated risk, uninformed and alienated." (2002 study) We're FINALLY taking the hint on this one, but it's taken 4ever.

The second has been a complete waste of time and money! Launched in 1998, the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign has had no effect on youth marijuana usage, and there is some evidence that "exposure to the campaign messages was related to pro-marijuana cognitions"! (2008 study) Glad the government spent billions of dollars on that crap.

Does telling people to abstain from something ever work?! I'm thinking the answer is a resounding no.

In the case of drinking, yes, alcohol can be dangerous and destructive when consumed irresponsibly! Yes, drinking and driving is bad! But is the answer never EVER drink?

There has to be a better way to promote the responsible consumption of alcohol without being so judgy and religious about it.

Hell, even Bristol Palin agrees abstinence is a crap shoot.

"To eat is human; to digest, divine." Mark Twain -- Blog Digest V.1

2009-03-12T16:38:00.003-04:00

My Google Reader would be bursting at the seams, if it had any. I subscribe to about a million too many blogs, but I CAN'T STOP. I've turned into something of an information whore, most of which has absolutely nothing to do with my life or interests.

In an effort to organize my thoughts and revitalize my own blogging efforts, I've compiled a short list of interesting posts from some sites I follow, any of which may serve as a future jumping off point for more thorough and exciting posts of my own. Fingers crossed.

Day Light Savings started last weekend, yet here I am 4 days later, still tired and whiny. If you're searching for answers in this madness, read a short history here and the modern day implications here. You may feel marginally better.

I love everything about tea (hence the image), and apparently so does Wellness in Practice.

Julie's Health Club reports that drinking 2+ sodas a day may put women at a higher risk for kidney disease. There isn't a link to the scientific article, but it sounds like just another reason to avoid adding 300-500 empty calories to your diet every day. Also, March is National Kidney Month! Learn more about why your kidneys have a month here.

The LA Times provides fantastic advertising for a crazy (but awesome?) yoga-wine-chocolate class at a southern Cali spa. One reader is outraged by the concept, as seen in the comments, but I can't say I hate the idea. However, it could be like that Full House episode when Michelle tried her hand at cooking, mixing tuna and oreo ice cream. Just because they're delicious separately, does not mean they will be delicious together.

In other news, it is now MARCH if you didn't get that memo. Thank God the steely isolation of winter is melting away! However, I'm sure New England will probably pretend it's winter for a few more weeks. Stingy bastard.

Spring is a fantastic time of year to me. Not so much for the weirdo weather, but more for the combination of warm, fuzzy nostalgia and burgeoning potential the summer has to offer. For as long as I can remember, the promise of Spring hits me around this time, just when the symptoms of advanced Cabin Fever are setting in. It's not necessarily the antidote, but it goes far to curb the insanity.

I think the excitement is not so much for Summer weather, though, but more for the need to get things started again, to breath in fresh air and to explore the possibilities (however small or large they might be). If ever there was an ideal time to make a big change in your life, I'm confident it is Spring. Forget the crap about New Year's Resolutions... I think Spring-time Resolutions probably have 400 times the sticking power. Also, I think the inter-species peer pressure would do some good in influencing these decisions. Nearly every other living thing is making a new beginning, why can't I?!

And that is my essay entitled, "Why Spring is Pretty OK." Boston-area open mic nights WATCH OUT.

FYI: This is Why You're Fat

2009-03-05T12:43:00.000-05:00

Exhibit A: Sandwich Cake.

A layer of deviled ham, chicken salad and olive-nut spread between a whole loaf white bread surrounded by four packages of strawberry cream cheese.

via This is Why You're Fat

Do people really eat this? It doesn't even look edible!

Just thought you might be interested in trying something new for your next birthday party. Kids love it!

Update: Mac and cheese... THE CHEESIEST.

2009-02-26T22:15:00.000-05:00

Phone pictures are pretty crappy, huh? But maybe you can imagine. This mac and cheese with broccoli and salmon cakes was delicious! See? I told you.

And now I'm feeling better about life. A bit.

At least my blood sugar is back to normal after dinner (also with the help of a little wine). And the invitations are finally done... until we decide to invite 15 more people tomorrow.

I'm not good at being bored out of my mind. Any advice to curb insanity?

Comfort food: Mac and Cheese

2009-02-26T15:30:00.002-05:00

Today is one of those days when I need to eat my feelings. I won't go into the sob-story details, but the tipping point came while trying to finish the B.S. task of hand writing nearly 30 invitations in the last three days. My wrist and elbow are throbbing from writing so much, the pen is close to running out, and I just sealed and stamped two invitations for people I just realized are on the "Cannot Attend" list... meaning that I just wasted about 20 minutes of my life and 84 cents! No, that is not a significant amount of time or money, but I have no perspective right now. I hate it too much.

Really, it's ok. I've come to terms with the fact that I'm not "administrative assistant material". Instead of being bitter, I will go home tonight and cook a delicious meal of Mac and Cheese! It always does the trick. And apparently it is America's favorite comfort food. (Although there doesn't seem to be any data backing up that claim.)

I used to go for the blue box (Kraft) growing up, and then I had my Annie's phase a bit later, but now I make my own. Sure, the boxed stuff is easier to buy, its slightly easier to prepare and it's Comfort Food, so you're not supposed to worry about nutrition. But you should.

However, instead of me monologuing about the reasons you should make your own Mac and Cheese as opposed to eating it from a box, we're going to do a fun little nutrition comparison of Kraft's The Cheesiest and Annie's Shells and Cheddar so you can see the difference yourself. Excited?!

Before we look at the nutrition facts, let's talk about serving size for a second. This is where the SOB's who write these 'facts' like to get fancy. Kraft's serving size is 1/3 of the box, whereas Annie's is a bit more than than (2.5 servings per box). This is why the percentages and totals don't completely add up. Thanks for making it so difficult, jerks!

Kraft The Cheesiest vs. Annie's Shells & Cheddar

Calories: 260 vs. 270

Cals from fat: 32 vs. 36

Saturated fat: 2g vs. 3g

Cholesterol: 15mg vs. 10mg

Sodium: 580mg vs. 530mg of DV

Total carb: 48g vs. 47g

Protein: 9g vs. 10g

And the rest is negligible.

So basically... the same.

"But wait!" you cry. "Isn't Annie's ALL NATURAL?! Isn't it made with ORGANIC ingredients?! Surely that should count for something. Maybe some karma points."

Well, yes, sure. Anastacia Marx de Salcedo weighed in on this issue at Salon (The bunny vs. the blue box, 1/30/07) in a much funnier and informative piece than this... but I don't think she has to endure the daily horrors of office work, so I figure we're even. In any case, she wrote:

Annie's stinks. Ever caught a surprise whiff as you guide stove-top traffic at dinnertime? (Right rear pot cleared for takeoff. Climb to avoid hot and high left front.) The stuff is rank; think sweaty T-shirt marinated in a gym bag for a week. Yet kids, whose palates are usually so delicate, lap it up. Which leads one to wonder, what's in those little hare-festooned envelopes anyway? Heroin? As a matter of fact, it's pretty much the same thing that's in the famous blue box: pasta, cheese, milk, salt. Granted, Annie's has only nine ingredients while Kraft has 20, most of which, nasty as they sound, replace nutrients removed in processing or are naturally occurring and have a long history as additives. Just two Kraft ingredients raise the mercury on the toxic-meter: yellow dyes No. 5 and No. 6, which impart the infamous fluorescent hue.

It's true that Annie's is made with "all natural"* organic ingredients, and Kraft throws in some chemical dyes to amp up that lovely cheesy coloring. But nutritionally, as we saw above, they're pretty similar! In my opinion, if you're seriously worried about scoring karma points, make your own. Mac and cheese is easy! It's cooking 101! And believe me, if I say it's easy, it's the truth. Notice this is a wellness blog, not a cooking one.

So here is the recipe I've been using for awhile, from The Mom's Guide to Meal Makeovers (Yes, I read mom cookbooks). It's similar to the boxed stuff because it only take a few minutes, but you control what's going in! For a lactard like me, it's Lactaid heaven on Earth.

Mom’s made-over Mac and Cheese
8 oz dried small elbow macaroni (about 2 cups)
1.5 cups lowfat milk
2 tbsp all-purpose flour
1 tsp Dijon mustard
½ tsp garlic powder
1.5 cups pre-shredded reduced fat Cheddar cheese (or whatever)
2 tbsp grated Parmesan cheese

1. Cook pasta according to package directions. Drain and set aside.
2. Return the saucepan to the stove (do no place over heat just yet). Add the milk, flour, mustard, and garlic powder and whisk until well blended.
3. Place over medium-high heat and bring to a simmer, stirring constantly. Reduce the heat and continue to simmer and stir gently until the mixture thickens slightly, about 2 min.
4. Add the Cheddar cheese and Parmesan cheese and stir until the cheese melts. Stir in the pasta, heat through and serve.

Prep time: 5 min
Cooking time: 15 min
Servings: About as much as a box, whatever that is.

Now, don't just look at the calories and freak out. Yes, there are more calories in Mom's, but there is also a lot less sodium and double the protein. To me, this means a more substantial meal.

Plus, the great thing about this recipe (and Mac and Cheese in general) is that it's hard to screw up and easy to improvise. I usually put in more than one type of cheese or different herbs or vegetables. It's actually really good with broccoli!

In conclusion, Mac and Cheese can be a Comfort Food that doesn't have to make you uncomfortable. AND you can make it without the box. Promise. Do it!

*FYI-- there isn't a firm definition of "all natural" so it doesn't really mean anything.

Intro to Napping: And finally, a nod to weight maintenance

2009-02-18T11:38:00.002-05:00

While we're still on the subject of napping (sort of), I wanted to leave you with this final tidbit from Take a Nap! explaining how a lack of sleep affects metabolism, leading to weight gain.

Sleep-deprived people become more susceptible to obesity, and consequently, arteriosclerosis and diabetes. A University of Chicago study found that subjects restricted to six hours of sleep a night for as few as four nights already showed increases of insulin in the bloodstream similar to what happens in a prediabetic state. When we deprive ourselves of sleep, the brain sends a signal that we are entering a period of overdrive and need extra energy to support our mental and physical functions. This causes us to crave high-fat, high-glucose body fuel--in other words, junk food--another reason why Americans can be both the hardest workers on the planet and the most overweight.

And practitioners of the Zone, Atkins and South Beach diets take note: Inadequate sleep causes decreases in the hormone leptin, restricting the body's ability to break down carbohydrates.

How do you like them apples? I think this also can explain the Freshman Fifteen... along with copious amounts of alcohol and Lucky Charms. Or maybe that was just me.

In any case, this information supports the idea that sleep effects the whole body. According to SleepDeprivation.com, inadequate sleep impairs:

Our ability to think
To handle stress
To maintain a healthy immune system
To moderate our emotions
To stay awake while making sandwiches (Kidding)

But I don't think this is news to you. Obviously, when you don't get much sleep, you feel like crap, can barely function and cry at the drop of a hat. Or again, maybe that's just me. But I doubt it.
Side note: Actually, I am notoriously horrible after not sleeping much. The stories I could tell... If I'm woken prematurely, HEADS WILL ROLL. Not kidding. There may or may not be warrants against me in three states.

To close the napping conversation, I wanted to leave you with a couple napping quotes I came across over the last few weeks. Enjoy!

"No day is so bad that it can't be fixed with a nap."
Carrie P. Snow

"You must sleep some time between lunch and dinner, and no half-way measures. Take off your clothes and get into bed. That's what I always do. Don't think you will be doing less work because you sleep during the day. That's a foolish notion held by people who have no imagination. You will be able to accomplish more. You get two days in one - well, at least one and a half, I'm sure. When the war started, I had to sleep during the day because that was the only way I could cope with my responsibilities."
Winston Churchill (Are we sure this wasn't former President Bush? No.)

LOLBeef and Comebacks

2009-02-17T12:31:00.008-05:00

Sometimes it seems like everyone is working against you... including the Engrish-speaking people at the burger joint...

You know what?! I AM HUNGRY GIRL and I'm GLAD I had not met your hamburger and I don't think it is misfortune very much. Some people say that hamburgers are the Hummers of food anyway, and Hummers are stupid! And ugly!

But really, an article at Common Dreams suggests that "the livestock sector is estimated to account for 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and beef is the biggest culprit."

Even though beef only accounts for 30 percent of meat consumption in the developed world it's responsible for 78 percent of the emissions, Nathan Pelletier said Sunday at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
That's because a single kilogram of beef produces 16 kilograms carbon dioxide equivalent emissions: four times higher than pork and more than ten times as much as a kilogram of poultry, Pelletier said.
If people were to simply switch from beef to chicken, emissions would be cut by 70 percent.

These statistics correspond to the way we currently produce the majority of beef in the USA, namely by raising and fattening cattle in feed lots. However, there is something to be said for grass-fed beef. No, it's not as efficient as producing other proteins, but when produced in a more conscientious manner (e.g. by using un-farmable hillsides or other non-arable land for grazing), beef does not cause quite the environmental crisis situation. Plus, it's a bit less fatty.

Unfortunately, if you're interested in tasting some grass-fed steaks, it can be hard to come by. It's rare (excuse the pun) to find grass-fed beef in grocery stores, even fancy (see: expensive) ones like Whole Foods. If you do, it has probably been shipped across the country, which kind of defeats the purpose if you're interested in "low-carbon" food.

I think the best bet is to go to the source: the farm! Eat Wild has a farm finder you can use to search by state, so you can swing by and stock up on local, happy meats! Now the next step is to purchase a chest freezer to save your bounty...

Anyway, to be honest, this post was prompted by the Engrish Funny picture, and I wish I was kidding. Clearly I have been LA-Z with the posting lately, but it's time for a comeback... *Simone, cue the Rocky theme*

Now, I will leave you with this.

more animals

Intro to Napping: Part 4

2009-02-10T14:34:00.003-05:00

I have a friend. We'll call her Blaura Berrante. We were talking the other day and she said, "Chloe. This information about naps is all well and good, but how can I take a 20 minute power nap when it takes me 30 minutes to fall asleep?!" [Paraphrased]

Blaura makes a good point. If you aren't the kind of person that can fall asleep at the blink of an eye, taking short naps is next to impossible. Unfortunately, the Take a nap! book doesn't really address this issue in depth and there isn't a lot on the SleepEducation.com website (which is produced by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, so I assume it's legit).

So off to Google we go!

While many people have weighed in on this issue, none seem to have legitimate expertise in Napping as a Science. All the advice is based on personal experience, which I don't want to knock, but it's important to note.

Through my research, I found that the majority of napping advice had to do with either one's physical situation or one's psychological state.

1. PHYSICAL

Ideally, you should find a dark, quiet area if you're serious about napping. Eye masks might be embarrassing to wear in a public place, like the library, but they block out light like whoa. So get over it.
Lie down if possible. The Boston Globe says it takes 50% longer to fall asleep when you're sitting upright. Also, "There is something to be said for getting horizontal." William Anthony, Ph.D. (I just like this quote.)
Get comfortable on a chair, couch or bed and make sure the room temperature isn't too hot or too cold.
White Noise can be used to block out sound when a quiet place isn't available. Free mp3s can be tested and downloaded here. Also, Pzizz offers a similar thing. However, to really block out all noise, you have to crank it up, which then sounds like you're on an airplane. For me, this is too LOUD. Whatever happened to ear plugs?! Ear plugs are a painless way to literally block out the sound, not just cover it up with more noise, even if it is "white."

2. PSYCHOLOGICAL

Set an alarm so you won't worry about oversleeping, but keep it out of view. I find that if I open my eyes to a view of the clock, I get anxious about wasting precious sleep!
Relax. Take deep breaths and try to quiet your mind. Many, many people weighed in on this issue, offering their own relaxation methods and mantras. Suggestions ranged from telling yourself "This is the most comfortable place on Earth" to thinking about animals sleeping in the woods (?). Whatever method you use to relax is up to you, but I think it's important to deliberately do SOMETHING. Ignoring stress never made it go away.
Lastly, several people on Ask MetaFilter swore that they fell right asleep after having an orgasm. While I doubt that you have time for a quickie in the middle of the day just so you can then take a nap, it's something to consider. *wink, wink*

Above all, I think it just takes practice to fall asleep quickly and painlessly. Closing your eyes and expecting sleep to come immediately is unrealistic for a novice napper. Especially if it's the middle of the day, you're in a crowded cafe, you have a million things to do, and you're hungry and cold. I say, quit the bullshit and schedule a dark, quiet, horizontal nap for yourself. Then write yourself a thank you note. Then reply with this Someecard. Etc.

And finally. If you can't fall asleep yourself, you should at least enjoy watching Cute Things Falling Asleep!!?!?! I'll leave you with this:

Sources:
Yahoo Answers (How do I fall asleep when trying to take a nap?)
Ask MetaFilter (I can't nap! 9/27/2007)
Mental Floss (7 Simple Rules for How to Take a Nap, 1/2/2009)
Lifehacker (A guide to power napping, 3/24/2007)
Boston Globe (How to nap)

Intro to Napping: Part 3

2009-02-02T11:35:00.002-05:00

Happy Monday! Did you nap over the weekend? I did not, although I wouldn't have minded a shorty. My Saturdays are going to be pretty annoying the next 14 weeks, because of BIO 103 from 9am to 3pm. Nap time will be around 4pm, so please, no calls.

So I was thinking... How exactly does a person put this knowledge of napping science to good use? There seems to be a gap between the science and the practice, and I'd like to fill it in.

Seeing that the target audience of Healthy Wealthy & Wise is probably in school or working or both(!), I wanted to share a napping case study that Dr. Mednick included in Tap a Nap! This concretely illustrates how a person can incorporate napping into a busy schedule.

A Profile in Napping: The Law Student

Situation: Rasheed is a 22 year-old law school student who works two nights and one weekend day at a ladies' shoe stores in a busy mall. He wakes up at 6:45 a.m. and gets five to six hours of sleep on most nights. "I have to keep my eyes on my goals, but this regimen is exhausting. I need every free minute that I'm not in class or at work to study. But lately I don't have the energy and concentration to study as hard as I used to."

Target Areas: Rasheed needs slow-wave sleep to help clear his mind of useless information and make room for memory consolidation. He also needs Stage 2 to help him with customers at night with his usual energetic and chipper manner.

Nap Rx: One 20-minute "transition" nap after school, before going to his job at the mall; on weekends, a one-hour restoration nap after his shift, before he cracks open his books.

Benefits: Rasheed's weekday Stage 2 naps will help him stay alert and full of friendly good service. His longer weekend nap is for the law student who needs to clear his mind and help him memorize massive amounts of new information daily.

Making it Happen: Rasheed now takes his weekday naps (along with other students) in the library at school. He gets to take his weekend nap in the comfort of his own bed. "I know I won't be able to keep up this pace forever, but napping has been helping me get through these intense years, staying focused and motivated."

Yay Rasheed! I thought this was a great example of how napping can be incorporated into life on a weekly basis and be extremely beneficial. Even though he was only getting 5-6 hours of sleep a night, the recommendation was not for Rasheed to nap for 3 hours every day. Instead, he took a 20 minute nap twice a week and an hour long nap on Saturdays. That's only 100 minutes of napping a week!

By strategically scheduling "power naps" for important transitions, Rasheed was able to get a little pick-me-up before heading to his (crap) job at the ladies shoe store, which by the sounds of it was probably an excruciating retail position. But hey, we gotta do what we gotta do.

I think this sounds manageable. Would any law students like to put in their 2 cents?

2009 Fitness Goals: Another Halfsie, Pushups?

2009-01-30T16:13:00.004-05:00

In 2008, I joined the YMCA, ran my first half marathon and starting doing yoga.

In 2009, I'd like to add another halfer and some pushups, please?

Last year, I ran the 28th Annual Stratton-Faxon Fairfield Half Marathon in June with my friend Laura and her family. THIS YEAR, Fairfield has upped the ante including MEDALS for all half marathon finishers. As if I didn't need another reason to do it!

This is a big deal. I'm not a distance runner and although I'm athletic, 13 miles is extremely daunting to me. Last year, I tried to train, but there were some extenuating circumstances that kept me from focusing as much as I wanted to (i.e. a stalker, whatever). Before the race, I think the most I ran consecutively was 8 miles. But then again, that's the number I told everyone, and I clearly I would have lied about it, so really think it was closer to 6. I finished the race, but I was running about 10 minute miles, which is not really anything to brag about.

In any case, I'm going to do it better. The race is June 28, 2009, so that gives me just under five months to pull my shit together. Most half marathon training programs are for 12 weeks or so, but I'll need to start getting back into better shape now, especially taking care of my knees.

Also, I'm intrigued by the One Hundred Pushups challenge. Following the posted program, they assert that in only six weeks, you could do 100 pushups. For reals?

I'm going to look into this more and report back. Anyone interested in trying it out?

Intro to Napping: Part 2

2009-01-30T15:40:00.000-05:00

I always thought that some people were just awesome nappers and other people just couldn't handle it. Through reading Take a Nap and other stuff, I still think that's true, but I also think that napping takes practice, just like anything else.

As I mentioned in Intro to Napping: Part 1, I've had some rough napping experiences recently, although to be fair, any time when I am woken up by anything other than my own biological clock, I tend to want to kill something. (That first chime from my alarm in the morning is the single worst moment of my day. Or when my roommate's dog whines at 6 am when she leaves. That little bastard is lucky he can still walk.)

Anyway, it turns out that there is something of a science to napping, which, when taken into consideration, can help one avoid the negative effects of waking up feeling groggy and irritable.

Sara Mednick explains that the culprit here is Slow-Wave Sleep or SWS:

When you're fully awake, your brain is operating on many frequencies. but during SWS your entire brain rhythm has synchronized into a slow, uniform pattern. Sleep inertia is how we experience the lag that occurs while the brain once again recreates them multiple faster frequencies. The groggy feeling can become particularly acute for the sleep-deprived, since someone whose body has a greater need of SWS has a greater chance of waking up during SWS and thus into sleep inertia.

Now here comes the exciting part: By sleeping shorter or longer periods, you can avoid waking up in SWS and therefore avoid (for the most part) feeling like crap when you wake up! Yay!

The Boston Globe has a nice little napping "cheat sheet", if you will. It appears that The Guardian ripped it off here, and then Lifehacker posted it again here. Awkward.

This very blurry and small picture explains how to avoid waking up in SWS. Click to enlarge, por favor.
Bottom line: Your naps should be shorter than 45 minutes or longer than an hour and half in order to avoid SWS.

Also, Mednick says that even if you do feel a little fuzzy after a nap, you can quickly "fire up" your brain through physical activity, sensory stimulation such as splashing water on your face or a shot of espresso.

"In any case," Mednick explains, "having napped cannot make you 'more tired,' any more than a light snack makes a starving person 'more hungry.' If you experience sleep inertia (grogginess), you've simply whetted your body's appetite for a resource that your conscious mind has been trying to ignore."

Intro to Napping: Part 1

2009-01-28T21:56:00.010-05:00

I was a napper for about two years: senior year of high school and freshman year of college. Since then, I haven't been able to find the balance between getting a restful sleep and not waking up hella groggy and irritable. (Yes, hella.) The last time I took a nap, I woke up 30 minutes late and proceeded to pick a terrible fight, behaving so ridiculously, I almost got dumped. It was decided then and there that Chloe Shall Never Nap Again. So it was proposed and unanimously accepted and written into law.

But really--what is all this napping crap about? Isn't that what BABIES do?!

True, but napping has also gained a lot of support from the Professional Medical Community in the past few years. I picked up Take a Nap! Change your life by Sara C. Mednick, Ph.d. at the library the other day, and I wasn't prepared for it to rock my world. But it sort of did.

Mednick explains that we're naturally biphasic sleepers, meaning that we want to sleep two times during the day. In fact, we're the only mammals that don't sleep multiple times in a 24-hour cycle, although no other mammals have to pay taxes either. That second sleepy phase falls right between 1 and 3 pm, which is prime siesta time.

Are you in the market for a nap? Well let's find out with the Epworth Sleepiness Scale, shall we?

Use the following point system to score how you'd react in the situations below.

0 = Would never doze
1 = Slight chance of dozing
2 = Moderate chance of dozing
3 = High chance of dozing

SITUATIONS

Sitting and reading
Watching TV
Sitting inactive in a public place, e.g., in a meeting or theater
Riding in a car as a passenger for an hour without a break
Lying down to rest in the afternoon
Sitting and talking to someone
Sitting quietly after lunch (when you've had no alcohol)
Sitting in a car while stopped in traffic

Now, add 'em up and let's see how sleepy you are.

If you scored:

Less than 8: Normal sleep function. You might consider napping during periods of high stress.
8 to 10: Mild sleepiness. A well scheduled nap a couple times a week could improve your sleepiness.
11 to 15: Moderate sleepiness. You should be concerned that their sleepiness may interfere with daily activities.
16 to 20: Severe sleepiness. Talk to a doctor! You shouldn't be so sleepy.
21 to 24: Excessive sleepiness. You probably have a severe sleep disorder, so please seek medical attention if this is news to you.

How'd you do? Need a nap after that? In the next few days, there will be more on when, where, and how long you should nap. Get excited.

Yay naps!

Winter Propaganda, c/o The Weather Channel

2009-01-27T13:45:00.004-05:00

Because there is a major storm heading into Boston tonight, I was checking out The Weather Channel this morning to get the 411 and guesstimate my chances of having a snow day tomorrow (it's looking good). As I briefly browsed TWC's homepage, I found that they're promoting a new feature called, "Why I Love Winter."
Also, if you've checked your Local on the 8's in the last few days, you've probably seen the promo on TV.

TWC Road Crew personality Jeff Mielcarz hosts this piece, albeit reluctantly. According to his Do you love Winter? blog post, Jeff is not a fan of the winter months:

"I feel like you and I have a pretty good relationship and I don't want to ruin that by lying to your face ... so I'll be straight up with you ... winter ... clearly not my favorite season."

Alright, Jeff, whatever you say. After Jeff gets through relating his elementary school snow day experiences (with enough dot-dot-dotting to drive a person mad), he goes on to tell us how other TWC personalities feel about winter. Most of them seemed to have missed the "Why I LOVE Winter" memo because many are luke warm at best about the season. Heather Tesch even goes so far to say, "Honestly, winter is not my favorite month." If winter was a month, that would be harsh.

But seriously... WHAT THE HELL IS THIS CRAP?! Winter sucks and everyone knows it. Why is The Weather Channel forcing this weak propaganda on us?

Also-- why am I getting so worked up about this? I'm not sure. Clearly this is just a very poorly perceived and executed PR stunt by a bunch of weather geeks trying to get people jazzed about Winter and increase their ratings.

But mostly, I think this campaign isn't 100% stupid and it could have been a great opportunity to address some public health issues, namely the "winter blues" or Seasonal Affective Disorder, instead of a plea for people to spend loads of money they don't have traveling to Florida and/or snow sporting.

Seasonal Affective Disorder is the extreme version of the cabin fever, fatigue and irritability that many people experience during January and February. If symptoms are so severe that you can't function, please seek professional advice. Otherwise, there are lots of articles and advice columns for how to deal with the blues, but here are some general tips:

Exercise 4-6 times a week for 30-45 minutes.
Take vitamin C supplements to keep your immune system healthy.
Decorate your living space with bright colors like red, orange and yellow.
Eat complex carbohydrates like rice and pasta to feed your brain, and simple carbs like fruits and juices for a sweet meal-ender. Strategic eating!
Get some sun exposure soon after you rise in the morning. Opening your shades can be enough!

Personally, I've been cooking, baking and trying to get some sewing projects going to keep me busy. I find that too much idle time can be a hazard to my mental health, i.e. unemployment. A couple weeks ago, I made Beef Barley Soup, which was DELICIOUS and pretty easy. The leftovers were even better the next day. And the next.

So, WEATHER CHANNEL listen up: Stick to what you know, i.e. THE WEATHER. Don't tell me I have to love Winter, because I don't! You're not my mom!

Resources:
Seasonal affective disorder (SAD), Mayo Clinic
Gannett Advice on Beating the Winter Blues, Cornell University
Natural Ways to Beat the Winter Blues, Health.com
Go Away Winter Blues!, DoItYourself.com

Asexuality: 1 in a 100

2009-01-22T15:59:00.003-05:00

So. I don't post about sex much (or ever?) for a number of reasons that I choose not to discuss at this time. In an effort to diversify the content of Healthy, Wealthy & Wise, I wanted to highlight an issue that I barely knew existed: asexuality.

Our friends at Wikipedia explain that asexuality is "a sexual orientation that describes individuals who do not experience sexual attraction." Yes, alright. But what does that MEAN?! (Also, interestingly, this post is listed as part of the LGBT Portal, which doesn't seem to fit to me. Thoughts?)

A recent ABC News article (Asexuals push for greater recognition, 1/16/09) explores the asexual orientation a bit further. David Jay, a 26-year-old grad student and founder of the Asexual Visibility and Education Network, explains his motivation for creating greater awareness of asexuality:

"The problem is not that there is too much discussion about sex; 99 percent of the world really, really likes sex, so it is something that should be talked about openly and honestly," Jay said. "But we need to have more discussion about how people can not have sex and still be happy."

And this is coming from someone who hasn't taken an oath of celibacy? Who isn't "born again"? Who doesn't have a Top 40 single and a mammoth tween following? Curious, very curious.

I checked out Jay's website, AVEN, and was surprised to find an enormous amount of thoughtful, well-articulated information. Not that I thought that asexual people are stupid... I just wasn't expecting to "get" what they were all about.

My biggest question was about arousal: do they ever feel it? Here's what AVEN had to say:

For some sexual arousal is a fairly regular occurrence, though it is not associated with a desire to find a sexual partner or partners. Some will occasionally masturbate, but feel no desire for partnered sexuality. Other asexual people experience little or no arousal. Because we don’t care about sex, asexual people generally do not see a lack of sexual arousal as a problem to be corrected, and focus their energy on enjoying other types of arousal and pleasure.

Interesting. So, it's not that there's no sexual activity, it's just there's no partnered sexual activity. AVEN is explicit about the fact that companionship is still desired and attraction still occurs for asexuals, but they look different than in a typical hetero-, homo-, bi-, trans-, etc. sexual relationship.

AVEN also has links to asexual-interest blogs. From just the few posts I browsed, many are thoughtful and bring light to the asexuality that exists all around us. From asexy beast, the author writes about asexual themes in movies, like Amelie and Wall-E. (The Trouble With Movies, 1/11/09) Amelie is one of my favorite movies, and I never thought about it that way, mostly because when the two weirdos DO get together in the last 90 seconds, it's pretty hot. But asexy beast does make an interesting point.

(Can I just say... I almost wish I were asexual because it would just cut out a whole lot of wasted time (not the actual sex part! the thinking about it). And just the fact that this blogger would not ever want to have sex with me, makes me want to seduce them... and I think that's wrong.)

I learned a lot today. From now on, I promise to limit how often I refer to my close friends as "asexual" who haven't dated in awhile (ever?). Or maybe that's something I was just born with: being an a-hole.

Best USA Cities for Women & Men

2009-01-21T16:58:00.001-05:00

The Women's Health Magazine published a report recently listing the BEST and WORST cities for women to live in.

Want to see if you're going to live a long life or die in a mushroom cloud of pollution? Look at the map. Actually, it doesn't give that information, and the city you live in probably isn't even on the rankings. I just like to look at these things.

FYI--the magazine goes into great detail about how fabulous and accurate their rankings are. If you care enough to be convinced, browse the preamble here.

Not to be outdone, Men's Health Magazine published their OWN MAP. Take that.

Fitness on a budget!

2009-01-18T23:16:00.002-05:00

Even though gyms have been slashing prices to attract New Year's Resolutionees, it's difficult to find a decent membership for under $50 a month. Sure, you can use the YMCA or your local rec center or your university's facilities, but if you're like me, it's hard to utilize those money-saving options and still get a satisfying workout. (Issues like overcrowding, sub-standard equipment, and creepy old guys tend to make me a flight risk at the Y.)

That's why I was excited to get last week's e-newsletter from the National Women's Health Resource Center. The feature article was 9 Great Ways To Stay Fit Without Breaking Your Budget. Great timing!

While there aren't any ground-breaking suggestions, it's a really thoughtful article with some good tips. Notable suggestions include:

Make ordinary moments count. Fitness expert Shirley Archer says, "When you brush your teeth, do a set of 20 to 25 squats, as your fitness permits." Sure! I just stand there awkwardly anyway. Why not throw in something productive?
Break your exercise boredom cheaply. Check out the programming on the fitness channel (if you have cable), rent new DVDs from the library (Sweatin' to the Oldies!) or go to the American Counsel on Exercise's Exercise Library, a website that I am extremely impressed with and will be highlighting often.
Look for bargains. They suggest that you do your homework on gym memberships before committing to one, so you get the best deal. If you're in the market for fitness equipment, look on Craigslist or sign up for Freecycle. And personally, I always look forward to nice weather so I can drive through the neighborhoods looking at all the crap people try to get rid of (otherwise known as garage/yard/tag sales). Also, Play It Again Sports. *Note: I think it goes without saying, but it's always a good idea to test drive any item before you complete the purchase.

I've been in a workout slump recently, so these ideas have helped kick-start me back into a schedule. I'm excited to do squats when I brush my teeth tomorrow morning!

Who cares about steroids?

2009-01-14T16:20:00.003-05:00

Do you care about steroids? I'm not sure if I do, but it's been a hot topic in the last couple years, what with the Major League Baseball fiasco including the Mitchell Report, congressional hearings and the continuing controversy surrounding Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Andy Pettitte, Jason Giambi, et. al.

What really prompted this post is a 'roids site (Can you shorten it to "roids", or does that refer to hemorrhoids? Help!) I came across called Steroids Live, a pro-steroids blog that is "intended to inform and educated athletes, bodybuilders and the general public about anabolic steroids." Fair enough.

If anything, "Dr. Stevens" seems to be working against his cause. Besides the obvious grammatical errors (have you heard of a comma?) and nonsensical writing, the ultimate question is never even addressed: WHAT IS THE POINT? Clearly, I'm not of the target audience, but who is? How do you even become someone who is thinking about steroids?

Also, the office where I work get the American Journal of Public Health, which I read when the boss is out of the office (and sometimes take home). The December 2008 issue includes a study that looked at steroid usage in relation to violence.*

The results? They suggest that steroid use is related to "heightened levels of violent behaviors," and that the media attention and public concern surrounding this issue is justified "given its association with violence among males in the United States."

This seems to address Steroid Lives' issue in Roid Rage, Myth or Real Danger???, so I'll just leave it at that.

*Beaver, K., Vaughn, M.G., DeLisi, M., Wright, J.P. (2008) Anabolic-Androgenic Steroid Use and Involvement in Violent Behavior in a Nationally Representative Sample of Young Adult Males in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 2185-7.

Digest a 'la Simone: Thinking=Eating, Excuses

2009-01-13T16:58:00.002-05:00

Two recent suggestions from my friend Simone.

From Jezebel, I'm not fat, I'm just smart details the findings of a new study that found that people consume more calories following "intellectual work" than after relaxing. Apparently, doing a crossword or Sudoku puzzle causes people to eat more calories than say, staying at wall. (That is, of course, unless your name is Henry David Thoreau.)

The study's main author, Jean-Phillipe Chaput hypothesized that this could be a contributing factor "to the obesity epidemic currently observed in industrialized countries."

Meh. I don't know about this study. Something seems off.

Firstly, the problem is not just the consumption of more calories--it's the consumption of bad calories. When most people snack during the work day or during finals or whenever, it's most crap food: chips, cookies, and crunchy salty sweet things.

Secondly, this implies that a lot of people (specifically, people with weight problems) are doing a great deal of heavy thinking, if you will. Really? I don't know.

From Lifehacker, Why Your Self-Handicapping Excuses Don't Work (And How to Fix Them) highlights a NY Times article discussing self-handicapping.

Self-handicapping is something that everyone does on occasion, but people who do it regularly are generally seen as annoying. Who wants to hear excuses all the time? (Otherwise known as whining.)

To protect our fragile egos, we've all thrown out the occasional "my dog ate my homework" type excuse, but for people who do it often, it becomes an exercise in self delusion. The Times cites some interesting information:

Studies of college students have found that habitual handicappers — who skip a lot of classes; who miss deadlines; who don’t buy the textbook — tend to rate themselves in the top 10 percent of the class, though their grades slouch between C and D.

It's one thing to miss an occasional deadline, forget an appointment, etc. but when the same thing happens consistently with the same reasons for failure being offered, it's not healthy.

The Times also points out that if someone else is giving excuses for you, people won't hate you. But they don't explain how to get other people into doing it... I suspect the trick is to recruit someone with an extra dose of patience and sympathy.

Good luck with that!

Obesity in the USA

2009-01-06T21:34:00.002-05:00

From Jill Richardson on La Vida Locavore.

OBESITY TRENDS 1985-2007 shows a nice little animation of the percent of obese people by state. Watch as each state changes colors through the years, as the residents gain more and more weight.

An interesting way to represent the situation. And also disheartening.

Update: No $$ in the bank, no ga$ in the tank...

2009-01-05T23:02:00.001-05:00

As a follow-up to my recent post about women forgoing health care because of financial issues (No money in the bank, no gas in the tank and no healthcare either, 12/17/08), I thought I'd point out a post from Women's Health News that covers the same issue, but is based on a survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

PBS reported the survey's results, which indicated that more people have been postponing health care or treatment, not filling prescriptions and skipping appointments because of the costs.

Can we just gives props to the Women's National Health Resource Center for already covering this?! It's too bad Kaiser has billions more cash monies to pay for a huge survey and publicity.

Although, I was thinking that BOTH surveys have a pretty major reporting flaw in that participants are asked to report on their current feelings toward healthcare and their past feelings toward healthcare at the same time. It's been proven time and time again that your current inclinations towards a specific thing can greatly affect your past perceptions of that same thing... even when that thing is something as seemingly bias-resistant as seeking healthcare.

I would imagine that while not everyone is feeling the effects of the economic downturn, since we talk about it so damn much, it seems like it's worse than it currently is. Surely, it will get worse later, so are people really unable to pay for health care or are they unwilling?

And, in response to Kaiser's survey, was it really that much worse in October 2008 than it was in April 2008, a mere 7 months later? I don't know. I'm skeptical, but that's why I'm asking.

This isn't me being insensitive, because I pay for health insurance also. Sometimes PBS is just annoying to me... like how this story Even Insured Patients Struggle as Healthcare Costs Rise appears in the special In-Depth Coverage section on "The Uninsured in America." Um, these people have insurance, and they're complaining about it? At least they have it, compared to the 25 million who are apparently underinsured in the USA.

Look, if you want to talk about healthcare in general, just put it all in a "Healthcare Issues" section. But don't throw everything healthcare related under "The Uninsured" because it's misleading.

There are strong arguments for all of these issues, but when you throw all this crap together and force it to be related (when it shouldn't be), it muddles the issues, nobody wins and everyone is annoyed. Most of all me.

British Mythbusters Rock Your World

2009-01-02T23:40:00.002-05:00

From Lifehacker: Popular Medical Myths Put to Rest.

The British Medical Journal dispels some of the most commonly held medical beliefs, in Festive Medical Myths and Medical Myths.

Some interesting conclusions:

We use more than 10% of our brains.
Hair and fingernail growth does not continue after death.
Reading in low light does not ruin your eyesight.
You cannot cure a hangover.
Night snacking does not necessarily make you fat.
Sugar doesn't cause hyperactivity. Then why do I run laps around my apartment after eating a bag of blue raspberry Sour Straws?

Also, the British have some terse words for medical professionals everywhere.

Physicians would do well to understand the evidence supporting their medical decision making. They should at least recognise when their practice is based on tradition, anecdote, or art. While belief in the described myths is unlikely to cause harm, recommending medical treatment for which there is little evidence certainly can. Speaking from a position of authority, as physicians do, requires constant evaluation of the validity of our knowledge. (My emphasis)

Ha! So serious! Lighten up... shoot.

Also, do you remember how you reacted when that snotty boy in 1st grade told you there was no Santa?

I think it's something similar to the reader reactions in Lifehacker's comments. BUT MY MOM SAID HE'S REAL!

Resolutions: Why bother?

2009-01-02T23:04:00.002-05:00

I've never been big on the New Year's Resolutions. Maybe it just seems like a weak reason to make significant changes in your life. A new year? Who cares. A new day starts in about an hour and a half and I'm pretty sure it's going to be a lot like the one that just ended.

However, a lot of people buy into the "resolution" industry. A poll on Vitamin G shows that 64% of Glamour readers (whoever they are) always make resolutions and 36% said "No--there's too much pressure!"

According to About.com the 10 most common resolutions are:

Spend more time with family and friends.
Work out.
Lose weight.
Quit smoking.
Enjoy life more.
Quit drinking.
Get out of debt.
Learn something new.
Volunteer.
Get organized.

And surprisingly (randomly?), USA.gov has a list of popular New Year's resolutions as well. They've added save money, get a better job, get a better education, take a trip, and reduce stress at work and in life. Just in case you needed ideas, the government is here to help!

I have to admit, I made one resolution last year: to stop drinking to excess.

This was a retroactive measure taken in response to a particular situation. I brought in 2007 with a handle of tequila and subsequently spent the following day and a half lying on the floor of the bathroom. I made an ass of myself and was totally ridiculous. I thought, "I'm too old to be doing this!" Seriously, it's not attractive AT ALL. I don't care how hot you are or how short your skirt is. Once those eyes roll back in your pretty little head and you vomit all over yourself, it's over. Disgusting.

And what's the status of my resolution? 366 days (leap year!) and still going strong. No more pukey nights for Chloe.

Um, what do they say about it again?

2008-12-26T14:53:00.000-05:00

Have you seen this commercial? Stupid know-it-all girlfriends! Who do they think they are?! And the Corn Refiners Association is the biggest proponent of these obnoxious women and their sassy opinions of High Fructose Corn Syrup, or HFCS.

Really though, it's the guy's fault. Who says, "Well you know what they say..." without actually knowing what they say? Amateur.

We've all heard a lot about HFCS, but personally, I've never taken the time to form an opinion of it. It's assumed that HFCS is bad, but very few people can actually tell you why, like the guy in the commercial. Since the appearance of the TV ads a few months ago, there has been a lot written about HFCS, from TIME to WebMD, and much more.

Most of the articles address the 3 assertions made by the know-it-all girlfriend in favor of HFCS.

1. It's made from corn, so it's "all natural."

TRUE, it is made from corn. However, it is not a naturally occurring substance. The extensive processing involved in producing HFCS is hardly easy, quick or painless. Linda Joyce Forristal of the Weston A. Price Foundation details the process here.

2. It has the same calories as sugar.

TRUE. Nutritionally, it's pretty much the same as sugar, which most support by citing the American Medical Associations' position that HFCS does not contribute more to obesity that sugar.

3. It's fine to consume in moderation.

TRUE. But the key word here is "moderation." It can be difficult to moderate your consumption of HFCS because it is in a huge number of foods and beverages, particularly processed products. The Mayo Clinic discusses how this impacts health and diet.

So, it's not like the Corn Refiners Association is selling blatant lies, but they are only telling a small part of the story. Check out their arsenal of marketing tools in their HCFS Facts Press Kit. You have to admit, the time and energy spent creating such a beautifully crafted half-truth is impressive. You're in for a sweet surprise indeed.

Furthermore, the Washington Post brings up a point that the know-it-all girlfriend (and most of the popular articles) fails to mention: the impact of producing HFCS on the environment, which is rather large. Michael Pollan has become the resident expert on this issue, and if you haven't already, I'd check out The Omivore's Dilemma.

So! Do you feel more capable of saying "Well, you know what they say about High Fructose Corn Syrup..." and having an actual answer to back it up?

Carbs are like, good for your smartness!

2008-12-20T11:00:00.002-05:00

Co uld a Low-Carb Diet Make You Ditzy? presents recent research from Tufts University about how low- to no-carb diets can affect cognition and memory.

Oh boy. Did you know that Glamour has a health blog? It's called Vitamin G (I already don't get it). Responding to mainstream crap like this is the reason I started this blog. So here we go!

The study consisted of 19 female participants who were allowed to choose between a low-carb diet and a low-calorie diet to adhere to for three weeks. The ScienceDaily press release explains how a lack of carbohydrates affects the body and brain:

While the brain uses glucose as its primary fuel, it has no way of storing it. Rather, the body breaks down carbohydrates into glucose, which is carried to the brain through the blood stream and used immediately by nerve cells for energy. Reduced carbohydrate intake should thus reduce the brain’s source of energy. Therefore, researchers hypothesized that diets low in carbohydrates would affect cognitive skills.

And the researchers were right. The participants' cognitive skills were impaired after just a three weeks on a low carb diet. On memory tasks, low-carb dieters had slower reaction time and their visuospatial memory was not as sharp and the low-calorie group. However, low-carb beat low-cal on attention vigilance tasks, which sounds fantastically primal, although I'm not entirely sure what it means.

But how does Vitamin G interpret this information? They dumb it down so that their non-carb eating readers can process it. There is no mention of the reason that carbs are essential for optimal brain performance--only that if you never eat any like, bread and stuff, your memory might not be great.

I hate the lack of information! By assuming that women won't care to know (or won't be able to understand) the scientific bodily processes involved, Glamour squashes curiosity and makes it easy for women to remain ignorant about their bodies. What if they just threw in a short sentence about how carbs turn into glucose, and glucose fuels your brain? That's not hard.

Bottom line reporting is informative to an extent, but ultimately it's irresponsible and promotes misinformation.

Exhibits A-G: Check out the reader comments. Yikes.

The Healthiest Grocery Store?

2008-12-17T13:27:00.003-05:00

From Fox News.

Yeah, the results are not surprising.

However, why is there no discussion of the quality of produce?

Eating fruits and vegetables is a bigger part of healthy eating than whether or not you're consuming organic granola bars or whatever. I'm sorry, but in my mind, if it's processed food, it's processed food, regardless if 100% of the ingredients are USDA Certified Organic. A lot of the same corn- and soy-based preservatives that are used in regular cereals and snacks are also allowed in their organic counterparts. (Sustainable Table has a pretty good overview here.)

Sure, I suppose organic snacks are somewhat healthier, but I think the attention should be focused on REAL FOOD, i.e. fruits, vegetables, meat, fish, dairy products, etc.

For me, that is what would make or break the "healthiness" of a grocery store.

P.S. Furthermore, is it safe to say that Whole Foods would top the list of "Most Expensive Grocery Stores" also? I bet you five bucks.

P.P.S. I didn't insert this website I came across in the main text, so here it is: Food Additives, where they explain:

Food additives have become a necessity of all types of food products and food industry. Right from the aroma of the beverage, the texture of the food and its visual appeal, has to be enriched to make it acceptable. (my emphasis)

Hahahahaha. I think someone is taking themselves a little too seriously...

No money in the bank, no gas in the tank and no healthcare either

2008-12-17T12:10:00.003-05:00

The National Women's Health Resource Center recently published their 4th annual Women T.A.L.K. survey, which showed that many women have opted to forgo medical attention in the past year because of financial issues.

Forty-five percent of women aged 18 and over reported that they failed to seek medical care because the cost was too high. This includes skipping doctors visits and recommended medical procedures, as well as failing to fill prescriptions for themselves or family members. Yikes.

To read the full report in pdf, click here.

Overall, I think the NWHRC survey is interesting on the surface but it doesn't go far enough. Respondents were aged 18 and up, and while the survey did ask demographic information, it never breaks down the results by age, ethnicity, education or income.

I emailed the Director of Marketing and Communications at the NWHRC, Marisa Rainsberger, because of that oversight, and she sent me this information:

Percent Who Skipped Care in Past Year
Aged 55+ - has skipped care: 31%; has not skipped care 69%
Aged 35-54 has skipped care: 53%; has not skipped care 47%
Aged 18-34 - has skipped care: 51%; has not skipped care 49%

She explained that there weren't enough respondents to break it down any further than these three ages groups; the numbers were too small to be statistically significant.

As for ethnicity, I couldn't find any specific information in the full report, but the press release indicates:

Hispanic women were most likely to have skipped health care in the past year (58%) versus white (43%) or African American (42%) women.

And the other indicators, education and income? There was no information that I could find.

The survey also covered aging issues, you know, how women feel about getting older, whether they are prepared for aging, and who their favorite 55+ female celebrity was (Tina Turner). Ok then.

Included in the Women T.A.L.K. online press package, is a pdf called Tips for Minimizing Healthcare Costs. Despite a couple questionable suggestions (right after "Exercise" is "Cancel the gym membership": look people, I'm not made of steel. I refuse to run outside in freezing weather.), most of the advice is practical and not just another tirade on "healthy living," which is nice. Suggestions include:

Read medical bills carefully.
Use all the services you pay for.
Wash your hands.
When you're sick, stay home!
Educate yourself about your health.
Use safety equipment when required.
And floss!

Alright then, will do. Thank you. I suspect that if the NWHRC had a bigger budget, they'd be all over a more thorough survey, including more publicity to attract more respondents. But alas, it is what it is.

Scare tactics no good?

2008-12-12T16:50:00.004-05:00

Mark Lindstrom, author of Buyology: Truth and Lies About What We Buy, contributed an interesting op-ed to today's NY Times.

Inhaling Fear briefly relates the results of a study Lindstrom conducted using brain imaging techniques to test the cognitive response in smokers brains to extreme anti-smoking labels on cigarette packages and ads, like the one pictured or like you might find at TheTruth.com. He explains that although smokers agreed that the health information was concerning, their brains weren't "scared straight".

We found that the warnings prompted no blood flow to the amygdala, the part of the brain that registers alarm, or to the part of the cortex that would be involved in any effort to register disapproval.

To the contrary, the warning labels backfired: they stimulated the nucleus accumbens, sometimes called the “craving spot,” which lights up on f.M.R.I. whenever a person craves something, whether it’s alcohol, drugs, tobacco or gambling.

The study was relatively small (only 32 subjects), but the results are pretty interesting. I wonder if the same would hold true for other kinds of addicts.

Also, I saw Mr. Lindstrom on the Today show awhile ago when his book came out and I was eating cereal in bed, being unemployed. Anyway, he was rather enjoyable to watch in the 3.5 minute segment devoted to him. Specifically, I remember he explained how product placement only goes so far to inspire us to want a similar product--not necessarily the brand name product we see. So, for example, if you saw one of those insanely annoying commercials for the Coke Side of Life, you might think, "Gee, that commercial was so terrible that I'm really thirsty... for a root beer!" Or something like that. I don't know really... read the book.

I checked out the comments because I've found that people tend to sound off more on the NY Times than other websites and it can be entertaining, if nothing else. Most of the comments were non-smokers saying how much that hated smokers blah blah blah join the club. But one from an ex-smoker seemed insightful to me:

I have not smoked in two years after 15 years of up to, ah, multiple packs a day. Now, the only time I truly crave a cigarette is not after a meal, or when drinking coffee or alcohol or even when around other people smoking but when those inane and insulting anti-smoking advertisements come on the television. Part of the joy of smoking (and there are many!) is the counter-culture aspect of the habit and these pro-conformity visual escapades make me want to stick a smoldering brown tipped finger up in the air. You tell me not to do something, or worse government tries to compel me to adapt my behaviour to its norms, and the 15 year old in me wants to do it even more!
— AFW, Greenwich, CT

You know, I'm no expert, but I think this guy is on to something. Isn't that how it is sometimes? The second someone tells you not to do something (without providing an immediately horrifying consequence) you want to do it!

Well, no. Not all the time. From that perspective though, it's interesting that people will resist conformity to the extent that they injure themselves, significantly and permanently. It's a completely passive response to whatever injustices smokers see and experience in the world.

Obviously, a lot more research is needed, which Lindstrom readily admits. If this phenomena checks out, though, this could have some interesting consequences for smoking prevention and cessation. Do smokers just need a forum to bitch about their issues? Would that help a person to quit? Can you tell I've been reading a book about psychoanalytic theory?

Bon digestif!

2008-12-09T22:23:00.004-05:00

I've got some Big Things to blog about, but instead of working on those Things, I've been distracted by a new book I found at the library called The Experts' Guide to Doing Things Faster: 100 Ways to Make Life More Efficient. Generally speaking, I try not to buy into BS self-help books with a specific numbers of ways to make your life better (i.e. 12 easy steps, 8 secrets, etc.), but this one is entertaining.

Number 46 on the list? "Cure a Stomachache" by Crazy Legs Conti, Competitive Eater (pictured).

The following three methods are Conti's suggestions to get you "back to the table fast."

Digestives
Dense or rich foods you’ve regretted ingesting respond well to the digestive treatment. Skip drugstore tablets and grocery store biscuits. Also, ginger ale is good for neither stains nor stomachaches because these days it’s mostly corn syrup. Fake sugar will only ferment your agony. The carbonation will cause burping, which feels good, like a pressure valve releasing, but stick to seltzer, not soda, to enable short-term belching relief. Early versions of the golden soda contained ginger, the plant, hence the common beliefe in the ale’s restorative powers. What you actually need is fresh ginger, sliced, boiled,, and then served as tea. Digestives derived from roots, herbs and mints have long been a remedy for overindulgence.

Additionally, many are mixed with alcohol. The French digestif (Cognac, Armagnac, Calvados) is the most common; however I favor the Italian Fernet-Branca, which has a vague medicinal taste, hints of root beer, and overtures of dirt. Limiting your intake to three ounces won’t get you inebriated, but will alleviate your gurgling belly. Simply quaff, sit comfortably, and wait. After twenty minutes, you should notice your stomach settling. If not, drink another three ounces and continue to do so until you are pain-free (or drunk). One July Fourth, I maws musketball-loaded with twenty-three and a half Nathan’s hot dogs and buns when a beautiful woman asked me to ride the Cyclone roller coaster. I sipped Fernet-Branca until my stomach found the courage.

Fluids
We take for granted the advantages of modern plumbing, but would be wise to acknowledge the flushing mechanism in the human body. Get your system moving with lots of water. Drink a half gallon of water and the stop-and-go-rush-hour traffic of one’s lower intestines will find log-flume-like speedy relief in no time. If peristalsis (muscle contractions in your digestive tract) is the culprit, expulsion can be the hero and water the catalyst. I spent an evening in Alaska, my stomach wrestling with eighteen reindeer sausages. However, after the water method, by morning, I was able to mush on to pancakes and bacon (four and half pounds in ten minutes).

The Mind
Even if your eyes are bigger than you stomach, your mind is bigger still. Your stomach has the storage space of a small puddle, but your mind, with a great capacity than the Grand Coulee Dam, can never fill up. Putting all your mental energies toward something else, getting distracted, and ignoring the physical pain will often make it go away. It’s mind over stomach matter (I often daydream of salad) and it works for pro eaters and casual diners alike.

I usually go straight for the ginger ale or Tums, but I might invest in some Cognac if Crazy Legs swears by it.

In any case, expect more excerpts from The Experts'... I'm picking up quite a few nifty tidbits.

Happiness & Television

2008-12-08T11:45:00.004-05:00

Relevant, straightforward research is what I like. Because of that I've been meaning to post this for awhile, but I haven't had time to give this study the attention it deserved, until now.

But first I want to give you a brief background of the events leading up to this post. What Happy People Don't Do (11/19/08) piqued my interest while browing the NYTimes website, but if you look at the article, there isn't a lot of identifying information about the original study, if, for example, one wanted to find it and analyze it for oneself. I tried to email the columnist, but of course, she has no email. I tried to email NYT and got no response. So. Helpful.

Then I came across this random article Happy People Watch Less TV (11/24/08) on a site where the leading stories are "Britney's Ex in Jail" and "Katie Holmes Declares That She Wears The Pants". Unexpected!

FINALLY, I found the original article here, just waiting to be downloaded. I'm not even sure how that happened. I might have blacked out.

Anyway, the point is that it's found! And I read it and it's interesting. Both the NYT article and the other one gloss over the results, but the conclusions by researchers John Robinson and Steven Martin are more poignant.

Firstly, the methods are pretty fascinating. They looked at the data from the General Social Survey or GSS conducted in 1975 and 1985, which surveyed more than 45,000 people. However, researchers used two different kinds of methods to obtain information about people's happiness during daily activities. Some people recorded their relative happiness for each activity the following day, while others recorded their happiness throughout the day in a diary. It may not seem like much of a difference, but there is a lot of evidence showing that as we get farther away from our experiences, our constructed memories of events can alter/be altered by our remembered feelings. For a more thorough explanation, Stumbling on Happiness by Daniel Gilbert is a good read.

After analyzing the results from two major studies, Robinson and Martin found that people who reported being "very happy" engaged in significantly more social activities, religious participation and newspaper reading.

"The major exception," they explain, "was for TV viewing." It was the only activity to correlate significantly lower with happiness, and actually could be seen as a predictor of general unhappiness.

The study couldn't affirmatively comment on causation, but it does offer two possible interpretations:

TV watching causes unhappiness: TV viewing is enjoyable enough, but it ultimately fills time that could be spent doing more productive activities--things that could increase long term happiness.
Unhappiness causes TV watching: "TV is not judgmental nor difficult, so people with few social skills or resources for other activities can engage in it." People who don't participate in many social activities or go to church or read the newspaper (random?) are more likely to be unhappy and watch TV to fill their time.

So really, it's a chicken and egg situation. Are we watching TV because we're unhappy, or is TV making us that way?

Robinson and Martin suggest that more specific studies look at TV viewing to answer the question. Personally, I'm not sure that there is going to be one answer. There are many different motivations for watching TV, which can change day to day as well.

If nothing else, it seems important to think about why we're watching TV. Is our favorite show on? Are we doing it because we're bored? Is it for a class?

Maybe just the simple act of evaluating our decision to turn on the TV can eliminate needless consumption and we can find more productive activities to occupy our time.

The benefits of red wine are virtually limitless

2008-12-05T14:00:00.004-05:00

The Onion wins again. And so does Laura.

Study Finds Link Between Red Wine, Letting Mother Know What You Really Think

According to a study published Monday in The American Journal Of Medicine, a previously unknown ingredient in red wine has been shown to cause a marked improvement of vocal clarity and emotional acuity—while reducing overall inhibition—after only four glasses.

"It seems the benefits of red wine consumption are virtually limitless," said Dr. Susan Zheng, lead researcher on the study. "Many were unable to recall a single time their mother had paid more attention to their sister's soccer games than to their starring role in the school play. But after drinking only one bottle of standard Merlot, these participants could not only remember, but could actually sing whole stretches of Annie Get Your Gun, even while sobbing. It's extraordinary."

The positive effects of wine consumption were seen in as little as three hours, with 86 percent of participants showing greater resistance to unsolicited career advice, 77 percent displaying increased mental function in the area of the brain devoted to reminding you why Dad left you in the first place, and 60 percent demonstrating less concern to "play this little happy-happy game anymore."

What could be more true?? Actually this has never happened to me, and I pray to the Baby Jesus that it never does. I suspect that once the buzz wears off, the initial relief of spilling your guts would be replaced by an overwhelming sense of regret and dread... and not just that you're going to hurl, although I'm sure the hangover would be severe.

This article actually prompts several interesting concepts, but I'll have to save that for later.

WebMD: Making us smarter or stupid(er)?

2008-12-03T15:03:00.008-05:00

This is part of the sidebar that appears on the Women's Health homepage on WebMD.

Yes, headlines are supposed to be snazzy and eye-catching. These, however, are down right absurd. Let's go through them one by one, shall we? (I know I've been numbering things a lot lately, but I like it.)

How to Lose Weight Fast... oh, and also, How Do It Safely. So, the headline is kind of a misnomer. I got ready to be so annoyed! And then it turns out that the advice isn't so ridiculous. The problem is that Dr. Michael Dansinger, the doctor from Biggest Loser, describes the diet and exercise regimen that the show's contestants follow. Which is CRAZY. Dr. Dansinger recommends eating between 1050 and 1200 calories a day and exercising for one hour. (Most dieticians, the article notes, generally recommend 1200 calories a day as a minimum.) Alright, ambititious!

Why Men Cheat, from Oprah.com. Marriage counselor M. Gary Neuman gives the ladies the 411 on why men mess around.
What's the number one reason men cheat? Ninety-two percent of men said it wasn't primarily about the sex. "The majority said it was an emotional disconnection, specifically a sense of feeling underappreciated. A lack of thoughtful gestures," Gary says. "Men are very emotional beings. They just don't look like that. Or they don't seem like that. Or they don't tell you that."

Men are people?! Um... yeah. And guess what else? WOMEN CHEAT ALSO. Take a look at some of the statistics in a recent NYT Well blog post (More People Appear To Be Cheating On Their Spouses, Studies Find, 10/27/08) and you'll see that while the rate of men who cheat is higher, it's not that much higher. Sorry, it's just another Oprah doctor that I can't get behind*.

What is a Gluten-Free diet? Slideshow of gluten filled products that you can't eat. Weird.
8 Things No One Tells You About Marriage from Redbook. This should be good.
Waking up from a good dream to face the harsh morning daylight may not seem like a reason to celebrate. But trust me, it is. Because once you let go of all the hokey stories of eternal bliss, you find that the reality of marriage is far richer and more rewarding than you ever could have guessed. Hard, yes. Frustrating, yes. But full of its own powerful, quiet enchantments just the same, and that's better than any fairy tale.

And also, you're drunk? This sounds like a Deep Thought to me. Honestly, I couldn't get past the first page of this crap. Maybe I am a completely atypical lady, but I would never enter into a legally binding relationship expecting hearts and flowers and poetry 24/7. No one would want that anyway! It would get so freaking annoying after awhile. Be realistic people. However, if you can imagine a long, fulfilling partnership and you've discussed major issues like finances, procreation, retiring to Florida, etc. you should be good to go! But I've never been married, so maybe I'll be scrambling in 10 years trying to find this article to help solve my life crises...

16 Cold and Flu Remedies Another slideshow. No groundbreaking remedies.
10 Gynecology Secrets Shhhh! Don't tell! I hate it when the word "Secret" is in headlines. This article offers some interesting information, but I wouldn't swear by this advice. And also I would ask my doctor before doing something like sticking my birth control pill in my vag. That just seems strange.
The History of HIV Slideshow. Not that informative. Just watch And the Band Played On if you're curious.
The Flat Belly Diet Shut up.
The Cookie Diet Shut up again. Ok I didn't read either one of these, but I bet you they are stupid.
What Does Gout Look Like? Random slideshow. The first picture is over John Barrymore, "relaxing his swollen gouty foot." Mmm uric acid.

So. Did you learn anything? Maybe. I learned that if you can say it in a slideshow, you should! And that orgasms can help ease headaches. And also "gouty" is a word.

Thanks, WebMD!

*That's what she said.

Obesity: Maybe it's not ALL your fault

2008-12-02T00:01:00.001-05:00

Finally! Something interesting from this crazy community food list-serve I recently signed up for. Andrew Drewnowski contributed a fantastic article to the November 18 Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The dual burden of being overweight and undernourished breaks down and explains the issue of obesity in concise terms that make a lot of sense and are pretty hard to argue with (although there are plenty of opinions if you check out the comments).

Drewnowski, a professor of epidemiology and medicine at the University of Washington, is a pretty smart guy. I also think it helps that this is his life's work, as the director of the Center for Obesity Research and Nutritional Science Program. Plus, he is a prolific writer of all things edible, cheap and fatty.

In this particular article, Drewnowski dispels three common misconceptions about the American obesity issue:

Rising obesity rates are not due to an increasingly toxic food environment, but rather a consequence of a failing economy.
Obesity and diabetes may have a genetic component, but more importantly they follow a "social gradient"... meaning that economic class is a better indicator of obesity than whether or not your parents were.
Obesity is not the result of poor choices concerning diet and fitness: "The carefully fostered illusion of freedom of choice disguises the fact that most people have none."

It's pretty standard to blame the obese individual for the fact that they're overweight. People that have financial access to a gym and healthy foods are just lacking education and motivation, right?

Unfortunately, not every obese person is a great candidate for Biggest Loser. In fact, the vast majority of the cast are white, middle class adults. Typical? Maybe not.

As far as kids go, a Time article from June 2008 looks at obesity by demographic (It's Not Just Genetics, 6/12/08):

This [childhood obesity] tsunami, however, is a highly selective one. It discriminates by race: according to the CDC's 2006 figures, 30.7% of white American kids are overweight or obese, compared with 34.9% of blacks and 38% of Mexican Americans. It discriminates by income: 22.4% of 10-to-17-year-olds living below the poverty line--less than $21,200 for a family of four--are overweight or obese, compared with 9.1% of kids whose families earn at least four times that amount.

This is what Drewnowski is talking about. When we talk about obesity and malnutrition as a problem of genetics or "toxic food" or personal choices, we completely miss the bigger picture (and maybe on purpose). Once we're able to admit that obesity and malnutrition are just more consequences of poverty, maybe we'll actually take note of the ROOT of the problem and not just address the various symptoms. I believe thats called "preventative medicine."

"There's a whole anti-oxidant network"

2008-12-01T17:00:00.001-05:00

"Young professionals don't eat particularly well", says Dr. Andrew Shao, Vice President of Scientific & Regulatory Affairs at the Council on Responsible Nutrition. "And there is need for supplementation." His association is currently working on initiatives for the research community, urging them not to study supplements in isolation. "When these vitamins are part of a diet, there's a whole anti-oxidant network. But we're setting up these massive, randomized trials where we're giving participants one nutrient and trying for crazy results--nutrition is just not that simple."

From "E said, C said: Talking vitamins," by Aarti Virani in the Boston Metro (for some reason I couldn't find the whole article on the website... probably because it's crap).

I love this quote for three big reasons:

It's a practical response to the recent results being reported that vitamins play no part in cancer prevention.
It's directed towards youngish people who are in the process of developing life-long habits, both good and bad.
It recognizes that it's stupid to even try to study one supplement at a time. I think my body would be offended by attempts to simplify the process by which it nourishes itself with the food I feed it. Which is not to say that we can't and will never be able to understand the process, but it seems disrespectful to break down such a wonderfully complex system and spew petty advice like, "Take vitamin A every day and you'll never develop cancer." Come on, now... really?

The problem with this advice is that it's COMMON SENSE. It's not new and shiny and impossibly complicated. There are no infomercials about the benefits of "Moderation!" and surely Marie Osmond will never be the spokeslady. It's a damn shame (about the infomercial).

The Cause of Aging... Really?

2008-11-29T11:18:00.005-05:00

The LA Times reported that researchers have discovered new insights into the "cause" of aging (Rodent of the week: Finding the root cause of aging, 11/28). Really? You mean getting older is off the table as a cause??

Shari Roan, one of the Booster Shot's contributors, does a great job of trying to break down the results of the study for the common people. It's hard, though, when you're translating from this:

The yeast sirtuin (Sir2) is a histone deacetylase that modulates yeast replicative life span by suppressing genome instability through chromatin modification. In this issue, Oberdoerffer et al. (2008) report that SIRT1, the mammalian ortholog of Sir2, is involved in DNA damage-induced chromatin reorganization, which promotes genome stability in mammalian cells.

Right. What? Who's even talking?

Honestly, I don't understand this at all, and it creeps me out. When dense, science-y research like this is reported, I always wish that the article went that extra step to detail the implications of the discovery. Like, does this mean that in 20 years we'll be immortal? Or is this information more important for the cosmetic industry to develop better anti-aging eye creams? It's very hard/impossible to tell.

The first thing I thought of when I read this article was Tuck Everlasting. I'm afraid that these guys are going to be kidnapped just like Winnie after she found Jesse drinking from the spring.

So... good luck with that.

Get Well, Sucka!

2008-11-25T15:19:00.000-05:00

In honor of flu season, I thought I'd suggest a few someecards to send out to those sick people surrounding you and spreading their germs.

For that special someone in your life

For ditchers and argumentative family members

For a "it's funny because it's true but I still might get punched" moment

For your BFF, to show you still care

Avoiding Cancer: Just do these 3,045 simple things

2008-11-24T15:24:00.001-05:00

Cancer is not something I think about every day. It is one of the few things I don't worry about. Only one of my family members has ever had cancer, and while it was debilitating to his health, it was not a factor in his death. I've known parents of friends with cancer, but I've never Raced for the Cure or volunteered to read to children with leukemia. Maybe it sounds insensitive to admit, but Cancer as a Concept is completely abstract to me. I just can't rap my head around it.

Which is why I read articles about vitamins and cancer (News Keeps Getting Worse For Vitamins, 11/20), or meat and cancer (Red meat raises risk for cancer of small and large intestines, 11/24), or even exercise and rest and cancer (More exercise, rest cut risk in women, 11/24), but the results mean very little to me. I don't know what to do with all of this of information! Eat this but never eat that except for sometimes you can do this on Thursdays and DEFINITELY swallow that pill but don't eat it with butter ever.

Alex Carnavale at Gawker explains how the dissemination of cancer research and other science and health news is getting even more ridiculous. (Everything You Do or Don't Do Gives You Cancer, 11/23)

Layoffs at newspapers tend to hit the less essential sections first. You're not going to see the sports page disappear, but you might no longer have a local science reporter. To fill in the blanks, editors use wire stories, and when it comes to science reporting, they'll apparently print anything they come across. Basing a story off whatever piece of research comes to light is the easiest way to write a science story, with "according to new research" the opening sentence of choice. Over the weekend, we learned that meat causes cancer, exercise stops cancer, sleep stops cancer and stress causes it. Is there any way to prevent newspapers from dumbing themselves into even more layoffs?

You know, I'd never thought I'd miss news media, but without that filter to interpret and regurgitate information, we're left with the bare bones. Bare bones (press releases) that are written by the organizations and companies themselves. We assume that the figures and recommendations are accurate, but who's checking? Everybody has an agenda, whether it's getting more hits on your website, more donors in your database, or more prescriptions written for your new drug. It's impossible to avoid. The only solution is balanced reporting and a fair view of the facts... which will never happen if science reporters keep getting axed and we let the companies write the news for us.

Britain putting end to cheap happiness and fun

2008-11-22T23:28:00.003-05:00

The Associate Press reported today that Britain is considering a ban on “happy hour” discounts at bars and restaurants to curb youth drinking. The ban could go as far as to include drinking games and speed-drinking events in pubs. Sorry, British people! No more cheap pints at the pub!

The British Liver Trust, a national charity for adults with liver disease, summarized the statistics released by the Office of National Statistics. Over 40% more young people aged 25-29 have been killed by liver disease than in previous years.

The figures, just released for the year 2006, also show an increase in deaths from alcoholic liver disease of almost 7% - to 4,450. There is also more confirmation of the worsening picture with increased deaths from liver disease overall, up by 5.7% to 7,281. With liver cancer and other liver-related conditions included, 38 people die of liver disease each day.

Trust spokeswoman Imogen Shilito explains that , “This is the progression of the epidemic we and the medical profession have been predicting for several years… These figures reinforce our call for urgent work to improve early diagnosis and encourage prevention.”

The Trust website reports that liver damage is

often silent, taking up to 15 years to develop, but when symptoms appear it is often too late. Hepatologists (liver specialist doctors) are regularly seeing people in their 20s and 30s with cirrhosis caused by alcohol in much higher numbers, cases they would in the past have seen in much older people, in their 40s and 50s.

I checked out the stats for the US and the most recent numbers are at the National Center for Health Statistics from 2005. In that year, the death rate for all liver disease was 9.0, with a total of 27,530 deaths. Alcoholic liver disease, or cirrhosis, comprised 12,928 deaths at a rate of 4.2. Side note: Interestingly, the death rate for men was almost triple that for women (12.4 and 5.8, respectively).

So how do we measure up? For overall death from liver disease, the US has a raw number almost four times as great as Britain (27,530 vs. 7,281), but according to the 2006 revision of the World Population Prospects from the UN, the population of the US is nearly five times as large as Britain (299,846 vs. 60,245). The US has more people, but Britain has a higher rate of death by liver disease. Yes, I’d agree that’s something to be worried about.

I don’t think the issue is completely cut and dry, though. It sounds like young people in Britain drink more, but we should also consider the fact that the drinking age is lower (18 more or less), and that Britain has different cultural attitudes about alcohol consumption.

Personally, I had no idea that “happy hour” was so prevalent in Britain… and I think I should visit before this potential ban occurs. I’ve been complaining recently/always about the cost of cocktails at bars, but I never thought that “happy hour” could be a public health concern. Guess I’ve got a lot to learn.

Women who've had 'accidents' are likely to have more 'accidents'

2008-11-21T14:15:00.007-05:00

The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology published a rather interesting study in the November 2008 issue which was picked up by Reuters Health.

The study Is a previous unplanned pregnancy a risk factor for a subsequent unplanned pregnancy? concludes, yes it is. The full text is only available by subscription, but you can find a PDF of the summary here.

The researchers found that although education and age emerged as the two risk factors most likely to predict an initial unplanned pregnancy, the strongest factor for a second unplanned pregnancy was the mere occurrence of the first. Reuters explains,

Researchers found that of 542 women and teenage girls enrolled in a study to encourage contraceptive use, those with a history of unplanned pregnancy were twice as likely as other women to have another unplanned pregnancy over the next two years.

The study followed women and teenage girls ages14 to 35 for two years. Over that period, 23% of all the women experienced an unplanned pregnancy, more than one in five. Of the women who had experienced a previous unplanned pregnancy, 27% became pregnant again during the two year period versus 17% of the women became pregnant who had never experienced a unplanned pregnancy.

So what's the big deal? The study explains,

Women experiencing unintended pregnancies often do not initiate early prenatal care and are more likely to engage in unhealthy behavior, such as binge drinking, smoking, illicit drug use, and lack of vitamin intake, during their first trimester of pregnancy. Consequently, birth outcomes for unplanned pregnancies place the newborn at increased risk for premature birth, low birthweight, infant abuse, and neonatal death.

Which makes sense, right? If you're not expecting to be pregnant, why would you stop going out, doing body shots and smoking crack?
(Side note: The effects of prenatal cocaine exposure have been hotly debated in the last decade, and it's more or less understood that nicotine, alcohol and the poor health practices that often accompany maternal cocaine usage pose much greater threats to prenatal development than the actual crack itself. See this Systematic Review from 2001.)

The researchers suggest that the key to tackling the issue of repeat unplanned pregnancies is

Figuring out which women are at particularly high risk of unplanned pregnancies is key to preventing them, Kuroki's team writes. Based on the current findings, they say, asking a woman about her history of unplanned pregnancy is a good way to estimate her risk of one in the future -- and whether she needs more help with family planning.

Right, obviously. I wonder, though, who should be asking these questions? Is it the primary care physician? Planned Parenthood? Teachers? Friends? Family? Practically speaking, the study is vague, explaining only that

Efforts should focus on improving patient awareness of the associated risk factors, ensuring access to family planning services, promoting effective contraception use, and providing appropriate support and resources to women who experience an unintended pregnancy.

Ok then. It's somebody else's problem. I also wanted to highlight some of them more interesting statistics from the study:

49% of all US pregnancies are unintended (excluding miscarriages)
28% of women under 20 had an unplanned pregnancy, compared to 23% of women 20-24 and 12% of women over 24.
30% of African American women experienced an unplanned pregnancy, compared to 24% of Hispanic women and 17% of white women.
32% of women with less than a high school education experienced an unplanned pregnancy compared to 12% of women with a high school education or more.

I never would have guessed that the numbers would be so high. It would be interesting to look at the percentages over time to see if half of all pregnancies 50 years ago were unplanned... but I seriously doubt that data exists.

And speaking of unplanned pregnancies: Ashlee Simpson-Wentz gave birth to a baby boy today! Welcome, little Bronx Mowgli Wentz.

Wait, is that Mowgli as in The Jungle Book? Why, yes it is.

If Only I Could Have A Chair Made Out of Corn to Rest My Corn-Fed Hind Parts

2008-11-20T14:06:00.008-05:00

If you’ve ever attempted to find and read a scholarly article online, you know that a username and password is required to access the vast majority of academic research. (Which is crap.) This is why I was too excited to find that the full text of a new study published by A. Hope Jahren and Rebecca A. Kraft of the University of Hawaii, Honolulu is available online! Share my excitement here.

Carbon and nitrogen stable isotopes in fast food: Signatures of corn and confin sounds thrilling, no? Basically, here’s what happened:

Fastfood was purchased from America’s top 3 chains: McDonald’s, Burger King, and Wendy’s; each restaurant was sampled at 3 locations within 6 major U.S. cities: Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, Detroit, Boston, and Baltimore. At each location, 9 items were purchased: 3 hamburgers, 3 chicken sandwiches, and 3 orders of fries.

Easy enough to follow. After doing a lot of analyzing, Jahren and Kraft concluded:

Fast food corporations, although they constitute more than half the restaurants in the U.S. and sell more than 1 hundred billion dollars of food each year, oppose regulation of ingredient reporting.

And we’re about to find out why…

Ingredients matter for many reasons: U.S. corn agriculture has been criticized as environmentally unsustainable and conspicuously subsidized. Of 160 food products we purchased at Wendy’s throughout the United States, not 1 item could be traced back to a noncorn source. Our work also identified corn feed as the overwhelming source of food for tissue growth, hence for beef and chicken meat, at fast food restaurants.

It’s ALL corn?! Well, yes, almost. For those of you who’ve read The Omivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan, this is not new information. Fortunately, this new study confirms Pollan’s assertions, renewing the interest in mainstream media.

Both Forbes Health (What’s Really In Your Fast Food?) and Wired Science (Fast Food: Just Another Name for Corn) covered the release of the study, both interviewing the articles authors and other prominent US experts in food policy and agriculture.

Interestingly, Forbes contacted the Big 3 for comment. None were too eager to gush about the results.

Burger King declined to comment on the study. A spokesman for Wendy's said the company has "very strict procedures in place" to protect animal welfare. A spokeswoman for McDonald's declined to comment and instead referred to a statement issued by the American Meat Institute, a trade association.

Janet M. Riley, senior vice president of public affairs for AMI, said that carbon and nitrogen isotopes are naturally occurring and are expected to be found in the environment and humans. She also said that while the study's authors had called for greater transparency regarding information about livestock feeding and production practices, consumers "appear satisfied" with the amount of information currently available.

The last part is particularly intriguing. The American Meat Institute basically refuses to become more transparent in their production practices because consumers are ok with being ignorant to the origin of their meat. Wow. Didn't your mothers ever tell you that just because you CAN get away with something, doesn't mean you SHOULD?!

I checked out the AMI website and they've got a nice little collection of fact sheets to answer all your extremely vague and surface questions about the meat industry. Apparently, AMI produced a "get to know you" type video and put it on YouTube last year, but when I went to check it out, I found that it no longer exists. Instead, I chose to include this chart. Enjoy!

Also this: US Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer schmoozing at the 2008 AMI Annual Hot Dog Lunch (albeit with his mouth full of Italian sausage).

Thighs and calves: A tortured relationship

2008-11-18T15:15:00.004-05:00

Play this game.

I dare you to beat my 2.6 meters.

You can thank Simone.

FYI: "The Measure of America"

2008-11-18T15:05:00.002-05:00

Madeline Drexler's op-ed in today's Boston Globe, The need to combine social and health policy, discusses a report by the Social Science Research Council called "The Measure of America". At $24.95, I was not about to order and read the entire thing, but information about the report can be found here.

Drexler explains that "The Measure of America" applies the United Nations human development model to the United States, which until now had never been done before... and for good reason. The results are less than flattering. Drexler says,

Underscoring how far we lag in our promise, the report documented how the roughly $5.2 billion we spend every day on healthcare yields a pitiable return on investment. For example, US life expectancy ranks below that of Chile, Costa Rica, and nearly every European and Nordic country. The US infant mortality rate is on par with that of Croatia, Cuba, Estonia, and Poland. Within the United States, stark health inequities persist along socioeconomic and racial/ethnic lines.

Yikes.
Drexler goes on to explain how most of the countries ranking above the USA provide universal health care, weighing the health consequences of policies in "taxation, business development, transportation, housing, agriculture, and so on". She considers a lack of health care the primary reason for the disparities.

The op-ed ends with this quote:

As Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, told me during the group's annual meeting last month: "I would love Barack Obama to declare that he wants America to be the healthiest nation in the world - in a generation. Americans need to rally around the idea of grappling not only with healthcare, but with health."

Interesting point. Right now the health care industry is exactly that--an industry. As in, for profit. When you consider in that way, its no wonder that our national health sucks.

Last thing--Along with "The Measure of America" report, the website offers some "Tools" to play around with. One is called the Well-O-Meter. The introduction says,

The formula used to calculate the American HD Index for large population groups cannot be used for individuals. However, you can get a general sense of your own human development level by using our well-o-meter.

I answered the 25 questions, but the results mean very little to me. If you can't use the test for individuals, why are they using it for individuals? It makes no sense.