WIN/LOSE: Patenting genes, HFCS in sodassss

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

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

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

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.

30 Posts in 30 Days

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

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

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

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

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.

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)

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! 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that fake quote sums up the article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I bet you saw that coming.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enjoy!

Frenemies and Facebook

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ADA Weighs in on Benefits of Organic Foods

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So you better like it.

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

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

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

...Exercise is Worthless...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...Water!...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...Vacation...

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

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

Fin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Via Wellness in Practice)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Created by Massachusetts artist Lillian Hsu, BJTWYA aims to

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

Here's how it works:

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

(Via Our Bodies, Our Blog)

IV. Aging wisdom

Gray hair. Ugh.

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

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

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

"Because it feels gray," she said.

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

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