(It has been way too long since I have written anything worthwhile, and I am not sure why.  It's not for lack of ideas or things to say, its just that the thought of writing it all out lately sounds like too much work to me.  So I just need to push through that...)

Anyone who knows me fairly well knows that I have had a personal, continual struggle with my weight basically since I hit puberty.  My dear friends assure me that I look fit and healthy, and that they don't think of me as overweight.  I have no idea if they are being honest or being nice.  The fact of the matter is that after dancing on the edge for months and months, I recently crossed the line from a healthy BMI score to an overweight BMI score.  Now, I don't have full confidence in the BMI, because for one thing, a simple math equation cannot tell how much of the weight is fat and how much is muscle.  And I have always had a fairly muscular, stout frame, even at my thinnest. But even so, I can feel in my own body that I carry more fat than I ought to - no more excuses, denials and justifications, I really need to lose some pounds.  Twenty or thirty perhaps!

A recent trip to the doctor, however, reminded me that it is not just a matter of my physical appearance and self-esteem.  My weight issue has other implications.  Without going into too much detail, in addition to the usual concerns that accompany being overweight, my particular weight issues are likely tied up with insulin and fertility issues.

So what am I doing about this?

Well when it comes to diet, my head spins if I think too much about it all.  I vacillate between being swept up by the latest trend and findings, and total skepticism in any sort of plans or programs.  I mean, there are so many voices out there saying that they have the right answer!  You have the low-carb diets, you have the glycemic index diets, you have the vegetarian diets, you have the raw food only diets.  Some people insist that the key to ill health is an acidic body and so you have to get rid of all animal products in your diet.  Others say you are missing key proteins and nutrients if you don't eat animal products.  Some diets say cooking food kills the nutrients, other diets say that certain foods are better for you cooked.  Some say the key is how you combine your foods, you can eat anything so long as you don't eat carbs, fats and proteins at the same time.  Waaaahhhhh!

There is truth in all of these diets, so my plan is balance. Here is what I do know:

1.  Processed foods are not good, whole foods are good.
2.  Too much meat, carbs, sugar, salt and fat are bad, but you need some.
3.  Eat lots and lots of fruits and vegetables.
4.  Eat colorfully!
5.  Some foods are better for you cooked, others raw, learn which is which.
6.  Protein is important!
7.  Fatty-acids are important too - eat fatty fish and flax seeds!
8.  Eat small amounts frequently when you can.
9.  Portion size is a big part of the battle.
10.  DRINK WATER!!!

If the blood tests do in fact confirm that I have insulin resistance (not the same as diebetes, but can be a precursor to diabetes), then it is important that I do keep a low glycemic index diet.  The good news is that it is not terribly difficult to stick to a low glycemic diet.  The things I need to cut out of my diet are cereal (which I used to eat everyday), potatoes, bread (which I don't eat that often anyway), soda, and all the junk food in which I too often indulge.  Suprisingly, if I need something salty and crunchy to snack on, according to the GI, potato chips are my best bet, which is ok with me.  Also to be minimized are rice and pasta, though they do not have to be completely avoided.

I am also trying some homeopathic remedies - so I have started eating cinnamon everyday because it is supposed to help regulate blood sugar and hormones.  Next time I go to the health food store, I am also going to pick up some Chromium, also supposedly important in blood sugar regulation.

Lastly, I read an article in a health magazines about the 8 foods you should eat everyday, and so I thought that would be an easy way to set diet goals.  The 8 foods are spinach, tomatoes, yogurt, blueberries, carrots, oats, walnuts and black beans.  In the past week I have eaten a lot of all of these foods, except oats.  I am still trying to figure out a good way to get oats into my diet besides cereal.  Oatmeal is the obvious answer, but it can't be instant oatmeal, and REAL oatmeal takes about 45 minutes to make.  That's too long.

As for exercise, for a while now I have been doing pilates for 30-45 minutes at least 2 times a week - but this needs to turn into 5-6 times a week.  So far I have not seen much difference, because any ground I gain each time I do pilates is lost in the 3-5 days that I don't do pilates.  There have been times in my life that I exercised much more regularly - I went through a period in college where I ran a mile a few times a week and went to the gym a few times a week.  I wasn't skinny, but I was able to keep my weight under control, despite a rather questionable diet.  I am not sure how to get that motivation and discipline back - the honest plain truth is that I don't like exercising very much, especially at the gym!  And I'm not getting any younger, so it isn't going to get any easier.

Permalink | 2 Commented |

____________________________________________________

Get Religion (a really important and excellent blog) recently posted about an article dealing with a Protestant couple that has chosen to use Natutal Family Planning instead of the pill.  From the original article:

Phaedra Taylor abstained from sex until marriage. But she began researching birth control methods before she was even engaged, and by the time she married David Taylor, she was already charting her fertility.

Taylor, a fresh-faced 28-year-old who would blend in easily with South Austin bohemians, ruled out taking birth control pills after reading a book that claimed the pill could, in some cases, make the uterus uninhabitable after conception occurred. She viewed that as abortion, which she opposes.

“I just wasn’t willing to risk it,” she said.

Taylor wanted her faith to guide her sexual and reproductive decisions after marriage. Natural family planning felt like the best way to honor God, she said.

The Taylors are one of several couples at Hope Chapel — a nondenominational church where David Taylor, 36, was the arts minister for 12 years — who practice natural family planning. Christian scholars say they may reflect a growing trend among non-Catholic Christians who are increasingly seeking out natural alternatives to artificial contraception.

You should really read both the Get Religion post, as well as the entire article it comments on.

Coming from a conservative Catholic background, to be honest I was shocked at how common and accepted birth control is among Protestants. Even our pastor gave arguments for why it seemed legitimate to me, and while part of me wanted to accept what he was saying because of the convenience of the pill, my conscience just would not let me.

There are several reasons why I have decided that I do not see the pill as an acceptable choice.  But before I go through them, I do want to say that my goal is not to condemn anyone that is currently on the pill (particularly any friends who may read this...though that last part is probably wishful thinking :P).  However, I do think we all need to stop and really evaluate contraception, particularly the pill (a term which I will use to include all birth control pills as well as other hormonal forms of BC such as IUDs).

The major reason that I have grave concern about the pill is the potential for abortion. One of the effects of the pill is that it makes the lining of the uterus less hospitable to a fertilized egg.  And, though rare, occaisionally women on the pill do ovulate, a likelihood which is greatly increased if the woman misses a dose.  If that happens, then it is certainly possible that an egg could be fertilized, but be unable to implant in the uterus.  In my mind, that is the equivalent of an abortion.  Both my previous gynocologist (and my pastor) assured my that such a possibility is so remote as to not be a risk worth taking into consideration. While I think they are both being honest and sincere, I wonder if they really know how remote a possibility it is?  Because things that are rare do in fact sometimes happen. And I would grieve deeply, so deeply, if I knew that I had aborted one of my babies by taking the pill. Statistically unlikely or not, it is not a chance I am willing to take.

Secondly, there may be health concerns with taking the pill, though this argument is admittedly not as strong.  Some forms of cancer are made less likely by taking the pill (ovarian and endometrial). However, the risk of breast cancer seems to be increased by taking the pill (some argue that you are only more likely to be diagnosed, not more like to get breast cancer - but that seems like an odd argument to me). Risk of heart attack, blood clots and strokes are increased, and while this is more for women who smoke and older women, the risk does exist for young healthy women too.

My personal experience while on the pill (which I took for a while to treat PCOS) was that it made me feel weird and LOTS LOTS more moody - and moody is a huge understatement.  Basically I would weep and sob and yell and sulk through my week long PMS every month.  It was miserable. While on the pill, I just never felt like myself.  My current doctor, who is not a Christian as far as I know, agreed with my decision to stop taking the pill.  His view is simply that a healthy woman ought to be ovulating and having a real menstural cycle, and the pill disrupts that, it causes a women to be infertile and have a false period.

Another serious concern I have with the pill is the fact that the hormones are entering our water system via the toilet (along with other common drugs like anti-depressants and ritalin).  Water treatment plants cannot remove these chemicals from the water, and so they enter the ecosystem intact.  These drugs are being found in high levels in tissues of aquatic species like frogs, fish and mussels.  And some aquatic species, like frogs and even alligators in the south, are showing signs that their fertility is being negatively effected by the hormones in the water.  See this article from the Sierra Club for a non-scientific summary, though if you Google you can find actual scientific studies demonstrating this problem.

Finally, there are moral, philosophical, social and religious issues with regard to contraception in general, not just the pill, that I am not sure we have all fully explored. What does contraception say about our attitude towards sex?  What is the meaning and purpose of sex?  What does contraception say about our views of children? What is the purpose or value of procreation in society? How does contraception affect our relationships with our spouses, our lovers, or with our children?  Has the introduction of easily access to contraception improved society or degraded it?  What is the meaning or value of the relationship between a woman and her fertility?  And if you believe in a personal God - what about God's plan for your family? Is contraception compatible with trust in God's providence? (The Catholic Church is probably one of the few groups that have explored this issue in depth, particularly John Paul II, he has extensive writing, even from before he became pope, on the subject. And we all know the conclusions that the Catholics have came to.) All these unanswered questions only add to my serious reservations regarding birth control.

Something that had never occured to me before is the impact contraception may have on the meaning of marriage.  As the above mentioned Get Religion article points out, the Archbishop of Canterbury recently used contraception in the argument for considering homosexual relationships to be equivalent to heterosexual marriages:

In his 1989 essay The Body’s Grace, Dr Williams argued that the Church’s acceptance of contraception meant that it acknowledged the validity of nonprocreative sex. This could be taken as a green light for gay sex.

No matter how you feel about gay marriage, it is clear that the moral and social implications of contraception reach beyond just controlling birth.

In the end, I agree with Phaedra Taylor, I prefer to deal with my fertility naturally, because at least then I know I am not doing anything that would dishonor God or His Creation.

Permalink | Comment? |

____________________________________________________

When I was a little girl, my favorite book was Many Moons by James Thurber.  It is a clever little story, but it was the illustrations that really enchanted me. The ethereal, magical pictures were deeply imprinted into my mind - the spectacled chamberlain scanning his long parchment, the princess laying in her giant red bed, the tiny blue poodles, the miniature moon.  Just gorgeous.

For some reason that book popped into my head recently, and I had to know who did those illustrations.  His name is Louis Slobodkin, and he has illustrated many childrens books, some written by him and his wife. From scanning his website, I just love love love his style. I plan on looking for his books at the library to see if any of them are as magical as Many Moons.

Wouldn't a Slobodkin-inspired nursery be wonderful?  No stealing my idea!!!

Permalink | Comment? |

____________________________________________________

I used to think Twitter was completely useless. I thought that continually updating again and again all day long was a bit excessive. But then it suddenly dawned on me...I could be sharing all those thoughts I have throughout the day that aren't worth blogging about.  Well, the appropriate thoughts anyway.

I still think Twitter is overrated, but if you want to, you can follow me.

Permalink | Comment? |

____________________________________________________

By accident, I ended up watching the two presidential candidates at the Saddleback Forum hosted by Pastor Rick Warren.  I am not sure I even knew this was happening, but we stumbled across it while flipping channels over at my mother-in-law's house right as it was beginning.  I am really glad we watched it; I found the answers given by the two candidates to be very enlightening.  I have heard criticism that there has been way too much talk about religious beliefs and values and not enough specific policies.  Well, I would like to hear more specifics, but I also think the religious and philisophical underpinings of a candiadate's ideas are really really important to know too.

My general, overall impression was that McCain did a slightly better job than Obama.  Obama seemed nervous; he was too serious, too careful, too guarded.  I got the impression that his answers were very calculated for the audience.  McCain on the other hand seemed relaxed, he seemed confident, like he knew his own mind without hesitation.  They both did a good job though.  And honestly, I liked the way both of them answered many of the questions.  They both said things which made me applaud in agreement, and they both said things which made me shake my head in dismay. 

Interestingly, I much much MUCH preferred Obama's answer to the question regarding how we should face the problem of evil in the world over McCain's answer.  I can't remember what he said exactly, but it was basically that evil must be confronted and fought against, but that we have to do so with humility and with the realization that only God will ultimately be able to get rid of evil.  Well, shucks, that is a freaking awesome answer! McCain instead answered bellicosely that we must defeat evil, and started on a diatribe about how he would follow Osma Bin Laden to the gates of hell. First of all, to think that we can defeat evil is ridiculous, naive and utopian stupidity. And while I appreciate the passion with which he wants to bring terrorists to justice, it also bothered me how quickly in McCain's mind a general concept like evil is equated with radical Islam.

As for the abortion issue, Obama's answer to the question of at what point a baby gets protected human rights was just cowardly.   Above your pay grade?  You want to be President of the United States, and its too above your head to decide who the citizens you are responsible for protecting are???  No, that was one of the most ridiculous cop-out answers of all time.  Just be a man and say you think human rights begin after the baby is born, and only if wanted by the mother. Because considering your voting record, that must be what you think, or else you have no integrity.  Also, if unborn babies are not owed human rights and protection, then why is abortion such a serious moral issue?  Why should we bother trying to reduce the number of abortions if they are a-ok?  I have no patience for that kind of double-talk.

Unfortunately, my conscience won't let me vote for someone that fiercely pro-choice.  And yeah, I have been criticized for being a one issue voter.  But I like the way Rick Warren put it in an interview he gave to Beliefnet shortly after the Saddleback Forum:

For many evangelicals, of course, if they believe that life begins at conception, that's a deal breaker for a lot of people. If they think that life begins at conception, then that means that there are 40 million Americans who are not here [because they were aborted] that could have voted. They would call that a holocaust and for them it would like if I'm Jewish and a Holocaust denier is running for office. I don't care how right he is on everything else, it's a deal breaker for me.

Unfortunate as it may be, that is exactly how I feel.

Permalink | 1 Commented |

____________________________________________________

Listening to NPR (as usual) this morning, a local show was discussing various social and economic issues in relationship to the 2008 election.  A woman called in and said that it was part of the neo-conservative Republican economic agenda to keep women in the home by reducing programs that take care of children and the elderly.  She was clearly offended and disgusted by the concept of elderly and children being taken care of by their own families instead of strangers paid for by tax dollars. Part of her point was that it was usually women who would end up doing the work of caring for elders and children...but I am failing to see how this should cause outrage?

Now if you want to say that women should not always have to be the ones to stay in the home if they don't want to, and that it should be acceptable for men to be domestic too, then I can agree with that. I fully believe that if a woman sincerely wants to be in the workforce, she should not only be allowed, she should be treated equally and compensated equally to a man.  But when we get to the point where we place a woman's "right" to pursue a career or occupation over caring for the needy and vulnerable in her own family, then our priorities have gotten really screwed up.  The roles and inner-dynamic of a family should be decided by that family, not by some overarching policy dictated either by the government or by pushy idealogues, be they patriarchical or feminist. I have no qualms about saying that if it becomes necessary, a woman (or a man as the case may be, just so long as it's someone) SHOULD sacrifice her personal wishes and ambitions to take care of a family member in need of care. To do any less is not only a sin, it's crazy selfish! Ideally, such a choice won't have to be made. But this is life, and sometimes, in the immortal words of the Rolling Stones, you can't always get what you want.

Personally, I wish with all my heart that I could quit my job (which is not a mindless, wage-slave, only-for-the-paycheck job either; I work for an environmental non-profit and I make almost-decent money) and instead stay home to cook and bake and knit and write and draw and have babies and do laundry and learn a language and just in general do all the things that used to be considered what made a woman accomplished. I don't care if anyone thinks doing so sets back the "the cause of women" - to heck with that! Any supposed "feminism" that devalues childrearing and domesticity, and tries to tell me what I ought to want to do instead is just as bad if not worse than patriarchical sexism. Traditional women's roles are not bad, they are wonderful! It is only bad when women are made to do them against their wishes or are unappreciated for them.

Post Script:  Lest I be attacked for heartlessness, I am not opposed to the government providing assistance for child care or senior care in situations where staying home is not possible, such as single parent families or poverty that makes two paychecks unavoidably necessary. But in all other cases, people ought to put family ahead of personal achievement. My opinions about the role of government and what we should expect out of it is a whole other post.

Permalink | 2 Commented |

____________________________________________________

Of course not.  But I guess producers think the gimmick of taking "un-Christian" people and making them live like Christians makes for good TV.  Sounds like exploitation and mockery to me.  Just another example of a shallow understanding of Christianity being protrayed, probably to the detirment of people's opinions of Christianity.

A lap dancer, a lesbian, and a lapsed Christian with a pregnant girlfriend are among the participants on the U.K.'s newest reality show, Make Me a Christian, where Christian leaders attempt to bring a group of unlikely candidates to the faith. The show's premise is to find out if Christianity can help repair the moral fabric of British society.

The volunteers aim to live by the teachings of the Bible for three weeks, guided by the Rev. George Hargreaves, outspoken political activist and leader of the Christian Party, and his team of mentors. The participants take Communion, get their own Bibles, receive lessons on the correct way to view sex, and learn about service in soup kitchens.

...

The producers at Channel 4 seem to be trying to get a grip on the lifestyle of Christians, not the foundation of the faith, said Malcolm Smith, director of Youth for Christ in Gillingham.

"In doing this they have edited a warped view of evangelical Christianity," he said. "There seems to be very little mention of Jesus, and little mention of love. The program portrays that you can't be a believer or follower of Christ until you get [the rules] sorted out. Surely that goes against 'whilst we were still sinners Christ died for us.'"

This doesn't surprise me (nothing surprises me anymore) but it still makes me sad.  Please, people, you are all too smart to realize that this is not really Christianity, right?  Right?!

(Tip)

Permalink | Comment? |

____________________________________________________

For many people, concentrating on abortion in this election is ridiculous, as there are so many other supposedly more pressing issues at hand, like the economy, the war in Iraq and climate change.  Besides, 8 years of a pro-life president didn't change a whole lot, so is it really that big of a deal?

Well for many people, like myself, it is a really big deal. Even if I agreed with everything else a candidate stood for, I am not sure how I would bring myself to vote for a pro-choice candidate.  As I have alluded to before, that would be for me like voting for a proud Holocaust denier/supporter, or someone who wanted to protect slavery.  (It's amazing to me how many of the arguments used to keep abortion legal are very similar to the arguments that were given in the past to keep slavery legal.  But I digress...)

So John McCain has chosen a pro-life woman for his veep.  I am excited that he chose a woman, even if it was nothing more than a calculated move to get more votes.  I have to learn more about Gov. Sarah Palin before I can say more.  But one thing that I find very interesting is that she is not just politically pro-life - she put her money where her mouth is in her own life.  Just this past May, she gave birth to a son (a VP with a baby! SQUEE!) that she knew, thanks to genetic testing, would be born with Down Syndrome. 

I recently read that studies have shown that as many as 90% of pregnancies that tested positive for Down Syndrome are terminated.  Or, to put it in less sanitized language, 9 out of every 10 unborn babies with Down Syndrome are killed.  That is utterly heartbreaking.  I have known many individuals with Down Syndrome, and now through marriage I have a nephew with Downs.  The thought of these people being killed because of their "disability" is sickening, and frankly, it's total bull-sh!t because they are so very able to live worthwhile and fulfilling lives.

I know I harp on the topic of abortion a lot, but forgive me. I just really struggle to understand how this can be acceptable in our society, at how we can so easily brush aside murder.

Permalink | Comment? |

____________________________________________________