Fat aint my fault - I need it

BlogHer Book Club presents:

Why Women Need Fat: How "Healthy" Food Makes Us Gain Excess Weight and the Surprising Solution to Losing It Forever
William D. Lassek, M.D. and Steven J.C. Gaulin, PH.D.
Hudson Street Press, 2012

No man? Blame it on the belly fat.
Difficult birth of children? Blame it on the belly fat.
Poor health? Blame it on the belly fat.

At least that's what a quick read of several of the chapters in Why Women Need Fat would lead me to believe. Looking closer at the well-organized discussion of BMI and women's shapes, however, leads me away from these quick (and warrying) conclusions.

Like most busy professionals, I didn't have endless hours to devour every chapter of this book. So I skipped around - drawn to intriguing chapter titles and remaining for a closer read because of the content. I started, then, in Chapter Four: The Mystery of the Tiny Waist. I don't have - nor have I ever had - a waist that would be called tiny. Brick house? Yeah, unless you're looking for that 24 in the middle. I'm more like "Sistah Big Bones," the so-called pudgy gal with the barrel torso. It should come as no surprise as to why I started with a chapter about something I've never been blessed with.

I'd always believed that - as it has been said in many a passing conversation - that weight was indicative of wealth. You know thin people don't eat, right? Well, it has to be because they can't afford food. Isn't that what they say is the assumption in many cultures? A woman with some girth is ready to bare your legacy and is a showcase of your ability to provide.

But authors William D. Lassek, M.D. and Steven J.C. Gaulin, PH.D. debunk this myth quickly. They provide conclusions from a study of college men who've been asked to rate women's attractiveness. The women shown are all collegiates and have blurred faces and wear nude bra and panties. The only thing being evaluated is their shapes. The results? Well, after evaluating the tracking pictures of each participating males' eye movement (which primarily lingered on the waist just before a rating was chosen), it was determined that men are attracted to proportionately smaller waist-to-hip body types. [In a later clarification, the authors note it is "a small waist combined with quite a bit of fat in the hips, buttocks, and thighs" that attracts the visually-selective man.]

The authors add ratings of Playboy Playmates and cartoon women to these research experiments, concluding that though it "made no evolutionary sense," the smaller the waist appears to be, the more attractive a woman is. And these itty bitty waists typically mean a lower BMI. I found it intriguing that, "Women with BMIs well below 20 - like Playmates, the women men prefer in Tovee's studies, and the students with the smallest waists - tend to be less healthy, less fertile, and less able to conceive children." So though humans are supposed to be physiologically wired to be attracted to healthier mates, they're not?

I read on, hooked. In the next few sub chapters, the authors discuss the health-related cause of bigger waists - less Omega 3 DHA (needed for a baby's brain development) and more Omega 6. So my bigger-than-it-should-be belly signals I'll birth a less intelligent baby. It also suggests a riskier birth experience, the possibility that I've been pregnant before and have "used up some of [my] brain-building supplies" stock-piled in my pudgy pubescence. Oh, and if I appear as though I've had one or more kids before evaluating-man spots me for this analysis, chances are that I'm no youngster. Hold up, " gaining weight after having [the] first baby is beneficial for any other babies that follow," right? My expanding girth, then, is protecting the health of his future offspring (that's my story - I'm sticking to it.)!

Now, obviously I'm skipping a good bit of information that Drs. Lassek and Gaulin have compiled. But if I didn't, I'd just be rehashing the book, which at this point I'd decided was worthy of a thorough read through.

I'm overweight and diets aren't working because, in part, the poultry and livestock I consume is stuffed with corn instead of the grains and grasses they'd once been raised on. Corn, the authors report, is replete with Omega 6 (the bad one) and I have to eat more meats to acquire the needed Omega 3 my body craves. So that 'lean meat' I thought I was preparing? It's making me anything but.

Oh, and there's something about leptin, too. Leptin is part of the "fat gene" discovery. It tells my (confused) body how much fat I've got on reserve - and I swear it's calculations are wrong. Why else would this body of mine be holding onto every fat particle it encounters?

But wait... is it hopeless?

The simple answer is no. Drs. Lassek and Gaulin say I can reduce my Omega 6 abundance by boiling, roasting, steaming, stewing, broiling, or grilling my foods. And when I crave fried? Stir fry or braise (huh?) my food in "canola or olive oil or in butter." Oh, and fish is good, very good. Too bad I do not "do" seafood and refuse to chug fish oil (which is suggested).

Now, I am also told that my height - four feet and ten inches of pure me - is not a good thing in a small package. (Pout.) Basically, my compact frame didn't make room for essentials like kidneys, liver, spleen, or intestines like a tall woman's body does. I was destined, you see, to be a little (bite your tongue!)on the thicker side.

The doctors, of course, counter my conclusions with charts for figuring out my natural (ideal) body weight, my body type and body widths, and my body fat. So, I can figure out my ideals and then try to get there while realizing, as the last chapter title states, "it's not your fault if you're heavy, but you don't have to be this heavy."

So it would seem that I have a little work to do. With the appendix of food facts and nutrition information, and a meaty chapter on restoring my newly-calculated natural body weight, I just might have the tools to lose the hefty, hefty uncinched sack that should be my waist.

Disclosure:
This is a paid review for BlogHer Book Club. As always, the views and opinions expressed herein remain my own. I wouldn't write it any other way.

REVIEW: The True Story of Puss 'N Boots

I have to start out by confessing that in this household, we are true Shrek fans. We've savored every new edition of the Shrek saga and have fallen in love with the characters. And we've eagerly anticipated the spin off that pushes sweetly cunning Puss and his doughy eyes into the spotlight. Of course, we know that these Dreamworks creations are merely inspired by the traditional stories and there is little connection to the original tales as the authors penned them.

When Phase 4 Films, through Team Mom, sent me a copy of their new CGI animated film "The True Story of Puss 'N Boots" and promised a movie based on the words of Puss'n Boots creator, Charles Perrault, I was happy to share the watching experience with my kids.

From the opening sequence, I was drawn to the beautifully painted landscapes that served as the backdrops for the action. Luscious color with attention to details proved a visual delight. The characters were delightfully eccentric, and their oddities of appearance made them realistically human. An animated Perrault begins the tale explaining that it is a story too unique not to share. The basic storyline follows his classic story: Peter inherits a special talking cat with magical boots. The cat, named Puss, promises to help Peter win the princess's hand in marriage. An evil ogre is tricked by the cat and loses his life and his castle to Peter.

Puss is voiced by award winning actor William Schatner, who has enjoyed a long and successful television and movie career. As we're most familiar with the Antonio Bandaras Puss - whose sensual Latino twang beckons to listeners, this new voice required some getting used to. At times, Schatner's Puss voice was annoying. There's something gravely and whiny about it that made us want to plug our ears and will him to silence. In fairness, though, Puss isn't a likeable character - - he's a self-proclaimed prankster, a trickster, a rebel. His whole being is devoted to double talk and conscious ommissions that further his purpose.

Directors Jérôme Deschamps and Pascal Hérold note that Perrault's story is "deliciously ammoral." And, true to his text, the movie presents the coniving (and well dressed) Puss as a complete manipulator whose sole purpose is to keep the promise he's made to his owner, Peter, by any means necessary.

The film features eccentric music with a distinctly foreign appeal (clearly we are Americentric in this household). I enjoyed hearing the French seranades by the princess and didn't care that I'd no clue what she was singing about. The soundtrack does not pull from the pop charts, but does tap into classical music and adaptations of lesser known songs and child-friendly rhymes. For someone hoping to sing along with a movie, this is probably not the one to pick. The unfamiliar music, however, gave my kids exposure to diverse cords and lyrics they appreciated.

Now Chi was completely turned off by the extended introduction songs by the Court announcer. His voice was not appealing and his tune carried far too long to be enjoyable or even comical. Chi sat grumbling through every diddy and squirmed in the chair impatiently waiting for the scene to move on. She also questioned the lethargic - or narcoleptic - king. He seemed to move from place to place in the movie while asleep.

I admit that I couldn't stop commenting on the over-exaggerated hourglass figure of the princess. And her ballet-tutu style skirts and leggings only served to accentuate her rotund behind. Despite her shape, though, I loved that her beauty was not the traditional "Disney Princess" look my kids are so often subjected to. Her freckles, close-cropped brown hair, and full lips were adorably average and told of a much more earthy concept of natural attractiveness.

And what is perhaps most endearing about the princess is her insistance that Peter tell the truth. She's already been alerted to his true identity and does not care that he is the son of a miller and not of noble birth. She accepts him for the man he is and appreciates that he supports her interests and praises her talents.


I was particularly fond of the Chamberlain, who has a despicable practice of turning would-be suitors of the princess into toads. He's apparently quite fond of the green beings. His melodramatic moods, crazily parted horn-like hair do, and bulbous nose and midsection make him an interesting character to watch. Chi, however, was not impressed by him. She preferred the ogre, whose temper tantrums turned him involuntarily into an octopus (and he so wanted to be a swan!) She also liked Marcel the chimp, with his gangly legs and pear shaped body.

Peter becomes Puss's pawn as he follows his father's decree, "Always trust the cat. Your destiny is in the cat." He is told he can be whom he wants to be, and his goal is to be the man who wins the princess's heart. His attraction to her penchant for performances (which her parents are decidedly disapproving of) causes him to be mocked by his brothers who berate him for wanting to move above his place. The princess and Peter find a common bond in their determined spirits.

I enjoyed The True Story. It is a carefully crafted story with touches of whimsy that make it unique. There is a quality in the animation that rivals the cinematic blockbusters. And there is a committment to telling Perrault's story that demonstrates a great respect for the classic. It's a movie that I am happy to share with my children and it invited a discussion about fibbing, stretching the truth, and lying that we needed to enter.

* The video was provided by Team Mom on behalf of Phase 4 Films. The views expressed are completely mine.

Hard hat area: CAT man cometh

{aka a review of Toy State's CAT Take-A-Part Machines}

I jumped at the opportunity to bring home Toy State's Wheel Loader construction vehicle for little man to try out. And when it arrived with a construction hat, Ya exclaimed, "DUMP TRUCK!" and tried to tear the toy out of the box.

[I had flashbacks to a very uncomfortable trip to a store where Ya proceeded to pull toys into the cart and rip open packaging of things I had no desire or means to purchase.]

The CAT Take-A-Part from Toy State's preschool line of toys is simply cool. A battery operated "power drill" whired for hours as Ya first tightened screws on wheels, then loosened screws on the cab, the dump bed and the blade (uh, that's the thing-amajig that shovels and holds stuff).

Almost every part of the toy is detachable. The oversized bolts were easy to handle and the drill - once he mastered the tighten and loosen buttons - was perfect for his three year old dexterity. I especially liked the large pieces that are clearly meant for little handlers to fit together with minimal frustration. We had to be careful not to tighten any of the screws by hand when Ya was trying to drill, but found it necessary when he was ready to play with the truck.

Chi watched with quite a bit of envy as her baby brother repaired and destroyed his truck with the drill. This was not something he was ready to share. Not a chance. Because once he was finished playing hard hat handy man, it was time to be "dump truck" driver extraordinare.

You see, Ya has decided that he is meant to be a construction worker. (Of course anyone asking him would believe he wants to drive a dump truck, but that's because every construction vehicle is a dump truck right now.)

He scopes out construction sites from his car seat. Stuck in traffic? No complaints from little man so long as there are active highway improvement projects. Then, he strains to look out the windows at the bustle of activity - big trucks picking up, pushing, pounding; bright hard hats bobbing to and fro; and huge cranes towering overhead with various things held precariously by wires that sway in the wind.

The CAT Take-A-Part Machine retails for $15. Batteries aren't included (it takes two 'AA' for the drill), so make sure you stock up before bringing it home. Although, we've had the drill running often for the last week or so, and it shows no sign of losing power.

To date, Chi still has not been permitted to play with the coveted machine. Ya keeps it under watchful eye. If he disappears, the subtle whir of the drill makes him an easy find.

The Take-A-Part machine models include a CAT Dump Truck, CAT Wheel Loader, and CAT Skid Steer. I'm thinking that I may have to pick up one of the other machines just to restore peace in the house. Chi is suffering from some serious envy.

REVIEW: "improved" Moon Dough activity set

I was sent a sample Moon Dough Push N' Pop Breakfast play set to try out. This set, one of several "new and improved" kits, features a new dough formula created in response to user feedback. The creators tout it as the "Magical Molding Dough." It is.

I remember the original Moon Dough. Chi got a nice play set from Oma. The dough crumbled easily. She lost interest in trying to work with it because everything she created was so fragile. And I got tired of vacuuming up wayward pieces of the dough that was supposed to last.

Considering our history with Moon Dough, I was interested to see if the product really had improved. I'm always looking for entertaining activities for the kids that don't require my hovering interference. Molding products that promise not to damage my home while my children create are welcome anytime. When the Moon Dough Push N' Pop Breakfast arrived, the kids tore open the box. Product specifications indicate it is intended for ages three and up, but I thought I'd let Chi (age eight) test out the set before getting baby brother involved in the creative fun.

It feels a bit like foam when you touch it. Arriving in two blocks - one pink and one yellow - the dough was ready for play after a few seconds of kneading between Chi's hands.

The kit came with a laminated cardboard place mat that we used to protect our table while Chi worked. It's decorated with a plate and silverware for added authenticity for the completed dough sculpting. Never fear, though, the dough doesn't appear to stick to glass or wood table tops, or to the tile floor. Thank goodness for that!

The three pop molds were easy to work with. Simply flatten the dough, press down on the mold, and release. The shaped dough separates with ease from the mold and is ready for the plate.

The twist mold wasn't as easy to work with.

It's designed for the user to simply fill with dough and then twist to free each molded piece. Unfortunately, the pieces don't quite pop out and prying them out distorted their shapes. Could be user error, but Chi was at it for some time with similar results.

Chi busied herself crafting breakfast options for more than a half hour. She used every mold.

At one point, I think she found prepping the dough for each new molding to be a good stress reliever.

Finally, she decided to set up breakfast for her pal, "Eenie."

Pros:
Odorless. Frankly, I don't need another scent in my household - even if it's purposely added for effect.

No residue left on hands! Unlike a lot of other molding clays and doughs, Moon Dough's color did not transfer. It also did not leave a residue on my modeler's hands.

The Moon Dough kit we tried out retails for $9.99. That's pretty reasonable considering that the dough is reusable and the pop and twist mold are well-crafted in sturdy, thick plastic.

The Moon Dough is hypoallergenic. It's not an issue in our house, but knowing that the creators avoided using allergy-producing agents - including wheat - shows that they are concerned about my children's safety.

The dough doesn't dry out. And Chi had to prove this by leaving it out of the plastic zipper lock bag it came in for several days. The Moon Dough was just as malleable after days of exposure to air and moisture as it was the first day of play fresh out of the packaging.

The three pop molds offer variety. Chi created at least three mega breakfasts from the choices and added toppings with the twist mold. She asked for mini silverware to serve her friend his breakfast.

Cons:
Chi was a little disappointed in the color selection, as to really make a breakfast for her stuffed animal friend, she hoped to have authentic colored pancakes, toast, waffles, butter, strawberries, and jam jar. It was hard for her to imagine the meal when the bread products blended in with the toppings.

One thing that bothered me was that the dough easily acquires fingerprints and nail marks with even the slightest handling (but I'm a bit neurotic about unattainable perfection, I suppose). Honestly, though, if this is a play thing meant to be molded, destructed, and molded again, do I really want it to be so firm as to resist markings?

The set I received, as well as other Moon Dough offerings, are available from Toys "R" Us, Target, Walmart, Kmart, Amazon.com, A.C. Moore, Michaels and eToys.

I checked out the product website, http://www.moondough.com, where there are tips for clean up and "in the event that this occurs" directions.

Clicking around, I followed a link to the Umagine(TM) page, where this is posted:
"Umagine puts children at the center of creative play through cutting edge INNOVATIVE brands that incorporate exciting play experiences, provide them with strong self-esteem, stimulate and unlock boundless IMAGINATION, coupled with a strong emphasis on maintaining the highest of QUALITY, and the highest level of FUN and excitement!"

Not a bad goal of a company, if you ask me.