Myth Buster Month is kicking off with one of  the most talked about nutrition topics, High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS).

The MYTH:

According to TV commercials (below) sponsored by the Corn Refiners Association and sweetsurprise.com, HFCS is nutritionally the SAME as table sugar.

[]

What do you think, fact or fiction?  Let’s take a look…

First let’s look at how HFCS and sucrose (table sugar) are similar:

• Both contain 4 calories per gram.
• Both consist of a combination of glucose and fructose:
  • Sucrose = 50% glucose + 50% fructose
  • HFCS42 = 42% fructose + 53% glucose + 5% polysaccharides
  • HFCS55 = 55% fructose + 42% glucose + 3% polysaccharides
    

Next, let’s look at how HFCS and sucrose are different:

• HFCS and sucrose are made using entirely different methods.

I believe it is really important to understand where our food comes from, so this section is rather in-depth.  Pretend, the following is an episode of “How Its Made”.

Sucrose is made from either sugar cane (70% of sugar) or sugar beets (30% of sugar).  The process for each is slightly different.

Steps to create sucrose from sugar cane: grow, harvest, extract juice via crushing the sugar cane stalks (the leftover cane fiber is saved and used to generate future energy), boil juice, evaporate water, sugar crystals grow, and raw sugar forms.  This sugar is then shipped to a refinery where it is cleaned and decolored forming white table sugar and molasses. Steps to create sucrose from sugar beets – grow, harvest, slice beets, diffuse beets in hot water, press beets to extract juice, remove impurities,  boil juice, evaporate water, sugar crystals grow, and white table sugar is formed.  Note that in the creation of sucrose by either method no additives or enzymes are used.

HFCS is made using yellow dent corn.  This type of corn has a higher starch content than the sweet corn we eat as a vegetable.  Yellow dent corn has an extremely hard outer layer, making it inedible in traditional form.  It is used only in the manufacturing of grain products, animal feed, and the production of HFCS.  To produce HFCS yellow dent corn is first heated and soaked in order to soften the kernels.  Following this, the corn is kernel is separated to extract the starch.  The enzyme alpha-amylase  is used to breakdown the starch into glucose.  Glucose is changed into fructose using the enzyme glucoamlyase.  Lastly, another enzyme glucose-isomerase is used to create a part glucose, part fructose mixture. The first two enzymes are naturally occurring, however, for the purpose of producing HFCS they are made in a lab from bacteria and fungi.  The third enzyme, glucose-isomerase is a synthetic enzyme.

Are you still with me?  In short, the production of sucrose is a 100% natural, mechanical process that does not employ the use of enzymes or additives. The production of HFCS is a chemical process that requires natural and synthetic enzymes.

• HFCS and sucrose are not digested in the same way.

Because your brain is probably still reeling from reading about enzymes, I won’t explain the entire digestive process to you; I’ll just point out the primary differences.

Sucrose goes through a series of processes as it is broken down in the body.  As it is absorbed sucrose requires insulin which helps the body to utilize absorbed energy from carbohydrates.  Insulin also triggers leptin, a hormone which regulates hunger and consumption, to be released. Leptin, signals to the brain when the body is full.

HFCS requires one less step than sucrose does as it is absorbed.  It also does not require insulin.  Because insulin is not used, leptin is not triggered and the body is unable to tell when it should stop eating. The lack of ability for the body to tell when it is full, coupled with fast absorption rate, creates an alluring environment for increased fat storage.

• HFCS is likely a genetically modified product.

In the United States 86% of corn produced is genetically modified (GM).  A GM food is one which has been genetically engineered to perform a certain way, in a particular environment.  Therefore, it is EXTREMELY likely (if not certain) that the corn used in the production of HFCS is in fact GM.  However, the Corn Refiners Association states that corn is not a GM food (although GM crops may be used) because  no corn DNA remains present in HFCS.

It is highly likely that HFCS begins as GM corn.  Whether or not  it truly remains a GM food after extensive processing and the removal of corn DNA to form HFCS is unconfirmed at this point in time.  I’ll let you as the reader draw your own conclusions.

• HFCS is subsidized by the government.

As corn is a government subsidized crop in the United States, one can only assume that HFCS, a direct byproduct is also subsidized.  However, the Corn Refiners Association claims that this is not the case a for the production of “HFCS”.

So… the production of corn is subsidized.  HFCS is made from subsidized corn… however, HFCS is “not” subsidized?  I’m confused. Again, I will let you as readers draw your own (obvious) conclusions.

THE RESULTS: Our body does not recognize HFCS and sucrose as they same and they are made entirely different from one another, from different plant sources.  Weighing the similarities and differences of these two products, it is safe to say that this myth is BUSTED.  While similar, HFCS and sucrose are not the same.

In closing…

According to both the American Medical Association and the American Dietetic Association, HFCS does not contribute to obesity any more than other high-sugar foods.

All of the above information aside, I do not believe that HFCS alone is to blame for America’s obesity crisis and increased incidence in diabetes, as it often associated.  Surely HFCS is a factor and I would 100% prefer for it  to not exist. However, the American diet is so heavily saturated with simple carbohydrates such as sugar, HFCS, and refined grains, as well as high fat foods, that we as a culture are in dire need of a change in what we eat.

The bottom line is that until HFCS has been around long enough for to prove if it truly is harmful or not, it is here to stay because it makes foods cheaper and easier to make.  It is up to us as consumers to make informed healthy choices.  At the end of the day, everything comes back to: consumption of a balanced, healthful, low-fat diet with lots of fruits and vegetables; 30+ minutes per day of physical activity; and consuming high-fat and high-sugar foods in moderation.

On that note, I will leave you with a short clip from one of my most favorite food documentaries King Corn and a brief interview with Curt Ellis one of the filmmakers.  I believe it sums up everything and more, far better than I ever could!

References:

• American Dietetic Association.  High fructose corn syrup and weight status.  (2008).  Retrieved from http://www.sweetsurprise.com/sites/default/files/ADAHotTopicHFCS.pdf.
• American Medical Association.  AMA finds high fructose syrup unlikely to be more harmful to health than other caloric sweeteners. (2008).  Retrieved from http://www.sweetsurprise.com/sites/default/files/AMARelease6-17-08.pdf.
• Corn Refiners Association. Sweet Surprise.  Retrieved from http://www.sweetsurprise.com.
• Diabetes Health. The Dangers of High Fructose Corn Syrup.  Retrieved from http://www.diabeteshealth.com/read/2008/08/20/4274/the-dangers-of-high-fructose-corn-syrup/.
• Heartland Science. Yellow Dent Corn. Retrieved from http://www.heartlandscience.org/agrifood/yelcorn.htm.
• Sugar Knowledge International. How Sugar is Made. Retrieved from http://www.sucrose.com/learn.html.

* Reposted from Chew With Your Mouth Open, Chelsey’s foodie blog.

Once upon a time, I couldn’t imagine the taste of bread. I lived in a house where tofu and soymilk were common staples. A decade ago, a vegan or gluten-free diet was not nearly as common or trendy as it is today. Many people thought nothing of their heavy meals laden with wheat, and the breadbasket was a common preliminary step before a waiter brought out the main course. My family’s unique take on healthy eating stemmed from my brothers’ severe food allergies and differed from the norms of everyone I knew, but I thought nothing of it. While I didn’t understand the health benefits of eating gluten-free at a young age, it was simply the way we did things in the Elkus family.

I have memories of childhood play dates with my confused toddler friends who were used to being fed pizza during lunchtime, unsure of what to do with the rice pasta and sautéed tempeh on their plates. I remember family dinners in foreign countries during summer vacations that took hours to complete due to our complicated orders and special requests, not to mention the added language barrier. My brothers’ intolerance to dairy, wheat and eggs provided for a challenge at every meal, and my devoted mother toted around a plethora of emergency Epi-Pen shots and Benadryl bottles with her on vacations that rivaled the medication aisle of a fully-stocked CVS store. Accidents were inevitable, and my heart jumped in nervousness at the first sound of their voices uttering “I feel sick” and the worried expression on my parents’ faces. Was it some bread crust that had slipped into their French fries? Could their corn tortilla have been carelessly switched with a wheat one? Did someone put flour in the soup? Little did I realize that with each experience, whether it ended in a safe and satisfactory meal or a panicked finale of frustration and tears, I was digesting the basic medical training of a dietary specialist.

The assurance of my brothers’ health came at no easy price for my parents. I have so much respect and admiration for the hard work they dedicated to raising children on such a specific and limited diet, and the time that they spent self-educating with late-night Internet research and dozens of highlighted and underlined newspaper articles ripped out and tacked to our kitchen bulletin board. The differences of our kitchen to most were stark, but I grew to accept them and even enjoy the acquired tastes of “Tofu Pup” soy dogs and quinoa-based pastas. Gluten-free was simply my way of life.

It was only while progressing through elementary school and spending more time away from home that I began to side-track from the gluten-free foods. The school cafeterias presented a vast array of lunchtime options that made my ten-year old head spin. “Real” pasta, dripping in warm butter and crisp parmesan flakes! Freshly baked brownies, glazed with vanilla icing and individually saran wrapped! My eyes grew wide at the selection of kid-friendly options and lack of parental supervision, and I indulged without hesitation. Away from home, I felt free to enjoy whatever foods I wanted, especially without the guilt of eating them in front of my brothers, who had never experienced a real cupcake or a slice of Domino’s pizza. The ongoing question of how I was so lucky to be an allergy-free middle child born between two once-sick children no longer mattered. Sitting next to my friends at our table, I was like everybody else, and my newfound culinary anonymity was a foreign comfort in the confusion and mayhem of adolescence.

My experiments with these strange wheat-based foods quickly progressed into a full-fledged love affair. There was no question – I was obsessed with gluten. I started to crave the satisfactory full feeling in my stomach after eating a sandwich or plate of pasta that just couldn’t quite compare with the aftermath of a soy hot dog or slice of rice bread. If there is such a thing as gluten addiction, I had it.

It wasn’t until the end of high school that I began to reevaluate my love of wheat-based foods. School days were long, and I was used to the hour-long post-lunchtime slump that occurred in the early afternoon, a sluggish period of food coma that prevented me from thinking clearly during my one o’clock math class. I was unknowingly experiencing what is commonly known to the community of gluten-free eaters as “wheat fog.” I had become accustomed to the heavy feeling in my gut after a gluten-based meal, and I forgot what it was like to experience the light and airy aftermath of a wheat-free meal. It took discipline to change, and hundreds of afternoons spent without incentive to exercise or be productive. I began to slowly eliminate gluten from my diet.

The results were incredible. I noticed a difference right away in how I felt both immediately after a meal, but also as my day progressed. My mind was clearer, and I felt increasingly able to study for longer periods of time without the sleepy fog that usually crept through my mind after lunch. I could sustain exercise for more time with longer bursts of energy, and I slept more soundly. It was clear that a gluten-free diet was the right decision for me, and since then, I haven’t looked back. While I may not share my older brother’s Celiac Disease or my younger brother’s wheat allergy, I realized that I was one of the ten percent of Americans who suffered from a gluten sensitivity, and I was lucky enough to already have the skills and knowledge to maintain a new diet.

I know that many healthy people do allow gluten to occupy a place in their diet, and that there are even more who don’t think twice about it and feel fine. I also know that my return to a gluten-free existence has been one of the best decisions I’ve ever made, and I would advocate it to anyone who is ready to take a chance on a conscious, long-lasting and beneficial change. The world of gluten-free food no longer requires an arduous trek up and down restaurant-lined streets searching for a kitchen willing to make substitutions on their menu. Grocery stores now offer entire aisles of gluten-free options and many trendy eateries are adopting the wave of current medical research and celebrity-endorsed wheat-free eating. I urge everyone to take a chance on improving their health. Start by slowing substituting gluten in just one meal a week to test the waters. In honor of the traumas and tribulations of my brothers, the two bravest boys I know, I can’t thank them enough for helping me to realize that sometimes the best option is the one you had all along.

Although summer is coming to an end, barbeques are just reaching their peak as Labor Day beckons on the horizon. The big question on many minds becomes “what dish should I bring?”!  It goes without saying that our waistlines suffer in the wake of summer events.  However, you don’t always have to sacrifice your pant size for taste (or vise-versa).

One of my go-to dishes is this Broccoli Salad.  I love that it is fairly inexpensive and easy to make, looks great in a bowl (this is very important), and is gobbled up time and time again leaving no leftovers for me to deal with.  BONUS: It is quite nutritious.

Ingredients –

• 2 heads of broccoli
• 1/4 cup thinly chopped red onion
• 1/4 cup craisins
• 1/2 cup halved cherry tomatoes
• 4 ounces of 2% sharp cheddar, cubed or grated
• 1/4 cup silvered almonds, toasted
• 4 slices of bacon, crumbled
• 1/3 cup light mayonnaise
• 1 1/2 tablespoons balsamic vinegar
• Freshly ground black pepper

Wash all produce.  Using only the flowerets, chop broccoli into bite size pieces and place into large mixing bowl.  Add onion, craisins, tomatoes, cheddar, bacon, and almonds.  To prepare dressing mix mayonnaise, vinegar and pepper together in small bowl.  Gently toss salad in dressing to coat.  Let sit overnight in fridge.  Enjoy!

Nutritional Information (per 1/2 cup serving): 104 calories, 6.5 g fat, 6.5 g carbohydrates, 1.5 g fiber, 5 g protein, 193 mg sodium.

* Recipe re-published with author’s permission.  To view original recipe and article, please visit Chew With Your Mouth Open, January 23, 2011.

Environmentalists blather and quake in their hemp clothing as new research done by Canadian scientists are now able to reduce cattle-produced methane gas by 25%.  When I read the title heading in Science Daily’s May 09 issue, I couldn’t help but be solidly impressed.  How have researchers figured this out?  By compiling an extensive database of methane production values measured on cattle to formulate equations to predict how much methane a cow would emit based on its diet.  Researchers then genetically select cattle that inherently produce less methane.  Next stop?  Genetically selecting humans that produce less excretions.

In 2006, researchers officially quantified greenhouse gas emissions, stating that livestock is a bigger problem than a car emissions.  The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization showed that livestock generates 18% more greenhouse gas than modes of gas transportation.

Worse, cattle are a large factor in enhancing drought situations by stripping the land, exposing the soil to the wind, and with no grass or shrubs with roots to hold the soil down, the soil is blown away or becomes nutrient-depleted.  Along with this soil deficiency comes water degradation.

When I lived in Oklahoma, there was this beautiful road sign that said “Keep our Land Grand” and next to that was a sign in the shape of Arkansas and Oklahoma’s trash being thrown into it.  A legal battle has ensued between the two states, with Oklahoma accusing Arkansas of dumping chicken, turkey, and cattle pooh into watersheds that then dump into Oklahoma streams and rivers, posing a huge health hazard to drinking water and recreational settings.

In Arizona, a long drought period has decimated the lands, further increased by the cattle industry.  The impact of grazing, drought, erosion, and fire are directly correlated to each other, and Dr. Robert Kattnig at the University of Arizona states that it takes upwards of two years or more to “recover” the land from cattle destruction.

In 2007, Washington State Beef Industry Statistics show that the sale of cattle was approximately $724,533,000 with an impact of $2.17 billion on the state’s economy.  There are approximately 11,700 cattle ranchers and 760 dairy farmers, and approximately 1.09 million cattle in Washington, of which 243,000 were dairy cows.  Total beef production was 848,710,000 pounds, whereas the entire United States produced 26.5 billion pounds of beef.  The “Total Use Mandate” of Washington allows for cattle to graze on public lands, further increasing the expanse and production of Washington cattle.

My teenage years were spent on a beef cattle ranch in the northeast corner of Oklahoma (plus a short and financially devastating stint with Emu ranching that ended with us turning all 200 of them loose–locals still say they see one every once in a while, providing them with a good dinner that evening).  My brothers and I were in charge of taking care of the cattle, all the way from bottle feeding, branding, castrating, to labor and delivery.  My favorite Christmas occurred when Dad gave us a wrapped box full of rocks, only to find out it was a treasure hunt that ended at the far end of the ranch with cows tied around 3 of our very own cattle.  My job was to get a bull calf into the head gate, then one brother would brand it, and my dad would finish the job by castrating it, turning it into a fine steer with a glorious ending at the local slaughter house.

Last Saturday, May 16th, my bookstore sold books at a Michael Pollan event in the Central Enoch Pratt Library in Baltimore, Maryland. Over 1,100 people showed up for this question and answer session with the author of (most recently) In Defense of Food and The Omnivore’s Dilemma. I’ve only read an earlier book of his, A Place of My Own, but since I’ve been studying his precursor, Wendell Berry, it’s only a matter of time before I get to his other work. I’m always behind on the latest trends.

Tony Geraci, the new Baltimore City Head of School Lunches, interviewed Michael Pollan. I didn’t take these questions and answers down verbatim, so these are not direct quotes by Michael Pollan, but they are the content of what he said.

Read More >>

In our latest Melon Underground podcast, we chatted with Erik Bjornson about the questionable quality of Tacoma’s air and the legacy of Asarco.  The American Lung Association has come out with their 2009 State of the Air Report which basically grades our chance at survival.

How does Tacoma fare? Not great. The Pierce County rating for High Ozone (O³) Days, which is basically a indication of frequency of the three molecule Oxygen compound or smog falls into the C grade (compared to a F in Pierce County). While we’re amongst the average in Ozone, our particle pollution grade is a flat out FAIL. Particle pollution “refers to a mix of very tiny solid and liquid particles that are in the air we breathe.” The source of this type of pollution is mechanical and chemical processes (cars and paper mills for example).

While you’re more likely to be immediately affected by Tacoma air pollution if you’re diabetic, A DEVELOPING CHILD, people with heart disease and the elderly here are some of the risk from living in this environment year-round:

• increased hospitalization for asthma attacks for children living near roads with heavy truck or trailer traffic
• slowed lung function growth in children and teenagers
• significant damage to the small airways of the lungs
• increased risk of dying from lung cancer
• increased risk of death from cardiovascular disease

Compared to the rest of the US, Tacoma doesn’t appear to be that bad.  Find out how the rest of the Nation and Washington stacks up and for more explanation about air pollution check out http://www.stateoftheair.org/.

I’m curious how air quality relates to housing prices, so if anyone has similar map with data please say so in the comments.

first seen here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20090430/hl_hsn/morethanhalfofamericanslivingwithdirtyair

image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/21313845@N04/

Feminism in the United States seems to be, well…in a slump. A large generation gap looms, building resentment and misunderstanding as my generation declares itself decidedly “Not Interested” in the issues mapped out by the Old Guard. Young women seem to display feminist values but don’t want to call themselves feminists; in some cases they say they are feminist while blithely expressing the opposite in the next breath. What is trendy in feminism in the U.S., though, is decidedly not at all helpful to feminists in other nations. Our lovely nation is facing a disconnect with the rest of the world, because we have been more feminist in a real sense than most of the rest of the world for decades now. We are in a different stage of discussion and development, something which U.S. feminists fail to appreciate when talking with international partners. Here are six issues I see as most important to the reduction of suffering and the advancement of women worldwide. You may notice that abortion does not make the list.

1. Thoughtful discussion of traditional customs. Part of the legacy of colonialism has been a reticence to examine the effects of culture, particularly traditional culture, on the well-being of women. There is a short story from Ghanian writer Ama Ata Aidoo called Hair which highlights this perfectly. In it, a female professor thinks about the pressure African women feel to have long, straight hair. This was one of the holdovers of colonialism, where all that was white was good and all that was African was ugly. The narrator describes her own struggles in a world with no easy answers: either she must wear a wig and embrace the inherent self-rejection in that act, or she must obey her brothers and leave her hair natural, garnering the social consequences of being African in a society that still likes European things better. No matter her choice, she must also watch other women make the same choice and compromises that reinforce their “inherent” lack of worth.

The short story also subtly brings up an interesting point, and that is that the narrator cannot make the choice to be “African” (or not) without also obeying male authority figures. Throughout the world, traditionalists struggling to maintain cultural identities from various threats have equated women’s rights with the threatening force. Whether the enemy is former colonial powers (as in much of Africa), capitalism (as in China, Viet Nam, and other communist nations), materialism and debauchery (as the West looks in the eyes of Muslims), threats to traditional religions (pretty much everywhere), or genetic diversity (as in Europe in its constant efforts to devalue immigrants), traditionalists declare that any change in women’s status is a direct result and poisonous consequence of the cultural invasion. Renewed repression becomes a way to assert cultural identity and authenticity.

The results of this are different depending upon local tradition. Indians and Chinese selectively abort female fetuses, reasserting even in the face of demographic disaster that females are not worthy of life. Critics of traditional practices, such as recently murdered journalist Uma Singh of Nepal, who criticized the dowry system, are intimidated and attacked. Women who seem to be go beyond their “places” are threatened. In her autobiography, Nobel Peace Prize winner Wangari Maathai  recalls being attacked as anti-African by Kenyan legislatures for the double crime of being an educated woman and one willing to participate in the political process on her own terms. Women whose clitorises have not been scraped off and their vaginas sewn shut sometimes face total rejection from all future partners. Women in the Middle East/South Asia region of the world risk being mutilated with battery acid if they reject (or accept) sexual partners or try to go to school. Worldwide, women’s sexual choices, no matter what they are, are used as justification for denying them and their children legal protection, for rape, for denying their very sanity. Muslim men in particular seem to enjoy taking it upon themselves to kill their female relatives for sexual misconduct – that is, any sexual conduct.

These traditions need to come under scrutiny. In many cases I will admit that traditionalists’ critiques of Western culture (it is pretty much exclusively this which they are fighting against) are valid. Materialism is and consumption-based economies are, in fact, bad things. Yes, our tendency to oversexualize women, to the extent that we make sexualized dolls and clothes for little girls (go check out the girls’ section in a store once and you’ll see) is not a good thing. Still, is it not also wrong to consider a woman such a burden that she must “pay off” her husband with a dowry? Why not view a dowry as assets she brings to a marriage, assets that she herself controls rather than her husband? That’s a twist to a dowry that retains some of its cultural purity without degenerating into an attempt to keep women without economic means. Discussions like this cannot be imposed from the outside of the cultures which they affect, and all attempts to impose them will backfire. Still, there is not an inherent conflict between women’s rights and traditional cultural identity, and we need to continue discussing how they converge in a meaningful manner.

2. Making it okay for women to say “no”. This is a debate from about forty years ago for the U.S. – whether or not women have an obligation to have sex because they are married, or because they are in sexual situations at all, or because they wore the wrong clothing, or because they were/are prostitutes, etc. It’s a debate that is still going on, unfortunately. (However, now the debate is whether someone can say “yes” without giving a blank check.) In most parts of the world there is no debate. The situation is so terrible that a large portion of research money into an HIV vaccine goes into developing ways for women to protect themselves without their partners knowing about it. The research is important, yet sad, because it means that a huge population of women cannot enforce condom use, dictate the terms of their sexual experience, or decide when and with whom to have sex. The Bush administration’s abstinence-only AIDS policy for the last eight years has employed a “just say no” approach for young women – but most HIV-positive African women contracted the virus after marriage. The policy also assumed that young African women were like teenaged U.S. women in that their sexual choices were determined by lust and social pressure. This does not square with the reality that, unlike in the United States, a woman’s rejection of sexual advances would not be upheld without question by the larger community. Boys and men do not need to take their partners’ requests into account, because there are few social consequences for rape.

I doubt that this is an issue that women can really make much headway on without male allies. A recent NPR story highlights the actions of one man who has embraced the importance of female choice, and there needs to be more men like him (except maybe for the “I was a rapist first” part). In fact, I see this issue almost exclusively as in the domain of men. Women can certainly band together on this issue, and they can teach their sons about consent (which would require, you know, actual conversations about sexual conduct), but they will win no legal battles without male allies. Their enforcement techniques will be poor at best without male enforcement. Children, especially sons, will not listen to their parents unless their fathers also assert that condom use is required during sex, that consent is not inherent in any situation, and that female opinions matter.

I have a question, born from years of observation. Some background: I like to work out, and a part of my workout routine involves free weights for my upper body stuff. I work out about twice a week on average, though I’d like to do it more. My question is this: why don’t women lift weights?

Keep in mind while reading this that I’m talking about women who work out regularly – not folks who have never done so or that only go every once in a while. I’m talking about people who are past the stage of feeling intimidated by a gym and who find value in taking time out of their week to exercise. More power to them; I wish everybody worked out more. However, there’s this strange phenomenon that I’ve observed in gyms all over, and that is that women don’t lift weights.

I get some of the reason why. The free weight section is rather intimidating, because it requires a basic knowledge of form and muscle groups; machines are more user-friendly in this way. And there’s men in the free weight section. Beefy ones. There was a time when I myself attempted to be as unobtrusive as possible, assuming that the men there would be hostile to my presence. Actually, if anything they were surprised. Like most people, though, they focus on their own work outs; the fear of being judged is a big reason why people are shy to start exercising, I think, but it just doesn’t happen very much.

The free weight section isn’t male-dominated because of any active or covert intimidation on the men’s part; the fear of that came completely from me, and I’ve gotten over it. But the lack of women in this area puzzles me, because presumably other women have discovered this as well. I have observed a number of women using free weights, but mostly they use weights that are less than twenty pounds, if that. I can count on one hand the number of women I’ve seen using weights higher than thirty, me included, and I think the others were athletes.

Okay, so why don’t women lift heavy weights? Let’s go through possible explanations. One: women are not as physically strong as men. Well, maybe. But are they as physically strong as a thirty pound weight? I’d say this explanation is diversionary. I’ve seen women do badass stuff at gyms, like run for 90 minutes and do seven bazillion crunches. And I myself started free weights with twenty pounds in each hand, so it’s not like there’s some inherent weakness here. Two: women are intimidated by weights and generally think of that as a “male” activity, while machines and such are “female” activities. This is quite possibly the case, and if so I think it’s time to stage a coup and shake up the gender divide. Since I’m hanging out on the “male” side of the equation, I’ll rally all of ‘em up and take over the machines so that women will be forced through lack of options to lift weights. Take that, division of exercise labor!

The third explanation is that women don’t want to have muscle. They want the benefits of exercise (healthy metabolism, strong heart and lungs, proper body-mass index, etc) but they don’t want to look like they exercise. I’ve heard a lot of women express the desire to “tone up” rather than gain muscle (as though they had any in the first place. I’ve had two female athletes – athletes! – tell me that they “don’t want to have muscles.” And I’ve heard female friends with twigs for arms say they don’t work out because they fear having muscles.

For one thing, this displays a gross ignorance of what the female body actually looks like. Women with big bulky muscles work out for a living. It’s their job. Women just don’t gain muscle mass the way that men do. Do women not work out because they are afraid of losing their femininity? Do they think that only men have muscle?

Here’s what I think when I see someone (of any gender) with muscle: “Wow, that person could twist my head off.” It’s quite an impressive sight. Along with that, though, I also think that the person looks capable. I think that they look strong. Muscled folks look like they know their worth and they aren’t afraid to display it, and they are not afraid to make others pay attention. A muscled body takes up space.

These are all very good things. Why shouldn’t women be as capable, strong, aware of their worth, and take up as much space as men? I just can’t see a muscled person standing for such treatment as being underpaid or ripped off or otherwise mistreated. That’s not who comes to mind when I see a victim. Yes, there’s more than one way to achieve the above virtues, and yes, there’s an undercurrent of aggression in a muscled body, simply because one becomes more aware of the physical power it holds. The first objection is a cop out; the fact is that women do not choose to display themselves as physically strong, physically capable, physically aware of their worth, and they do not like to physically take up space. To the second objection, I ask: why is it bad that women hold an undercurrent of aggression? Because I am female, strangers look at me and see a victim, which is why women in particular are cautioned from walking alone at night. If I can demonstrate with my very physicality that I can fuck you up (more delicately referred to as “defending oneself”), then I’m all for it!

Given these obvious benefits, then, why don’t women want to look strong? Why do women consistently chose to discount their ability to lift weights and say that they want to avoid muscle? The opposites of strong, capable, knowing one’s worth, and taking up space are weak, incapable, ignorant of one’s worth or devaluing one’s worth, and taking no space. Is that what femininity is? Do women really want to be these things? Or am I completely off base? Is there another good reason I’m missing why women do not chose to lift heavy weights? I’m a bit bewildered by this observation of mine, and I do not think that it is only present in the gyms I go to.

photo credit http://flickr.com/photos/dirty_dan/

December 1 is World AIDS Day, a day in which countries, individuals, and organizations around the world come together to stop the global epidemic. While not all research and changes in the field of HIV/AIDS prevention can be summarized here, I will do my best to provide a snapshot of the state of HIV/AIDS in 2008.

Background:

The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) originated in chimpanzees in Africa. However, most cases of SIV (simian immunodeficiency virus) affect only chimpanzees in captivity; other primates such as sooty mangabeys can live with SIV in their bodies to no ill effect. The earliest human case found was from a blood sample in 1959 which had been taken for another purpose. Current research, however, estimates that the virus may have begun to evolve as early as 1900. HIV attacks the immune system and causes key immune cells, CD4 cells, to malfunction. HIV cannot be cured, though drugs can be used to slow its progress. When certain vital immune cell counts fall below a threshold, HIV develops into Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). AIDS, in itself, does not kill; it provides an opening for secondary infections to invade the body. Tuberculosis is one of the most common secondary infections that currently kills AIDS victims.

There are several strains of HIV currently known, a few of which are resistant to anti-retroviral drugs. Each year the proportion of drug-resistant strains increases, in large part due to unsafe sexual behavior between HIV-positive partners. The drug methanphetamine (aka Tina, crystal, crystal meth) has also been implicated as a cause speeding up the process of HIV evolution among gay men in the United States.

HIV is a relatively difficult virus to acquire: malaria can be transmitted in mosquitoes, or the flu can be transmitted by breathing in air another person coughed into, but HIV cannot be transmitted in either of these ways. It can only be transmitted through blood to blood contact, contact with sexual fluids (e.g. semen, menstrual blood, and vaginal discharges coming in contact with tiny wounds, mucous membranes, and/or the cervix), and breastfeeding. HIV has a very high rate of co-infection with other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). For example, having herpes, even with no outbreaks, can significantly increase the risk of contracting HIV.