Today's Uncomfortable Subject: Circumcision!

(Photo: s0crates82)

It seemed impossible. But at last I've discovered a health issue that has recently appeared in the news, is hotly debated, and is extremely controversial--and yet I have formed absolutely no opinion about it!

Yep, it's male circumcision. The whole cutting-off-the-foreskin thing. Wait, guys? Guys? Where'd y'all go?

So according to the New York Times, U.S. public health officials are thinking of changing current guidelines and starting to encourage routine circumcision for all baby boys. This is in order to reduce H.I.V. risk.

However, there are many out there who feel the procedure is not only medically unnecessary, but that it's painful and unethical and should be not be performed on unconsenting infants.

I'm hoping smart readers may have some thoughts, arguments, statistics or observations about the whole circumcision question, because I'm spectacularly ignorant on the whole subject. Penises? What do I know about penises? This, unfortunately, leaves me bereft of an opinion on a controversial issue. Please, dear readers, help me form one, so I can get all irate when people don't agree with me!

At the moment, all I can do is round up a few random circumcision-related items. Just in case you had a strong opinion about the issue but can't remember what it was.

HIV Risk:

Reading the New York Times piece, it appears the whole HIV risk-reduction issue is pretty complicated.

In African countries, circumcision dramatically reduces risk of HIV; studies suggest that circumcised men reduced their risk of infection by half. But these studies were of heterosexual men who were at risk from female partners. In the U.S., the men who are at greatest risk are those having sex with other men. And in the U.S., most adult males (almost 80 percent) are already circumcised. Worldwide, it's much lower; more like a third.

But... circumcision has been growing less popular in the U.S. since World War II. By 1999, rates were down to about 65 percent of newborns; then rates fell further when many states started dropping medicaid coverage for the surgery. Now once source has rates down to 56%. An additional concern is that black and Hispanic males, who are at higher risk for HIV, are less likely to be circumcised than whites.


Other Medical Issues:

Two fairly mainstream sources, Mayo Clinic and Web-MD have compiled some pro's and cons to the surgery. Uncircumcised males are more likely to get urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted diseases and penile cancer (which is still very rare). However, circumcision can lead to some complications, like bleeding, infection, irritation, and damage to the opening of the urethra.


Pain

I'm guessing that even with anesthesia, it probably hurts.

Photo: Topdog1

Do any parents, medical professionals, or males with extraordinary memories (or who had adult circumcisions) have any idea how bad it is? How brutal are we talking here? That might impact my opinion quite a bit.


Psychological Issues

Seems like this is a tricky issue as well. To be "different" always sucks, and if most guys around you are circumcised I can imagine it would be unpleasant to feel like your privates were not standard issue. Hell, when you're a teenager, you can freak out if your toenails aren't exactly the right shape. But with declining rates of circumcision, what's "normal" for guys these days?

Not having been in any male locker rooms, I have no idea what the average male appendage looks like. My only information comes from the occasional X rated movie I've seen. That's where I learned that most men are "cut," not "uncut." Oh, and that's also where I learned that most guys shave off all their hair down there, and their penises are usually about ten or eleven inches long! That's, um, "normal," right?

I also hear that some guys feel very resentful that they had no choice in such a personal sort of surgery. There are apparently a growing number of "intactivists" calling for an end to circumcision. And many doctors are starting to question the ethics of the procedure, like the sensible-sounding radio guy, Dr. Dean Edell.

But then a whole lot of other dudes seem to scratch their heads and wonder what all the fuss is about.


Religious Issues

I know even less about religion than I do about penises. I have heard, however, that most Jews and Muslims tend to circumcise their sons. As a general principle, I don't buy the notion that "because my religion says I should" is a legitimate reason to do something that is abusive or violent. But then we're back to: is circumcision abuse? Or is it just a minor, incidentally painful childhood nuisance, done "for your own good," like vaccinations or piano lessons?


Aesthetic Issues

Do men, or their sexual partners, have strong feelings about which "look" they like better? I wonder if there's any kind of strong majority opinion. Even if there was, should that matter?

I know some of you readers are males, or are the mothers of sons, or are partnered with guys who have opinions about foreskins. What do you all think: is it good or evil for parents to circumcise their sons? And should public health officials be promoting it?

Random Friday: Holiday Hodgepodge

Photo: djwhelan

So I'm not going to even try to put these random items together in any sort of theme. It's the start of a holiday weekend and my brain is already long gone, perhaps snoozing on an imaginary beach, or dancing to imaginary music, or snarfing up imaginary cheeseburgers and ice cream...

But who needs a brain? Even without one I can still string a few unrelated paragraphs together!

So stay tuned for some new weird health and weight loss news, an awesome stealthy commando grassroots movement that you may want to join, more of the usual random silliness, and a Dramatic Personal Announcement!***

Oh and specially for the holiday weekend: now with 60% more Exclamation Points!

Help Others Feel Beautiful!

Have you already heard of Operation Beautiful, the campaign to leave sneaky messages around town to boost body image and defeat the nefarious advertisers trying to exploit our insecurities?

I'd heard of it too, but was too chicken to leave messages like:


But you know who is not the least bit chicken about anything?



That's right, Mizfit!

Go check out her blog post (if you haven't already) about her Operation Beautiful Adventures and you may find yourself inspired to join in too.

(Note: I saw an earlier post on this by one of our readers, and I meant to go back and link to it but I forgot where I saw it! Sorry! So if any of you also have blog posts about Operation Beautiful, remind me in the comments and I'll re-edit to include a link to your blog post here.)


Or, Congratulate Yourself!

Apparently Americans are blowing off health advice, and doing worse than ever before when it comes to exercising, eating vegetables, and trying to keep their BMI in healthy ranges. And guess what? "Individuals with a history of hypertension/diabetes/cardiovascular disease were no more likely to be adherent to a healthy lifestyle than people without these conditions."

That seems sort of, well, dumb.

And is it a coincidence that a new report says obesity rates are higher than ever?

So it's bad news of course, especially given how much of our national resources go to medical costs. On the other hand, psychologically, it's a reminder that healthy living is a CHALLENGE! And most people don't even seem to be trying. So for those of you who are making an effort every day to be healthy, no matter what your current weight or state of fitness? Congratulations, you're even more of a freak than you thought!


Weight Loss Weapons:

First, a weird one: a recent study on mice reported over at Booster Shots found that acetic acid, the main ingredient of vinegar, reduced body fat gain. Other studies have indicated it might help with blood pressure, blood sugar levels and fat accumulation. Crabby cautions, however: do not read this and then run out and start drinking quarts of vinegar, ok? I do not want to hear about a Peck of Pickled People showing up at the doctor's office with weird stomach complaints.

Quick Quiz: And Diane at Fit to the Finish pointed me to this helpful quiz to get some perspective on portion sizes. What, you mean a bagel the size of your head actually has a lot of calories? Surprise!


But Don't Despair Over a Few Extra Pounds!

Yes, obesity is a health risk. But yet another study recently reinforced what we reported here before at Cranky Fitness about extra weight and longevity. Overweight people live longer! As long as you are not obese.

It's funny how rarely these sort of statistics gets reported. (And granted, there are other measures of health besides longevity). But whenever these studies come out they get pretty much ignored, because it just doesn't fit with the "thin is always healthier" narrative we have going in our culture.


Win an iPod Shuffle!

Yep, this is me slipping in my weekly plug for The Juice again, because not only is there cool stuff over there, but they are the Official Sponsor of these next few paragraphs!

Hi there, Juice!

Anyway, there's a video interview with Deb of Weight of Deb, full of great motivational tips for healthy eating. Plus, I've collected some sneaky tips from other smart bloggers for staying on track, and Laura at Org Junkie discusses the wonders of Green Smoothies. Got any healthy eating tips? We'd love to hear them!

Oh, and the iPod Shuffle and "Getting to 50/50" giveaway is still going on. Just sayin'-- the odds are still really good and I would love to see a Cranky Fitness reader walk off with the prize.


For All You Parents:

Er, or maybe us non-parents might appreciate this even more. Let's Panic is a funny new parenting website. Their approach to raising children is very similar to the enthusiastic approach Cranky Fitness takes to vigorous exercise and proper nutrition!

Photo: Let's Panic

Let's just say that, like Cranky Fitness, perhaps it's not for everyone.


So What's Up With All the Dead Celebrities Lately?

Seriously, they're piling up at an alarming rate: Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett, Michael Jackson, Carl Malden, the Infomercial Guy... is it just me, or is it escalating? Conspiracy theories, whether semi-serious or totally wacky, would be appreciated.

Graph: by Graphjam

Cat Video:

Why? Just because, that's why!

Video from: CollegeHumor.

And Now, For The Dramatic*** Personal Announcement!

So I suspect I'm going to have to go to McSlacker Re-Education Camp, because I seem to have accidentally acquired a couple of jobs this summer. One of which is not even the convenient virtual kind, but is instead the old-fashioned real kind. I'm required to, get this: show up in an actual physical location (the local library) at specified hours. Yikes!

So over the next couple of months, you may notice some possible service interruptions at Cranky Fitness on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. Do not adjust your monitors; trained technicians are standing by. But be prepared for the possibility of:

Exceptionally Lame Posts;
Short Posts;
Missing Posts;
Failure to Leave Comments on Other Blogs Very Often, No Matter How Awesome They Are;
General Half-Assedness; and
Radioactivity.

Oh wait... I've just been informed by our chief engineer that we will not be radioactive! Hooray!

Anyway, if you can hang in there for a couple months, all should be back to normal before too long. (And thank goodness for Merry Sunshine, who somehow writes great posts while holding down an actual Adult Full Time Job!)

***Dramatic? You call that Dramatic?
Yeah, I know--not so much. But this is McSlackerland! Were you thinking maybe I was just appointed to a Cabinet post, or adopted triplets, or was selected to go on the space shuttle, or was just indicted on felony charges in a ponzi scheme? All that would take too much effort! But if President Obama does call me and needs a Secretary of Whining and Crankiness, I shall be sure to let you know.

Got any holiday plans? Any thoughts on Operation Beautiful, dead celebrities, vegetable-shunning Americans, or anything at all? And have a great weekend!
---Crabby

How to Deal With Picky Eaters

(OK, so I wouldn't eat it either.)
photo: Failblog

I am not a parent. And it has been many, many decades since I was a child.

So I really have no business even addressing the topic of kids who are picky eaters and how to handle them.

But of course that won't stop me! So, just a warning: this post may well offend some of you parents. I'm afraid I'm just an old fuddy-duddy and need some help in understanding the issues involved. Things seem to have changed quite a bit since I was a youngster.

In a nutrition column in the SF Chronicle, a reader recently asked expert Marion Nestle this question:

"I am very concerned about my 6-year-old grandson's diet. I don't believe he has ever eaten fruit or veggies or regular food. He loves chocolate and candy and frosting, and at dinner time has his special foods. His pediatrician says not to worry, but his parents are worried and afraid of making eating an issue. What to do?"

Before we get to the answer, and some actual helpful tips for the parents of picky eaters, can I just tell you how this question struck me? It was as though this poor grandparent had written:

"I am very concerned about my 6-year-old grandson's recreational activities. I don't think he's ever played with a ball or ridden a bike. He loves his assault rifles and bourbon and cocaine and hardcore porn magazines. His parole officer says not to worry, but his parents are worried and afraid to make his hobbies an issue. What to do?"

OK, so it's not quite the same thing... but does anyone else wonder if parental deference to kids' preferences sometimes goes too far?

Most Parents Do a Great Job!

I just want to note that most parents I know handle these issues really well. And I'm sure regular readers at Cranky Fitness are flexible and compassionate, while still managing to get their kids to eat something besides candy and frosting. (In fact, I hope some of you have advice from the trenches you can help us out with in the comments). It must be so frustrating to have a kid go through a phase where he or she hates most normal food. Dinnertime as battleground? I can see how that would be really unpleasant.


But WTF is Up With Kids Being Totally in Charge?

This is more than just a picky food issue. I am frequently surprised to see how parents and children interact these days--all that begging and pleading and whining and pouting! Seriously, parents, it's just not dignified when you do that.

When I was a kid, we also had discussions and negotiations--after all, I was part of the spoiled baby boomer generation. (Before that, I believe kids were supposed to be "seen and not heard.") However, when we discussed stuff with our parents, it was understood that parents had the final say. Kids were expected to understand reasonable adult explanations, like, "because I said so that's why," and not put up a fuss.

Here is some more historical perspective:


How Parents Dealt With Picky Eating In the Really Olden Days:

This is before my time, but I'm pretty sure that kids in the olden days who did not want to eat what was offered did not eat, period. If kids took it too far and accidentally perished, the parents simply made more kids.

Candy and sweets must not have even existed, because kids got all excited when they got one crappy little orange in their Christmas stocking.

Oh, yeah, and parents used to make kids drink cod liver oil for no reason at all except, apparently, sadism.


How Picky Eating Was Dealt With In My Generation:

It varied from family to family, but I don't think my experience was unusual:

Junky foods like ice cream and potato chips and hamburgers and candy were treats, not staples. They were often used as rewards and could be taken away if we were bratty. As kids, trying to demand any of these foods would have been useless, unless our goal was to spend the rest of the day exiled to our rooms.

Dinners were eaten as a family and we all ate the same thing. Kids had to try at least a small portion of everything on our plate or we wouldn't get dessert. No matter how vile a vegetable was, we generally managed to choke down a few bites in order to get something sweet afterward.

Note: these mealtime tactics are now considered akin to child abuse, as they are supposed to give kids eating disorders and traumatize them etc. Oddly enough, these primitive methods worked pretty well for me. Having choked down vegetables repeatedly for all the wrong reasons, I got used to the way they tasted and then even grew to like them. (By contrast, the Lobster grew up in a household where no one much liked vegetables, so she didn't have to eat them. And guess what? She still hates most of them to this day.)


What The Experts Are Now Saying You Should Do

Between the Chronicle "fussy eater" article above, a USDA page on preschool picky eaters and a Mayo Clinic list of tips for children's nutrition, here is a big ol' list of suggestions. Some of these seem really smart! Others, well, I'll be curious to see what actual parents think of them.

• Model healthy eating habits by eating healthy food yourself.
• By the time kids are 2 years old, they generally can and should eat what adults eat.
• With small kids, you can cut or mash the foods, serve smaller portions and don't add sugar or salt.
• Involve kids in shopping and cooking. "Take the foods home and let kids peel fruit, pare vegetables, mix, mash and measure. Let them taste everything. Teach kids to cook."
• Kids do not need sodas or candy. You can postpone these indefinitely or reserve them for occasional treats.
• Once babies can handle solid foods, you can offer a new food once a week. If the child tolerates it, move on to the next.
• A child's willingness to accept an unfamiliar food depends on how frequently the food is offered. You might have to offer a food at 20 meals before a child will taste it.
• Start by presenting tiny portions of everything served at family meals, give the child time to play with and taste the foods, and remove anything not eaten after a short while.
• Have plenty of healthful foods available - and offer nothing else. Do not make substitutions.
• Try to make meals a stress-free time. Talk about fun and happy things.
• Offer ultimatums choices. Rather than ask "Do you want broccoli for dinner?" ask “Which would you like for dinner: broccoli or cauliflower?”
• Offer a variety of foods and let your child choose how much of these foods to eat.
• Offer the same foods for the whole family. Don’t make a different meal for your preschooler. Your child will be okay even if they don’t eat a meal now and then.
• Respect your child's hunger — or lack of hunger. If your child isn't hungry, don't force a meal or snack.
• Stay calm. If your child senses that you're unhappy with his or her eating habits, it may become a battle of wills. Threats and punishments only reinforce the power struggle.
• No juice or snacks for at least one hour before meals.
• Don't expect too much. A few bites may be all it takes for your child to feel full.
• Limit liquid calories. If your child fills up on milk or juice, he or she may have no room for meals or snacks.
• Don't force your child to clean his or her plate.
• Don't mention taste. Talk about a food's color, shape, aroma and texture — not whether it tastes good.
• Eat breakfast for dinner. Who says cereal or pancakes are only for breakfast? The distinction between breakfast, lunch and dinner foods may be lost on your child.
• Make it fun. Serve broccoli and other veggies with a favorite dip or sauce. (Really, this is supposed to be fun for kids? Now using the veggies to catapult the dip against the wall--that sounds like fun!) Or, cut foods into various shapes with cookie cutters.
• Be sneaky. Add chopped broccoli or green peppers to spaghetti sauce, top cereal with fruit slices, or mix grated zucchini and carrots into casseroles and soups.
• If your child doesn't like ingredients thrown together,"unmix" the food. Place sandwich fixings outside the bread, or serve the ingredients of a salad, casserole or stir-fry separately.
• Be consistent: serve meals and snacks at about the same time every day, and "close" the kitchen at other times.
• Consult your child's doctor if you're concerned that picky eating is compromising your child's growth and development or if certain foods seem to make your child ill.
• Minimize distractions. Turn off the television during meals, and don't allow books or toys at the table.
• And finally, (and the suggestion I liked the least): Don't offer dessert as a reward. This sends the message that dessert is the best food.

Well, sorry Mayo clinic, but dessert IS the best food!!! If we could blame our adult love of sweets on our parents using them as bribes, isn't that a pretty easy problem to fix? Parents, from now on, just say: "Sweetie, you know you have to finish your tater tots or you won't get any broccoli after dinner." Voila, problem solved!

So obviously I have NO idea about how to deal with this issue in real life. Do you folks have any thoughts/opinions/war stories on the Picky Eater issue?

Children and Body Image: Uh Oh.

Image courtesy of: chicks57

Since I don't have kids myself, I am sometimes naive about how things have changed since I was a little tyke.

I was gobsmacked to find out, via Sagan of Living Healthy in the Real World, that doctors are discovering that not just adolescents, but children as young as five, are binging and purging.

I hope this is just one of those "get people all riled up" articles, like the reports about little girls taking pole dancing classes. You know, where rare cases are made to seem like a shocking new trend we need to worry about, so that experts can get their names in the paper and we bloggers can all climb up on our soapboxes and scream: "How Terrible!"

Sadly though, it sounds like it's more than a few isolated kids. The researchers are only just starting to look into how prevalent the problem is. But it blew me away that this was even happening in Canada, where I always imagined things were more sane and reasonable than in the United States.

Little Canadian kids are gorging themselves on french fries and doughnuts poutine and timbits and then barfing it back up so they won't be seen as fat?

Holy hell, things are worse than I thought.

Not freaked out yet? Well, another recent study of kids and eating disorders followed kids 9-15 years old and found that more than ten percent of the girls were binging or purging at least weekly. And purging was more common than binging.


Is it just me, or is anyone else shocked by this?

Part of my naivete has to do with my own upbringing. I don't think I even had a "body image" as a kid. Okay, I knew I was short. But it didn't bother me.

I got lots of exercise, because when I was little it was called "playing" and it was fun and there was plenty of time for it. (I went on an extended rant about this, in full turbo-charged Grumpy Old Fart mode, when writing about Elliptical Trainers for kids.)

There was no obesity epidemic yet, and getting fat was a fate that befell an unlucky few. It wasn't on the radar for "normal" kids. As far as I remember, it wasn't until high school that some girls started dieting.

So for me, it seems shocking that children in elementary school are already worried about what their bodies look like enough to have actual eating disorders. But I'm sure some of you who struggled early with your own weight--who grew up in a different climate, or with a genetic propensity to put on pounds easily--are not nearly as shocked.

And I suspect that many of you parents, particularly parents of girls, are saddened but not that surprised. You're in the trenches with your kids and are hip to what they see and hear and read. Accck! I don't know how you grapple with this, and am hoping some of you will share what you've learned in the comments.

So I could go off on another rant about the media images we see constantly of impossibly skinny women, right next to ads for triple-bacon-cheeseburgers and Blizzards and Double-stuffed Oreos. But you guys already know that we live in a profoundly screwed-up culture when it comes to food and fat and fitness and body image. And it's not a surprise that kids soak up all that poison just like we do.

Instead, I want to ask: how do we fight this?

There's a Web MD article on children and body image that has some basic advice for parents (of girls), for what it's worth:


Look for signs of an unhealthy body image:

• Does your child view herself only in terms of her physical appearance?
• What language does she use to describe herself and her physical development and attractiveness?
• Is there excessive dieting?
• Are there frequent comments about the weight of other girls?
• Does she worry about sexual attractiveness?
• Does she suffer depression or low self-esteem?

Help boost a poor body image by:

• Helping children understand that their bodies will change and grow and that there is not one "ideal" body shape;
• Watching what they say about their own bodies or other people's bodies;
• Avoiding stereotypes, prejudices, and words like "ugly" or "fat";
• Helping children focus on their abilities and personalities rather than physical appearance;
• Promoting physical activity and exercise;
• Discouraging children from weighing themselves.

Watch for symptoms of anorexia which may include:

• Losing lots of weight;
• Denying feeling hungry;
• Exercising excessively;
• Saying that she "feels fat";
• Withdrawing from social activities;

Or symptoms of bulimia which may include:

• Making excuses to go to the bathroom immediately after meals;
• Eating huge amounts of food without weight gain;
• Using laxatives or diuretics;
• Withdrawing from social activities.

But How Do You Encourage Healthy Behavior?

So how do you remain sensitive to a kid's body image while still encouraging healthy eating and exercise?

I can't imagine how modern parents manage to balance this. In my day, these weren't such loaded concepts. A parent could say "Go outside and play!" or, "No cookies for dessert until you finish your cauliflower!" There wasn't quite the same danger it would be construed as: "whatever you do, don't get fat or no one will ever love you!"

Some Hope for Eating Disorders: A recent study of eating disorders and psychotherapy showed that a specific, more enhanced version of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy can be extremely helpful in working with eating disorders. (Though the study was of adults, not kids). In any event, if your child is showing signs of an eating disorder, seeking help seems a much better strategy than pretending it isn't happening.



So what do you parents do to try to keep your kids from hating their bodies while at the same time encouraging healthy habits? What can the rest of us do to help? And was anyone else as shocked as I was to see how early these problems start?

EIlipticals and Treadmills... For Kids?

[By Crabby]

(There are some here if you want one.)

Anyone happen to catch this Boston Globe article on fitness equipment for children?

Yep, that's right, there's a company that now makes treadmills and elliptical trainers for children as young as three.

What do you think?

When I read the article, I had mixed feelings.
My First Reaction: Aaaaahhhhkkkk!

Truly, I saw the headline and thought: What a f*cked up world we live in. What happened to the notion of "play?" Exercise is not supposed to miserable until you're an adult, damn it!

(Warning: Grumpy Old Fogey Alert)

I know kids are getting fat. And I know they need more activity. But not this way! What happened to playgrounds and front lawns and freeze tag and kickball and stupid dangerous made-up games involving jumping off of things and tackling each other?

I'd never trade the bruises, gashes, scrapes and stitches I got as a kid for hours spent in front of a tv, computer, or video game console, broken up by "structured" exercise sessions on a piece of equipment.



I'm not a parent, so I have no idea of how the transformation happened by which kids have been declared too fragile to "go out and play" like we did. I know you all think the world is much more dangerous now. Maybe it is. But I think it's more our thinking that's changed.

Here's the thing: Forty years ago, we still had traffic, pedophiles, rusty nails, drugs, bullies, broken glass, rattlesnakes, and even serial killers. We just assumed all the bad things happened to other people, and usually it did. Mom said "go out and play" and we did. We played kickball in the street until someone yelled "Car!!!!" We climbed trees and water towers and roofs where we didn't belong. We ran around not because we had to, but because we wanted to.

I know not every neighborhood is safe enough for kids to go out and play in. Yet doesn't it almost seem like the safer the neighborhood, the less likely you are to see kids playing in it? 'Cause they're all inside, or they've been rounded up and shipped off for officially sanctioned activities.

We probably had a lot more accidents and injuries forty years ago. Because, hey, every now and then it was your turn to jump off the top of a ladder with a grocery bag for a parachute.

But today the young 'uns are all completely safe and supervised. And a good percentage of them are fat and are going to die early of heart disease and diabetes or liver problems. Unless they get on a ridiculous little kiddie treadmill or hire a personal trainer or wear a pedometer? Yikes.

Sigh. The world's goin' to hell in a handbasket.

(This Concludes the Old Fogey Rant; you may now safely resume your regular blog reading activities).


My Second Reaction: Well, OK, Maybe in Some Cases...

On further reflection, and after a more careful reading of the article, I realized that there might be some times when having a kiddie treadmill or elliptical would make some sense.

If you're a busy mom, and the kids are watching everything you do and wanting to join you in your workout? Well, that might be a cool! And having their own little junior version might help keep them off your equipment, which could be an expensive/dangerous proposition.

After all, we buy kids junior versions of cars and vacuum cleaners and ovens and garden tools. As I recall, imitating adults can feel like "play" when you're a kid, even though the actual activities might be "work" for the adults themselves.

So if you're buying a kiddie treadmill or elliptical as a "toy" that your kid will enjoy, and you can "play" together, that seems pretty reasonable.

(But how "fun" is a treadmill gonna be for a kid after the first few minutes? Just wondering.)

So enough of the Crab and her grumpy-ass opinions. What do you all think?

Two-Timin' Husbands: Not Their Fault?

[By Crabby]


So this post really should be called something more general like "Genetics and Personality," or "Nature vs. Nurture." Or perhaps: "Free Will and Strength of Character? Ha Ha Ha Ha!"

Because this post is not just about two-timing husbands. It's about how so gosh-darned many things about us are turning out to have a genetic basis.


Pair-Bonding for Dummies



But let's start off with the good vs. the not-so-good husbands. Because it turns out they've found a "monogamy gene" that explains a lot of the difference. (And TherapyDoc has a great discussion of it over at Everyone Needs Therapy).

Yep, according to recent research, there are variants of sections of a gene called "RS3 334" that affect how men bond with their partners. They can have none, one or two copies of the RS3 334 section. "Men with two copies of RS3 334 were more likely to be unmarried than men with one or none, and if they were married, they were twice as likely to have a marital crisis."

(There's a lot more interesting stuff in the monogamy gene article, but alas, no instructions on how to obtain secret samples from your husband to see if you got a dude hard-wired for long-term fidelity).


Mommy, How Come You're Beating Your Head Against the Wall Like That?

(Photo found here; original source unknown)

Actually, if you're going to be stealing DNA samples from your hubby, you might want to swipe one from your kids too. At least after you've read this fascinating Newsweek article on genetics and child development.

New research seems to suggest that parents have much less influence than previously thought on how their kids turn out.

An example: in about 30 percent of kids, their DNA coils carry a glitch that leaves their brains with fewer dopamine receptors. What's the problem with that? Well, for one thing, having fewer dopamine receptors is linked to "an inability to avoid self-destructive behavior such as illicit drug use." Also, children with this genetic variant appear to be less able to learn from mistakes. To quote Newsweek, "no matter how many tests they blow by partying the night before, the lesson just doesn't sink in."

Or how about this surprising finding: "children with a sweet temperament, which is under strong genetic control, are the least likely to emulate their parents and absorb the lessons they teach, while fussy kids are the most likely to do so. Fussy children have a hypersensitive nervous system that is keenly attuned to its surroundings—including what Mom and Dad do and say."

Wow. How many parents have been driving themselves crazy trying to raise their kid "perfectly," and it turns out they've got a kid who's just not wired to absorb any of that well-intentioned parenting?



And these are just a couple of example from a couple of recent articles. Almost any psychological disorder or human strength or weakness you can think of seems to have some link to things we can't control: our genes.


So what does this all mean?

I don't know about you, but I have mixed feelings about the implications of this.

On the one hand, when people are lame and frustrating and they disappoint or annoy me, I want to blame them for their stupid/careless/self-centered behavior. I like to judge other people by my own standards: if I wouldn't do it, then others damn well shouldn't either!

Guilty, Guilty, Guilty!

Why should I feel sorry for them when their problems stem from their own clueless behavior? They must not be trying hard enough to be good! Let 'em suffer the consequences! Don't hide behind genetics buddy--you still make the choices.

But if the subject is a personal weakness of mine? Er, well, then I seem to have a different reaction. I am quite happy to discover that this trait is inborn and not my fault. For example, while I don't seem to be wired for aggression or compulsive behavior or dishonesty, I am definitely an anxious, pessimistic type. And hey, anxiety disorders are genetic!

Oh sure, I could suck it up and confront all my worries and fears, but it's harder for me that it is for you. So if I often don't, and instead I cower/sulk/avoid. But you can't really blame me, it's my genes!


Add Personal Responsibility and Stir

Yeah, this is the part where everyone, including me, starts to scream: but wait a minute, genetics aren't everything! Environment isn't either! What about Free Will and Responsibility and Choice?

It has been commonly observed that not everyone with unfortunate genes or a terrible upbringing behaves badly. Nor do folks who have been blessed with calm untroubled temperaments and excellent early home environments necessarily turn out well. However much the game may be rigged, the choices along the way are ours. I do think there's such a thing as "strength of character," and even if that turns out to be mostly genetic too. But it's something we can all learn to improve upon by the exertion of good old fashioned will-power.

We all know what that moment feels like, right? We face a choice between Right and Wrong, and Wrong is easier and more fun and oh so tempting and maybe no one will ever know about it but us. Whether it's as small as skipping a workout, or calling in sick to go to the beach, or as big as an extra-marital affair or picking up a weapon in anger--it's a moment we have the power to decide for ourselves. In that short moment, sometimes only a fraction of a second, we can reclaim our destiny, no matter what plans our genes or environment may have laid out for us.

I think we are "better" people when we do the right thing. And no amount of bad genes or bad environment can entirely take all those moments away from us--even if the luck of the draw may completely change the range of choices we have available.


Tolerance for Other's Limitations: Got Some?

However, in our society (and particularly in the U.S.) we do tend to LOVE the notion of "personal responsibility," especially when it's applied to other people. How do we deal the fact that other people come with entirely different brains, different early childhood experiences, different options?

We don't! We expect everyone to behave the same, regardless of their inborn capacity to do so or the realistic choices available.

One quick example: a study of attitudes toward mental illness recently concluded that while more Americans believe that mental illness has genetic causes than they did 10 years ago, they are no more tolerant of the mentally ill than before.

No Answers Here, This is Just Cranky Fitness!

As I said, I'm confused and hypocritical about what it means that "strength of character" has perhaps only a small part to play in who are are. We are often, as it turns out, a product of our genes, and no doubt our environments.

What do you folks thinks this means? How much of "who you are" are feels like a given, and how much do you get to choose?

Random Friday: Bimbos, Pink Axes, and Unusual Undergarments

[by Crabby]

Honestly, Does This Saddle Make me Look Fat?

(Photo by Dogmatic)

In keeping with Crabby's not-quite-back-from-vacation-yet slackitude, all the random items this week are stolen from some of our favorite blog friends. But don't worry; I'll soon return to my usual practice of lifting items straight from Science Daily instead.


Wholesome Fun For Your Daughters?

The always entertaining Red over at Unstarved alerts us to this, well, unusual online game that seems to be very popular with girls (most 9-16 years old), at least in England and France.

It's called "Miss Bimbo" and shall we find out a little more about how it works?

According to The Guardian, the aim of the Miss Bimbo beauty contest game is to become the "hottest, coolest, most famous bimbo in the whole world." Contestants are encouraged to "stop at nothing," even "meds or plastic surgery." Starting with a naked virtual character, players compete to earn "bimbo" dollars so they can "dress her in sexy outfits and take her clubbing. They are given missions, including securing plastic surgery at the game's clinic to give their dolls bigger breasts, and they have to keep her at her target weight with diet pills." (Note: apparently now the game no longer includes diet pills).

Here's another cool feature: the game is free to play, but when the contestants run out of virtual cash they have to have to send expensive text messages or use PayPal to refill their accounts!

The game's creators say it's not a bad influence for young children. "They learn to take care of their bimbos. The missions and goals are morally sound and teach children about the real world."

Of course we're sure that the 9 year old girls playing this game are hip to the ironic subtextual messages about the superficiality and oppressiveness of our popular culture's obsession with women's weight and appearance... right? Um, right???

(And be sure to check out Unstarved --Red is kind of a smartass, which is why we like him. Also, as a bonus, he brought his adorable sister in on this one; she writes and waves like a pro.)


Eat the Damn Broccoli; Skip the Pills

Over at Best Health Blog, which is associated with the Canadian magazine Best Health (at Cranky Fitness we love all things Canadian), we learn yet again that taking high doses antioxidants in supplement form doesn't do you any good. According to Best Health, the Cochrane Folks reviewed a bunch of studies (with over 230,000 subjects) and guess what? If you want to live longer, you gotta eat the actual vegetables, people! Overdosing on A and E supplements can even be harmful. Cranky Fitness readers knew this already, of course, but some of us keep hoping they'll change their minds one day and give us a way to eat more cupcakes for our antioxidants, and less cauliflower.

Get Caught "Palming" at Work!

It was ergonomic week over at Marijke's blog, Help My Hurt, and there's tons of useful info there on all things ergonomic. Marijke includes links to some helpful exercises you can perform at work, like: "the Executive Stretch;" "Palming;" and the always popular "Yawning." (Yawning, apparently, is an eye exercise--"it produces tears to help moisten and lubricate the eyes." Just tell your boss that at the next staff meeting!

Bean Counting

Monica over at SmarterFitter has been running lots of great articles, including this round-up of why beans are so healthy for you. (Cranky Fitness will refrain from the usual fart jokes and just send you over there for inspiring bean-related nutritional info).

Weirdest Apparel Item of the Week?

It's a tie!

From the fabulous MizFit, we have been alerted to the "Shape-Up Shoe," which promises "lifted buns" and "toned legs" if it doesn't kill you first.

And for the man in your life, via Vat19, check out a pair of "Manties!"

Yes, They Come in High Cut, Too!

Pretty in Pink

Leslie at the Weighting Game had a great post on PMS, and included this video which totally cracked me up. You may have all seen it, but I hadn't, as I am officially too old for late night TV. (And we've got a guest post from Leslie coming up next week--we're hoping pretty soon she'll do the whole blog for us!)




That's it for this week, and thanks to all the bloggers I stole stuff from! Have a wicked awesome Friday, everyone.

Babies Are Overrated

Today's guest post is courtesy of the awesome blogger Charlotte of The Great Fitness Experiment. Charlotte also blogs at The Huffington Post.

With childbirth these days, it's not about what you gain (a baby) but all about what you lose (fat, skin, your sanity). As if carrying a squirmy watermelon with sharp heels for nine months (ten really, if you're counting by weeks) wasn't hard enough, now pregnant women are held to the impossibly skinny standards of the media as well.

Any woman who has been pregnant in the last few years or so already knows exactly what I'm talking about. Suddenly a baby bump has become the new it bag. But it isn't enough to have a healthy baby. You have to look like a stick bug with a basketball tucked under your shirt. Especially so you can fit into the belly baring, body conscious maternity fashions that are so popular now. Don't get me wrong, I was no fan of the tent dress but there has got to be a happy medium between that and this (look, a pregnant high-end hooker! Who doesn't want to hit that?):



(Although I must admit I laughed myself silly when I saw this one.)

The Toll

The worst part though is after the baby is born. With my last child, people started asking me months before he was even born how fast I thought I was going to "lose the weight." Just typing that phrase strikes terror into my heart. Isn't it bad enough that we have to worry if everything will come out with ten fingers and ten toes and possibly your mother-in-law's nose? Must we add "losing the weight" to the list?

Heidi Klum lost the weight from her 3rd baby in a record-breaking 4 weeks so she could strut her sexy stuff on the Victoria's Secret catwalk. The same sexy stuff, I might add, that gestated, birthed and nursed an actual baby. Side note: I'll never know how men manage to look at women in lingerie and yet still not connect the baby making apparatus with a living, breathing baby. Add to Heidi's example the recent spate of celebs who lose their baby weight in ever-shorter amounts of time. Keri Russel! Trista Rehn! Tori Spelling! Julia Roberts! Nicole Richie! The list goes on and on and on. (Do they ever lose the baby too? I mean if you are losing stuff that darn fast, those little guys are pretty easy to misplace. I'm just saying.)

But it is not with men that I make my complaint. Every person who asked me about losing the weight was a woman. I even had one girlfriend tell me that she envied my extreme morning sickness at the beginning. "You're so lucky! You get to lose all that weight. It probably keeps your overall weight gain down too. I wish I was a puker!"

J.Lo.

Except that somehow it didn't keep my overall weight down. That was why I could totally relate when I read about the Jennifer Lopez's fear about her weight gain while she was pregnant.

"Jennifer is delighted to finally be pregnant. However, she has already put on more than three stones and is only around four months gone. She is huge and freaking out," said a source.

Three stone is about 42 lbs. I gained 47 with my first pregnancy - well above the "recommended" 25-35.

So what's a mom to do? "J. Lo, who is famous for her curvaceous backside, is taking extra precaution against the weight that may be left after she has given birth by waking up at four in the morning to work out."

And if that doesn't work? "Her face has become really puffy from retaining a lot of water. She plans to do a Victoria Beckham now and hibernate for the last few months. You won't be seeing much of her in public from now on," the source says.

So it's come to this: a beautiful pregnant woman had to go into hiding to have a healthy baby and a normal pregnancy. Not because people don't want to think about how she got knocked up but because people will call her fat.

And now that she has given birth to two healthy and - if they got her genes and not Marc's - beautiful babies, the tabloid race is on to see how fast those famous abs flatten out.

The Skinny on Baby Fat
I first read this story on the Skinny Website. And I almost choked on my lunch (the irony of eating lunch while reading a site called "the Skinny Website" is not lost on me) when I read Rian's closing line "It will be interesting to see how fast Jennifer loses the baby weight. Will she be one of the ones who lose it so fast we barely see it at all, or will she be like Britney and not ever take off the extra few she gained? What do YOU all think?"

Rian also points out that Jessica Alba is indeed "gaining weight all over" as if it were a capital crime. Don't people realize that you need your legs to get bigger to support that sack of fluid and flesh? It ain't made of air, people!

This is what pregnant women have to deal with. Britney's baby is not even two and already she is judged as "not ever" being able to take off the weight? I'm no fan of Ms. Spears but you gotta give a girl some time. Jessica Alba is a picture of health and gestation. Jennifer Lopez is a gorgeous mama regardless of the status of her baby-got-back. Enough is enough. Pregnancy, more than any other time, should be a safe haven from weight criticism.

Wii Don't Want to Go Outside

[By Crabby]

I don't get it. Where do you click to make it go in the air?

Here at Cranky Fitness, we're not generally on the cutting edge of hi-tech gaming and entertainment. However, we've come to understand that there are video games now that allow participants to move parts of their bodies while playing (other than the traditional fingers and forearms).

We think that's groovy! (OK, so maybe we're not on the cutting edge of fashionable slang either. We liked the 60's and 70's just fine, thanks.)

Yet it has come to our attention that some people are counting their kids' video game playing as "exercise."

Cranky Fitness thinks THIS IS WRONG.

This isn't to say active video games aren't a fine idea. If your kids are going to sit indoors in a dark room for hours staring at a screen, it's great if they can engage their bodies and not just their brain cells. They can swing their arms and pretend they're playing baseball. They can toss a fake bowling ball down a fake bowling lane without having to rent smelly shoes. They can dance and play football and even keep the world safe from invading aliens while moving around a little--much better than just sitting on their cute little butts in front of a tv screen.

However, unless you've got kids who are handicapped, or, for some odd reason, elderly, I think playing active video games counts as playing video games. It does not count as exercise.

Should a healthy young ten-year-old spend hour after hour wielding a video game controller instead of hour after hour running around outside? Given the trouble we're having with overweight kids, I don't think so.

Perhaps this only seems strange to me because I'm not a parent. Or because I come from an older, crankier generation that was routinely sent outside to amuse itself. And yeah, maybe we broke a few bones, or required a few stitches, or perhaps were escorted home in a squad car (only once, I swear) but whatever. We survived and the only video game we had was Pong. (Which, just for the record, I LOVED).

I think that unless the video screen is mounted in a room so humongous that it allows the kids to actually round the bases after hitting a home run, or makes them run the length of a football field in order to score a touchdown--in my mind the kids are still playing a video game. They're not participating in a sport.

It's like eating a piece of whole wheat coffee cake. Hooray for picking a healthier pastry! But it's still pastry; you don't get to count it as a vegetable.

So yeah, it's true they're getting closer to actual physical activity with new video games like Wii Fit. (Thanks, Bethany!) But damn it, as far as kids are concerned, I think video games should still just count as entertainment, and we should send their asses outside for real exercise.

Like smoking marijuana, or sex parties, or day trading-- there are certain complicated lifestyle choices that are best reserved for adults. Substituting virtual exercise for real exercise seems like one of them to me.

But what do I know? I don't have kids. Plus I've lived in California most of my life, where outside temperatures and inside temperatures are remarkably similar. What do you guys think about kids getting their exercise via videogames?

Childhood Obesity: Nature or Nurture?

[By Crabby]

Cranky Fitness is confused.

So there was a study that came out last week on the heritability of childhood obesity. The study looked at how much of childhood obesity is genetic, versus how much has to do with lifestyle stuff.

You know, like eating Pop Tarts and Dunkin' Doughnuts for breakfast instead of oatmeal and blueberries. Or playing video games and watching Survivor instead of going outside to play wholesome games like "Kick the Can" or "Capture the Flag" or "Jump Off the Roof with a Grocery Bag Parachute" or "Nearly Set the Neighbor's House on Fire Playing With Matches."

(Younger readers might not be aware that in the old days, we Baby Boomers were often permitted to play outside for hours and hours at a time, completely unsupervised. Isn't that neat? We tended to be slimmer, those of us who actually survived.)

Anyway, even though the study didn't get that specific, the general conclusion was: fat kids are mostly screwed because of their genes, not because of how their parents are raising them.

A few observations, then I'm eager to hear what you all think.

1. This was an extremely depressing study.

Not just because of the poor fat kids, but also because I could NOT make any sense out of it. I'm hoping an actual scientist might take a look, because it seemed to be saying a lot of contradictory things all at once. I can usually at least follow along a little bit when I read research studies, but this one made me feel dumb. I think it may have said that being a fat kid is about 77% genetic, but, well, don't quote me on that.

2. People Are Going to Believe What They Already Think is True.

Many who report on this study simply go with the headline and proclaim that "Nature Tops Nurture" when it comes to obesity, so Don't Blame the Parents. Others read the same study and come to the opposite conclusion.

At Mark's Daily Apple, for example, where the Impressively Healthy hang out, they noted that there is still a big environmental influence on how genes get switched on and off. If you drop down into the comments section, the general tenor is very academic, and the conclusion seems to be: screw the headlines, it's still mostly Nurture, not Nature.

3. I Think it's Both Nature and Nurture.
Duh.

4. So Don't Leap to the Conclusion That Any Particular Fat Kid has Unusually Bad Health Habits.

If 77% of obesity is indeed genetic, there are some kids who are going to be fat doing the exact same stuff the skinny kids are doing. To stigmatize them and blame their parents without actually knowing anything about their particular diet or exercise habits is counter-productive and really mean.

Back when I was growing up, there were fewer obese kids--but those who were, in my experience, weren't doing anything all that different from the rest of us. To pretend we all have the same metabolisms and that all skinny people are virtuous and all fat people are lazy is just silly.

5. But As a Society, We Feed Kids Too Much Crap and Don't Ensure They Exercise Enough. That Needs to Stop.

Genes don't change over a couple of generations. The obesity epidemic is a real problem, and it wouldn't be here all of a sudden unless something major changed in the way we're eating and exercising.

So since we can't change individual genes (yet), we have to do all we can to make sure all kids are learning healthy habits. The ones who are genetically lucky enough to be a healthy weight despite eating crap and not exercising enough will still pay for it later in life. No one can afford to grow up thinking that unrestrained scarfing of junk food and a sedentary lifestyle are "normal," let alone some sort of entitlement.

End of Sermon.

So what do you folks think about the Nature vs. Nurture debate as far as childhood obesity?

Random Friday!

Research Time, Let's Get Serious!

Fit and Fat beats Thin and Lazy!
This study, published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, was going to be the subject of a whole post. Why? well, it's just the sort of research Cranky Fitness loves! It rewards good behavior, not just the blind luck of the genetic draw. But Crabby's buddy Jim over at Diet Blog got to it first and summed it up nicely, so Crabby will send you over there for details. Key finding: Fit older men and women who were obese had a lower risk of death over a 12 year period than unfit people of normal weight.

BMI Slideshow
So "BMI" or "Body Mass Index" is one of those measurements that researchers and insurance like because it's so convenient. Using only height and weight, they come up with a number you can use to traumatize classify people with. (They don't even use friendly words like plump or chunky or lean or buffed or curvalicious either, it's all "underweight," or "obese" or even "extremely obese." "Normal" is the best you can do, and what's the fun in normal?)

Anyway, the problem is, (duh) height and weight alone are not enough to tell you what sort of shape someone's in. People have all kind variances in bone structure and muscle mass and boobage and whatnot, so for any number of reasons a BMI number can be a total load of crap really misleading.

So Kate Harding is all over it with a great slide show that points out how ridiculous the categories can be. Check it out!

Men: Want Kids? Better Get Crackin'!
Mary discovered this interesting article which totally challenges a common conception about ticking biological clocks: that only women have them. But men, it turns out, have a biological clock too!

"With each passing decade of their lives and with each insult they inflict on their bodies, men's fertility decreases, while genetic risk to offspring slowly mounts." Older men have more fragmented DNA in their sperm, increasing risk for infertility, miscarriage and birth defects. Risks for low IQ, schizophrenia, autism, and even certain cancers increase for offspring of older men.

More Word Power:
Cranky Fitness readers are a literate bunch, judging by the popularity of the Free Rice link featured previously. So Mary, being a more literate creature than Crabby, found us another worthy wordy link to try. It's a dictionary that...

Well, to be honest, Crabby is not sure exactly what it does, but it has pretty arrows. It also has a "random" function, and the first entry it generated for Crabby was "cucumber-shaped!" Sadly, the cucumber-shaped results were not the least bit bawdy. But serious writers and linguists might appreciate the fact that this online, er, tool, analyzes the hell out of words.

And More on Bras and Butts!

Remember Ass Cup Sized Jeans? Well, now you can buy an actual bra for your butt!

Crabby was all ready to make fun of this product, because, well, she's not the sort who wear an ass-bra herself if her life depended on it. But then she read the heartfelt letter from the product's inventor. "The story of the Biniki is one that began with a personal cheek lifting need..." she starts, and how can Crabby be mean after that? [Note: Item discovered via Back in Skinny Jeans; photo courtesy of Biniki].

And Mary discovered that at least one British retailer has now started selling bras in larger cup sizes -- up to a "J." Remember when there used to be just A, B, and C? Well Marks & Spencer recently went from G to J, responding to demands for bigger sizes. Mary also found this interesting NYT article on bouncing while exercising. (And Crabby has an old post of her own about that too!)

When is Sex So Bad it's Good?
Laura at Women of Mystery alerted us to this Literary Review "Bad Sex in Fiction" award winning passage. The recently departed but Very Famous Norman Mailer penned this, and, well, what do you folks think?

"His mouth lathered with her sap, he turned around and embraced her face with all the passion of his own lips and face, ready at last to grind into her with the Hound, drive it into her piety." [Note: the complete excerpt is longer and racier and, in Crabby's opinion, just as terrible].


And This Stuff is On A Health and Fitness Site Because... Why Exactly?
No reason at all, especially this last link! It just amuses Crabby though she has no idea why. Yes, it's a site full of pictures of (mostly) famous men who look like old lesbians. (Some of them... not so much. Others? Bingo.)


And Finally, A Gratuitous Endorsement of Antioxidant-rich Beverages:




moar funny pictures


Have a great Friday!

For Moms (And Those Who Love Them)

Many of you have no doubt already seen this, but the funny video below was new for Crabby and it made her giggle.

(This is sort of an apology for not getting a Random Friday post together. Next week we should be back with the usual silliness).

On retry, after attempting to put the YouTube video in directly and having it mess up midway through, Crabby will refer you to this handy link instead. Let her know if that craps out halfway through too.

Why is Cranky Fitness the only blog in the world that can't seem to post YouTube videos? Sigh. Crabby will try not to take it personally. Anyway, check it out if you haven't already.

And have a great weekend!

Pole Dancing for Girls: WTF?

So Diet Blog (and probably lots of other fine blogs too) ran a fascinating report recently on a new phenomenon: girls as young as seven taking "pole dancing" classes. (The photo, however, is presumably not of a seven year old unless she is Very Mature for Her Age; it was borrowed from the Pole Dance page of the always informative Wikipedia).

For those who don't watch much TV or frequent strip clubs: pole dancing is what erotic dancers do so they don't have to just walk up on stage, take off their clothes, and stand there naked. In strip clubs, the moves are often quite suggestive--and why wouldn't they be? Men don't go to a strip clubs to sip tea and listen to classical music and discuss existentialism. They go to... appreciate cleverly choreographed dance routines executed by women who happen to be naked.

Now, however, pole dancing has apparently gained popularity among women who are not erotic dancers. Classes are being offered in some of the more adventurous health clubs around the world because lots of female lawyers and cashiers and housewives don't get objectified enough in their daily lives so they secretly yearn to be strippers gymnastic routines performed on a vertical pole can be a great way to build core strength and flexibility.

However, it's not just adult women who are taking these classes; young girls want to join in the fun too.

First off, Crabby feels a bit sleazy herself even writing a post about this--is Pre-Teen Pole Dancing really a "trend" we need to worry about? The story comes all the way from Australia, and there is no evidence that Crunch or Gold's Gym or Curves is out there aggressively leafleting elementary school playgrounds trying to scare up future strippers. Crabby's guess is that a few girls Down Under went to a class or two and a clever reporter sensed the Outrage Potential and ran with it.

But, well, it worked. Crabby saw the headline and felt duly outraged.

Seven year old girls should not be going to classes to learn how to become sexy pretend-strippers.

Even if they're not doing the "adult" moves. Even if the instructors claim that the girls have no way of knowing that "pole dancing" has any other context besides being a wholesome athletic after-school activity.

If they don't know now, they will know soon. How will a little girl who chose Pole Dancing Class instead of Tap Dancing Class feel about her choice in a few years when she finds out what Pole Dancing is really about? Pleased? Embarassed? Neither scenario seems quite desirable. Either she know and its Icky or she doesn't and it's Unfair.

There are a bazillion other athletic activities young girls can engage in to get fit. To send your child to "pole dancing class" and think you can magically erase the context in which this kind of "dancing" came about? This attitude seems naive.

Crabby could go on a whole rant about the sexual objectification of young girls in our culture. (Or of grown women, for that matter. Crabby is still decades behind the times and is uncool enough to wonder where the hell feminism went).

But she'll restrain herself and we'll just stick to Junior Pole Dancing for now.

One of the most interesting things about the Diet Blog post was reading the comments. Crabby thought for sure everyone would agree that this was a Bad Thing, but there were plenty of intelligent comments from those who took a different point of view! They didn't change Crabby's mind, but it made her wonder if she's just being Reflexively Cranky about the issue.

So what do you folks think? Would you send your daughter (or son, for that matter) to Pole Dancing class?