When Barbie’s body is on the cover of Time magazine

Off the bat, I’ll say I wasn’t a doll girl growing up. I did have a Cabbage Patch but that was more of a stuffed animal and 80s status symbol (among the 4^th graders). I spent time with Speak & Math the way some of my friends played dolls. I recall some limited Barbie play at two friend’s houses but I was much more interested in Barbie’s dream house. So, I don’t have any sentimental connection to the iconic doll.

If you haven’t heard, there are three new Barbies on the block. They’re all named Barbie but there are petite, curvy and tall versions. There are new skin tones and hair colors and textures as well. Mattel, who makes Barbie, says they hope the new dolls will be a reflection of the young owner’s world. They also hope to save Barbie from decreasing sales.

Barbie is on the cover of Time this week. The Time article mentions Kim Kardashian, Beyoncé and Lena Dunham as examples of changing beauty ideals and thus the need for newly shaped Barbies. I could be wrong but I wouldn’t peg Lena the Barbie-playing type. No matter what the body type, the message is still it’s all about Barbie’s body. It’s superficial and judgmental to say “curvy is the new thin”.  

If we trace Barbie’s roots, her body is based on a German doll called Lilli. Lilli was a “prostitute gag gift handed out at bachelor parties.” I am not sure how the doll made the leap from hooker to toy aisle but we can’t blame Barbie for that.  Barbie has quite a checkered past, there was a teen Barbie grasping a diet book with the advice “don’t eat”. I can only imagine what the parents, who send Mattel’s COO death treats, would have to say about eating disorder Barbie.

I’m not entirely convinced that a doll’s body affects what young girls think about their bodies. After all, I felt no surge in desire to have the Cabbage Patch body. Time references a 2006 study and reports “girls exposed to Barbie at a young age expressed greater concern with being thin.” I looked at this study and this wasn’t necessarily conducted on Barbie lovers, rather girls were shown images of various dolls. So I don’t know if Barbie is harmful.

And who am I to pass judgment on Barbie or parents who are up in arms about Barbie’s body? Look what’s going on in my house.

What do you think of the new Barbies? Is this an indicator of inclusivity or a marketing ploy? Do you think Barbie affects the way young girls (or boys) think about their bodies?

*And the winner of our Four Sigma giveaway is Erica Sara.

Yes, I noticed Renee’s new face and I’m not agist

At some point yesterday afternoon one of my FB friends posted about the actress formerly known as Renee Zellweger (“you had me at hello” or Bridget Jones). I am not exaggerating when I say I didn’t think the photos were really of Renee Zellweger. The biggest change is that her formerly squinty eyes are now larger (can one get an eye transplant?). I found this all change sort of unbelievable, shocking and strange. What was equally insane was the backlash or should I say ‘facelash” that ensued.

Shortly after the photos were circulated, the in defense of Renee pieces rolled out. Time magazine told us to “leave Renee Zellweger’s face alone” to which I tweeted back “if only Renee had followed that advice”. And there was this tweet

“The ‪#ReneeZellweger outrage is another example of how women's bodies are seen as a public commodity to be mocked and shamed for looking wrong” I felt some sort of a need to rebut that one too. “Give me a break she isn’t being shamed for looking wrong, she is unrecognizable.” Others felt this whole surgery debacle was the result of her having been criticized for her looks but this was also a woman lauded for her looks on countless magazine covers. Are we really to blame for her NEW face? 

From Buzzfeed “Plastic-surgery shaming is thus tantamount to blaming the victims of this ideal for working so hard to achieve what we’ve told them, for decades, they must do.”

What’s with all this alleged shaming? Can we not notice something without playing the shame game? Renee went to a plastic surgeon- nothing wrong with that. She came out looking like another human being (not a less ideal human just a different one) I don’t claim to know the backstory here. Could it be a procedure gone wrong? Sure. Is there something sad about this distinctive face no longer existing? I think so. But this notion that saying anything about a public figure’s appearance is sexist or agist needs to go. I loved this comment on one of the posts “It's not "unfeminist" to notice a *whole new face.*

What do you make of Renee's new face, the media coverage etc? 

Charcoal: Yay or Step Away

Black Burger featured in Time magazine, more on this later

If you’re thinking there’s always something “new” in nutrition we’re supposed to take or use, it can certainly seem that way. I roll my eyes at some most things that come our way. I am reassured though when what’s old is new or there’s a long history behind an ingredient. Enter charcoal.

I was excited when CBS suggested this segment because charcoal had just come into my life. you see, I’ve been brushing my teeth with a charcoal powder. We’re also seeing charcoal pop up at juice shops with “dark detox shots” and charcoal lemonade.

So you know, I’m not suggesting you eat your BBQ charcoal. Activated charcoal is made when charcoal (from wood or even coconut shells) is heated with a gas to expand its surface area. It is this surface area (1tsp has 10,000 feet surface area) that’s responsible for its  “detox” action. Activated charcoal was used in ancient Egypt and by Hippocrates in Greece. The appeal of activated charcoal is that it’s like a sponge for chemicals and poisons; they adhere to it. ERs use charcoal because it creates a “prison” for drugs such as cocaine. The debate, if there is one, is whether activated charcoal should be used for less severe situations or every day use

Activated charcoal comes in powder or capsules. I love this one made from coconut shells for capsules and also this tooth powder. Charcoal doesn’t discriminate will adsorb meds (such as anti depressants) and vitamins too if you take it within an hour of taking them

Why would you use activated charcoal if you don’t have to cocaine in your system? First, as I mentioned you can brush your teeth with it. I would advise you to use a little and know that it’s messy.

Gas

Charcoal can also “adsorb”  (adsorb means bind) intestinal gas. A study found that activated charcoal reduces the amount of gas produced by eating beans and other gas-forming foods. If you’re feeling especially gassy try two charcoal tablets three times a day can help absorb the offending gases and help give your stomach a flatter appearance.

Water filtration and air filtration

Carolyn gave me this cool water filter as a holiday gift last year (yes we joked I got coal in my stocking hmn).The charcoal is from tree branches. It absorbs impurities such as chlorine and other water impurities In exchange, the charcoal sends its nutrients (calcium, iron and magnesium) back into the water And It also neutralizes the water's pH levels. Our office Ovopur filter  (may look familiar to some of you) is also charcoal-based.

Diarrhea

Charcoal is great to travel with. It relieves symptoms of nervous diarrhea or traveler’s diarrhea 1 tablespoon of powdered activated charcoal up to 2-3 times a day between meals.  Swirl the charcoal in a glass of water and then drink it down; or mix it with olive oil and spoon it into your mouth.

I’m often asked what helps with hangovers. If you feel you’re likely to have one, try popping a couple of charcoal caps before bed. For any of these remedies I wouldn’t take charcoal too often or it can constipate you (and make your poop black). In terms of “yay or step away” or #YOSA I’d say yay but not every day.

And yes, the black burger pictured above is made with cheese infused with bamboo charcoal; I’d “stay away”.

Do you use charcoal? Do you take it internally or use it topically? Have you been hearing about it lately? 

So we quit sugar but what are we eating in its place?

A week ago, the Foodtrainers’ team swore off sugar for June. Many of you jumped on board and I even convinced my “very sweet” husband to take a break from his beloved cookies. I’m not always a fan of cold turkey quitting but was inspired by Sarah Wilson’s I Quit Sugar platform. We used her book as a springboard and set out our set of rules.

For me, without the option of having dark chocolate or tasting food samples that are sent to the office I knew I wasn’t “going there”.  We did allow a little fruit on our plan and that’s made things livable. Before you start to think this was all easy breezy a couple of notes. First, this wasn’t a piece of (uneaten) cake for all of us. Both Carolyn and Marc didn’t feel great at first. “Remind me why we are doing this?” said OneSmartBrownie (temporarily one cranky brownie). And I found Marc, my husband who is one of those full of energy people who never stops…crashed in bed after he came home from work.

As for me, there was no sugar but I know myself and there was “vice swapping”. The first couple of days I went overboard with nuts and cheese. I’m normally not a big grain eater but I had sushi (brown rice but still) versus sashimi and corn tortillas, you get the picture. I pushed the envelope of on what was “allowed” which does leave me wondering.

The only time of day I felt a physiological need for sugar was after lunch. I get this definite desire for a taste change. Usually I have a mint but without that option I used bitters to change the taste in my mouth and reduce cravings or a coffee. I have never felt the research in this area truly explained things. It’s not blood sugar dropping as my lunch always has some good fat, vegetables etc. Some say it’s related to stress and sleep but I noticed it Saturday after lunch. Regardless, what I noted this week is a taste change was as good as a sweet.

This all got me thinking about the most recent Time magazine cover. I posted it above; the headline reads “Eat Butter”.  Basically the article exposes the fact that fat may have been wrongly convicted. We didn’t benefit from skimming our milk (if you read LBT you know I agree with that). However, the reason I mention this is that whether we’re removing fat or gluten or sugar from our diet at the end of the day that’s not a food plan. What matters most is what we ARE eating. This past week I was solely concerned with not eating sugar. This coming week I need to make sure I’m eating plenty of greens, hydrating well etc. I’m curious how your week went.

Did you watch your sugar intake this week or quit? How difficult was it? Did you find yourself vice swapping? And any comments about the Time cover?

Giveaway winner is Rachel H; please let us know where to send your copy of IQS. 

Time Magazine Says I'm A Snob, Are You?

Let’s start with a little scenario. At work, you’re up for a promotion. The promotion would be great; the extra money will make a difference. It’s something you’d really like to happen. Your current position is fine, it pays the bills but you’d love the opportunity to take on the new job. Announcements are made and you don’t get it. Initially you’re crushed but you find a way to spin it. “I didn’t really want the job, it would mean longer hours and more stress, I’m fine with my current position.” Let me translate, once you saw that you weren’t switching jobs, and receiving the associated benefits, you made a case for status quo…that doesn’t mean the promotion wouldn’t have been better.

The same thinking applies to food. Organic everything is not in everyone’s budget. That doesn’t mean (Stanford University) that organic/wild/grass-fed isn’t “worth” it. It’s up to nutritionists to assist individuals to make the best food choices with what they have to spend. Dr Oz, in a Time Magazine cover story “What to Eat Now: the anti-food-snob diet”, is telling Americans not only do you not need the “promotion” (or fresh produce or uncanned food) but also that your current position (supermarket staples) is just as good. I’m all for pointing out affordable, cost-effective food options but you don’t have to knock well-produced food. If we assume  all foods are created equal you’re not getting the whole story.

Dr Oz would probably agree you can get heart surgery at most hospitals but “elite” institutions like Columbia University Medical Center will offer cutting edge techniques, the finest doctors and superior care. Would it make you a “health snob” to send a family member, assuming you had the opportunity, to a top-notch hospital? Or is all heart surgery, like spinach, is the same?

Throughout the article Dr Oz frequently uses “nutritionally speaking” but “speaks” only in the terms that support his message. He cites sodium and the macronutrients protein, carbs and fats in his explanation. Surely, doing his show day after day with nutrition experts (who are really well versed “nutritionally speaking”) Dr Oz knows of BPAs in most canned goods, pesticides in conventional produce, omega 3s and trans fats but maybe I’m being elitist in mentioning these details. In a discussion on meat, Oz condescends and says “there’s no question grass-fed, free-range, pasture-dwelling cows lead happier lives” but when he glosses over hormones, antibiotics, E. coli saying “if these things are important to you and you have the money to spend” go for it. Yes, hormones, antibiotics and E. coli are rather important, not a very “happy life” for me with my family consuming those.

Many of the examples cited are inconsistent. Nitrates in cold cuts are discouraged “don’t go there” but potential trans fats in PB are ignored. “Baked Pita Chips are great” really, “nutritionally speaking” what do they offer? Is fiber an “artisanal ingredient”?  Dr Oz  breaks down fats into the archaic saturates are bad and unsaturated are good but nutrition experts, even the non-snobby ones, know that there are good saturated fats  (hello coconut and chocolate) and less healthy unsaturated fats so that’s not a great teaching tool.

I would let all these details go (not so good at letting things go but I would be less harsh) if the premise of the article was healthy, affordable food for all. However, polarizing specialty brands, farmer’s markets and “meat boutiques” on one side as snobby and unnecessary and suggesting supermarket, conventional food as affordable, accessible and every bit as good doesn’t tell a balanced tale. And I have to point out people would be better served using hard-earned money for organic dairy than the esoteric supplements Dr Oz pushes daily on his show.  It would be nice if we could all eat high quality food, achieve professional success and go to the finest hospitals but we cannot. We need to make the best food choices we can, within our budgets, and that may involve some sacrifices in terms of health and taste.  I may be a food snob but I’m an honest one.

Did you read the article? Do you think you need to knock the smaller and perhaps more expensive options to point out affordable ones? Do you think organic, grass-fed, fresh, hormone free food is "basically the same"? 

Last day to enter/win Foodtrainers Favorite Gifts (I should say snobby gifts).