Three things, linked

My mother had requested a sample issue of the new "Mary Jane's Farm" (the whole Mary Jane Farmgirl thing seems to be becoming a new media empire) magazine - it's some crafty stuff, some country stuff, some "organic living" stuff.

She didn't think she'd wind up subscribing, and I don't, either - most of the information seemed to be stuff that we see in other magazines that we get. But there was one editorial that caught my attention.

It was talking about frugality. And how we're all being called upon/told/exhorted to be more frugal now, and lots of one-size-fits-all dicta are being issued. Like, ALWAYS BRING YOUR LUNCH TO WORK. DO NOT GO OUT TO LUNCH. or "Make your own darn coffee at home instead of paying a few bucks for something from a coffee shop."

And the writer made the point: we're all grown-ups. We're all smart enough (well, I'd hope we are) to figure these things out on our own. But a blanket policy is not always the best policy.

The writer gave the example: what if you had a really good week at work, you completed some projects? And you happen to enjoy foofy coffee drinks? Then, she said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with stopping off on the way home and getting a foofy coffee drink - or, even better, taking the people who worked on the project with you out and buying themselves and you foofy coffee drinks.

Because frugality can quickly become stinginess - and we need to celebrate and be happy sometimes, and regardless of what the frugality gurus say, you don't ALWAYS have to do that for free.

And I found myself nodding in agreement. The problem is, I think, partly one of my issues: I tend to feel like I'm never doing "enough." That I'm never eating healthfully enough. Or I'm never working hard enough. Or I'm never socking enough money away for the future (though I swear, I think eventually banks and funds will start charging US interest to look after our money, the way things are going, instead of the other way 'round). That sometimes, you just need to relax and tell yourself that things will be OK, that you ARE doing "enough."

And I thought of this article again yesterday. We got a survey regarding workplace wellness programs.

Now, mostly, these are fairly helpful/innocuous things, doing stuff like offering noon yoga classes (at least, to the people who have the luxury of a long lunch break, or who can manage to get through the day without eating lunch). Or helping people with stress reduction. Or helping them do things they specifically come in and ASK for help with, like quitting smoking/losing weight/exercising/whatever.

But I've also read some anecdotal stories about office "wellness programs" becoming more of a coercive program, where they adopt a "goal," for example, of having everyone everywhere 100% tobacco-free by some deadline. And so, the people who choose not to go along with whatever the goal is, for whatever reason, well, they're Messing It Up For Everyone and they are wrong-thinkers and need to be re-educated.

And I've also heard of wellness programs "partnering" with one of the diet-food-purveyors (e.g., Jenny Craig) and then trying to push their overweight members to go on those plans.

And I'm sorry, but no. Yes, I know I'm overweight. Yes, I know I'm heavier than I should be. But - as I answered on the (supposedly anonymous) survey: I think I lead a healthy lifestyle already. Because:

1. I don't smoke. I have NEVER smoked. I don't use tobacco in any form.
2. I see a doctor annually, or if I get sick.
3. I exercise an hour a day most days (And recently am trying to add in an additional 15-20 minutes of yoga in the evenings a few nights a week)
4. I make an effort to eat fruits and vegetables, even though there are many vegetables I dislike, and there are a few (carrots, celery, some of the squashes) that don't agree well with my digestion (and so, I have to avoid them)
5. I tend to avoid fried foods, and I very rarely eat restaurant meals.
6. I don't drink soda. I don't care for it all that much, and I figure that's one way I can limit the amount of sugar in my diet.
7. When practicable, I buy organic produce.

BUT - and this is a big but(t) - I am overweight.

And to some people, that negates all seven things I listed above.

And that's why the whole wellness-program thing makes me vaguely suspicious: I don't want it to be some kind of coercive thing where some life-coach or something wears on me until I go, "Oh dammit, okay" and hire Seattle Sutton or who-the-heck-ever to cook for me now and forever, and wind up crabby on 1200 calories a day.

Because the problem as I see it with weight-loss diets (as opposed to get-the-nutrients-and-try-to-avoid-particularly-unhealthful-foods diets) are that they are often pretty draconian. (Seattle Sutton, for example, promotes that they provide but 1200 calories a day. I tried 1250-1400 for a little while when I was in college, and could not maintain it, because (a) I was hungry all the time and (b) I was weak and crabby.) And the problem with weight-loss diets is, if you're already a heavy person like me, you probably need to STAY on the diet - or something very like it - for the rest of your life, or you will merely regain what you lost.

And I'm sorry, but I personally cannot give up the little square or two of dark chocolate I eat in a day. Or the occasional cookie. Or bread. Or meat. Or whatever it would take giving up to get the number of calories down to that magic number where my body starts having to burn itself up to maintain life.

And here's the other problem. And this was raised by an article I skimmed in Eating Well. Now, I like Eating Well - they often have good recipes (there's a lentil "burger" recipe in this new issue I want to try). But some of the articles make me roll my eyes and think, "First World Problems." Because people get so hyper and so worried about food. And you know what? I don't have the energy. I mean, I'll take reasonable steps - like trying to find organic spinach or something - but I'm not going to panic about how the sugar in the food I am using was processed, or whether it might have sat in the same room with some piece of plastic that contains BPA, or something. (The article in question: woman gets pregnant and suddenly freaks out, realizes that the entire American food industry is bent on poisoning us, goes on crusade to save us all. Okay, that's an exaggeration, but that's how a lot of those articles go. And yes, I don't deny, if you're expecting, it's smart to be careful about what you put in your mouth. But it's also smart to do stuff like take pre-natal vitamins and do gentle exercise and take it easy when you're feeling tired or dragged out)

And this raises the other issue: the idea among some in my society that if you disagree with them, not only are you wrong, but you are very likely stupid and evil.

This goes back to my college days. I remember once at the grocery store I was buying a box of Oreos. Now, I like Oreos. (I like Newman-Os slightly better these days, especially the mint ones, so I tend to buy those, but that's neither here nor there). Anyway, someone I vaguely sort-of knew from class (it was one of those monster 300-person classes) looked in my basket and recoiled in horror: "O! M! G! Do you actually EAT those? Do you KNOW what they put IN them?!?!"

And that kind of thing makes me so tired. Yes, I know Oreos are not exactly health food. Yes, I know they have quite a lot of sugar in them. Yes, I know the filling is basically Crisco with more sugar. But I HAPPEN TO LIKE OREOS. And I only eat a few at a time. And the rest of the time I eat stuff like salad and baked sweet potatoes and beans and rice...it all balances out, I like to think.

So please don't give me the documentary on how evil they are and how I need to be re-educated. I'm fine, thanks. I'm a freaking adult. I can make my own decisions. If you want someone to dominate and fill with your food anxieties, please have a child. (I'm being facetious here: we don't need more humans being raised with screwed-up ideas about food).

I think part of the problem is we don't understand risk levels and risk tolerance. For example: Some additive in food gives people who eat it a 2% greater risk of, I don't know, massive kidney stones. Does that mean the additive should be banned? Does that mean everyone should be told not to buy it? What if the additive does something other that is useful, like making the food not harden up before its time or taste good? Still, that 2% risk WOULD have some people calling for banination.

(A blogger I like to read often refers to the fact that we all have a 100% chance of dying. So something like a 2% risk of kidney stones, meh)

And that's the thing that gets to me: I don't like being hounded. I don't like being told that my personal choices, which I came to based on my understanding of and tolerance for risk, are BAD and WRONG and DUMB and I need to do whatever the other person is doing because it WORKED FOR THEM and therefore is the best and right and really only choice.

The other big factor - actually, a fourth linked thing - is the study that came out earlier this week. I haven't read the whole thing to see if it has holes in it but it seems to be in concert with things I have anecdotally observed in my own life. The study reported finding that people who were overweight, but were otherwise in good health (i.e., did not have any underlying chronic health issues) and who exercised and ate healthfully, were at no greater risk of early death than their thinner counterparts. (And in fact, might be at less of a risk than the thin-but-sedentary - I've seen more than a few studies suggesting that being sedentary is what raises your risk for a lot of chronic health issues the most).

And "Overweight but otherwise healthy, eats healthfully*, and exercises" pretty much describes me.

(*Well, MOST of the time. Though much more than I did 15 or 20 years ago...I realize now it's been almost a year since I tasted a hot fudge sundae, something I used to eat more regularly when I was younger)

So I don't know. While I'd welcome things like a more accessible way of getting a bone-density scan (the one chronic disease I do really worry about is osteoporosis - my grandmother had it very badly, my mother has been diagnosed with it (and is taking steps to try and slow its progress), and I very likely am at high risk - though ironically, my being heavier may offer some protection there), I'm not sure I'd be on board for regular weight-loss cheering sections.

Because I feel like I'm doing all I can right now, thanks. I've sacrificed some things (see hot fudge sundae comment above) in the name of eating healthfully and frankly I am not willing to do even more. And I don't care if that's stubborn or willful or if it sounds "wrong and dumb" to some people. I'm an adult woman, I have a fine understanding of nutrition, calories, and metabolism, and it's a choice I have made. I do not need to be re-educated, I do not need to be picked at until I surrender: I need to be left alone to live my life.

(The fact that the ONLY things I use my health insurance for these days - other than the annual checkup - is for treatment of allergies, which, from every study I've ever read is 100% unrelated to my weight - is what I will make as an argument in the face of "But if you lose weight, you will cost less in health care!")