And they call it puppy love!

I'm in love, and I'm not ashamed to shout it to the skies. The object(s) of my affection are three wriggly, snuggly brothers with big dark eyes, fluffy and floppy ears, wagging tails, and that wonderful puppy smell.

Meet Bromley, Chester, and Townshend. These long-haired dachshund pups are almost 10 weeks old, and they came home in a box yesterday with my sister, Mimi, and me. We had found them 10 days earlier on our way up to vacation in Vermont. The sign on the side of the road said "mini dachshunds for sale." And, being a doxie-loving family from way back, we HAD to stop.

Big mistake. Or, wonderful decision -- depending on how you want to look at it. I already have a doxie, Jake (whom I blogged about here), but Mimi has been wanting a dog of her own for a while now. The breeder had four long-haired litter mates available -- three boys and a girl. One look was all it took for Mimi to decide to get one. At first, she chose the female, but changed her mind and went with the little red male. We bandied about possible names, and she came up with "Bromley," which is where we stay in Vermont. I also thought up "Chester," short for Manchester (a nearby town), but we decided that was a more fitting name for the biggest pup, a chestnut-colored dog.

We left Bromley at the breeder's for the duration of our trip, and stopped on the way back home yesterday, always intending just to leave with the Bromster. Well, our dad, who joined us on the vacation, suggested yesterday morning that if the other males hadn't been sold, we think about trying to cut a deal with the breeder for them, too. The idea was to maybe keep one as a companion for Jake, and sell the third.

Great idea ... for about a nano-second. For, the minute we put those dogs in the car and headed back to Mimi's place, we were smitten. Now it looks like we're probably keeping all three, though in which combinations is still to be determined. I'm quite partial to Chester -- the intrepid explorer and ringleader; though Townshend (which is a village, and lake, and park in Vermont -- not to mention a family name!), or "Townie," is quite adorable too, being the most people-oriented of the siblings.

For now, we are keeping all three at Mimi's (I fly home in a few days, and Dad will be driving back to Florida in a couple of weeks with one or two of them) and getting to know them. Also, the housetraining has begun (Oh joy! Up at 3:30 and 7 a.m. each morning for a pee break outside!) .

Frankly, we're in pup heaven!!!

Bulk up to slim down: Easier said than done!

By now, we all know about the importance of fiber in the diet, right? Fiber -- an indigestible complex carbohydrate that comes from the thick cell wall of plants -- gives food a more interesting, satisfying texture; aids in the digestive process by keeping food moving through the body; makes us feel "full" longer and thereby eat less; helps fight diseases such as diabetes and heart disease; and prevents the absorption of a percentage of calories in foods, therefore helping us lose weight.

Doctors have been advising us to get more fiber in our diets for years, even as Americans' eating habits grow increasingly fiber-less and unhealthy (not much fiber in a Big Mac, after all!). The latest recommendation is 25-37 grams per day, says Prevention.

Gulp! MUCH easier said than done ....

To put this in perspective, here are nutritional facts about some of the bulkiest foods: 1 cup cooked broccoli or carrots, 5 g. and 54 calories; 1/2 cup cooked barley or quinoa, 3 g. and about 100 calories; 1 cup blackberries of raspberries, 8 g. and 65 calories; 1 cup cooked black beans, 15 g. and 227 calories; 1 cup cooked chick peas, 13 g. and 269 calories. Foodstuffs such as dairy (milk and cheeses), proteins (chicken, fish, beef) and fats (oils) contain zero grams of fiber but crucial nutrients and added calories.

So, each day you have to eat a mountain of fruits and veggies or grains, plus a pile of legumes, just to get within the recommended range. But, on a restricted-calorie diet, such as the 1,500-1,600 per-day range that I must stay within to maintain my weight (and even fewer during those times I need to lose a few pounds), I could easily go way over the calorie limit in order to get enough fiber. Not to mention -- being very unpopular in crowded places, as the indigestible fiber "talks back" to me!!

It's a delicate balance, then, getting enough fiber without overeating (or without being over-gaseous!). And not one that I get right every day, by a long shot. Oh, I do regularly eat lots of fruits, veggies and whole grains, but not legumes on a daily basis. What I DO do is try to add bulk in "sneaky" ways, such as sprinkling bran on my cereal or yogurt or into protein shakes (1/4 cup, 7 g. and 35 calories).

To help you in your fiber quest, check out the Prevention site and its handy-dandy Fiber Up Food Finder. Happy bulking!

The summer flicks report

I've managed to see three of the big summer blockbusters within the past few weeks -- Knight and Day, Salt and Inception -- and I've gotta say: I'm not blown away.

First was Knight and Day, the Tom Cruise-Cameron Diaz action/comedy/romance flick about a super-spy who's on the run while trying to clear his unfairly besmirched name (Cruise, of course!), and the comely, hapless woman who gets drawn into his adventure (Diaz, of course!). That was actually my favorite of the three: Fun action sequences, good performances by the sunny stars, and a fairly straightforward plot that didn't stretch credibility farther than your typical big-budget action thriller does. Ir was two hours of mindless, enjoyable entertainment. I'd give it a B+.

Then I saw Salt (caught it at a free screening the other night, lucky me) -- which, for the two people on the planet who haven't heard anything about this one, stars Angelina Jolie as a super-spy who's on the run while trying to clear her unfairly besmirched name (are we sensing a pattern here?). It certainly is a non-stop shot of adrenaline: The poor woman barely gets a chance to breathe between narrow escapes, setting off bombs, narrow escapes, car crashes, narrow escapes, hand-to-hand combat with squads of cops and agents, narrow escapes, being beaten up, narrow escapes, revenge killings, narrow escapes, etc. Phew! I'm exhausted just describing it -- just as I was, watching it. But what I wasn't doing was buying it. It's all just a lot of bombast, misdirection and pouty lips to disguise a thin, thin premise that doesn't hold up well under any kind of scrutiny. Regardless, I'm sure it's going to kill at the box office if the rave reviews from fellow film screeners and critics alike are any indication. My rating: a C+.

Last was Inception, the latest mind-bending offering from hot "auteur" Christopher Nolan. This is a dense, murky, sci-fi thriller about a group of dream "thieves" on a mission to implant the seed of an idea in someone's mind. And, if the excessively sycophantic reviews are to be believed, this is one of the best movies of the year. It certainly looks good, with some extremely cool special effects and a gorgeous cast headed up by Leonardo DiCaprio. And the premise -- the ability to insert yourself into other people's dreams, and steal vital information from their minds during this vulnerable state -- is intriguing. And granted, a generous suspension of disbelief is always necessary when it comes to viewing -- and enjoying -- this type of film. OK, done: I'll buy that it's possible to steal mental info from someone who is dreaming.

Unfortunately, Inception doesn't stick to its own internal logic, with HUGE gaps in credibility based on the rules set forth within the plot line. Also, sorry -- but the big emotional storyline involving DiCaprio and his lost love just didn't do it for me. The film left me emotionally uninvolved -- and therefore, in spots, bored. But apparently I'm way in the minority on this, and Inception is sure to do box-office gangbusters, just like Nolan's last offering The Dark Knight (which I wasn't too crazy about either, frankly). For me, Inception rates a C+ also.

All in all, a pretty typical summer's worth of big-budget offerings!

Summer in the suburbs

So ... how's your summer going?

Now that the Fourth of July has come and gone, we're dead-smack in the midst of it. Many folks around the nation are sweltering right now, while we here in South Florida are experiencing the typical thunderstormy days (and nights.)

The Fourth was actually a washout here: It rained and/or drizzled pretty much all day (starting at noonish) and through the fireworks displays. I spent the day on or near the beach, hanging with friends, dodging raindrops, and awaiting the fireworks -- which did go off in typical spectacular fashion. However, other city-planned festivities (concerts, parades etc.) were pretty much abandoned.

Meanwhile, I'm trying to stay positive and make plans for my favorite summer activities: snorkeling, biking, kayaking -- while also keeping a Plan B in the back of my mind. I also need to find a sunny afternoon/dry evening with which to complete a deck-refinishing project that got screwed up by an untimely rainstorm ...

A typical summer, really, for South Florida: Hot and rainy, but also slower-paced and friendlier. Time to hang with friends, take it easy, and do as little "work" as possible. While, always, keeping a watchful eye on the hurricane reports!

And so it goes. July already, spinning quickly into August ... and my escape to Vermont for a much-needed respite/change of scenery. It'll be here before I know it.

Being safer in the sun

In my ongoing efforts to live as healthily as possible, I just threw out at least $100 worth of sunscreens in my drawer -- after writing an article for Examiner on the latest report by the Environmental Working Group on the safest sunscreens to use.

Turns out, there are two really bad ingredients in the majority of sunscreen products on the market: retinyl palmitate (a vitamin A compound) and oxybenzone. How bad are they? Well, both are suspected carcinogens.

... Hmmm. So, maybe this explains the explosion of skin cancer cases during the years in which we've been using these products that supposedly protect us? That may not be so crazy a theory, given the fact that the good old FDA has failed -- since 1978 -- to come up regulations for sunscreens. Says the EWG site:

Until the agency formally issues its rule, companies are not required to verify that their sunscreens work, including testing for SPF levels, checking waterproof claims or providing UVA protection. Nearly 1 in 8 sunscreens does not block UVA rays.

So, I took a look at the labels for all of the bottles of lotions and sprays that I have collected in the past couple of years. And guess what? Nearly every single one contained either -- or both -- of these nasty chemicals. This included inexpensive brands such as my go-to No Ad sunblock lotion, major brands including Coppertone Oil Free for Faces and Banana Boat Tear-Free Baby lotion, as well as supposedly quality products such as Neutrogena Age Shield Face sunblock.

So, down the drain they went, with the bottles destined for the recycling bin. And tomorrow, I'll be heading to the drugstore or health-food store on the hunt for the few products (only 8 percent of the 500 or so products on the market!) that are deemed the best beach and sport sunscreens by the EWG.

It's going to cost me ... but money is a much easier thing to pay with than my health!

Update: The BPA answer

Well, the Tervis Tumbler company is nothing if not responsive.

I already received a reply to my e-mail yesterday inquiring about whether their insulated plastic products contain bisphenol-A, or BPA. That's because I've decided to eliminate my exposure to this toxic chemical as much as possible, by stopping my use of food (or beverage) containers made of plastic that has BPA in it.

I suspected that these wonderful tumblers, which I've been using at home for years, might contain bisphenol-A, for they are super-sturdy and very clear (two big characteristics of BPA). Plus, there is no recycling number on the glasses, another indicator that it's probably a polycarbonite/BPA product.

The answer from the company was a form letter written in January 2010 -- so, obviously, other customers have expressed concern over the BPA issue. Here is the pertinent text:

Dear Customer:
Thank you for your inquiry concerning recent developments on the safety and use of bisphenol A (BPA) in polycarbonate plastic. Recent media coverage and reports of legislatures considering bills to ban BPA have created questions about this topic.
Our polycarbonate tumblers are made of 100% virgin polycarbonate. BPA is a compound used to make polycarbonate plastic. Tervis Tumbler hired AXYS Analytical Services Ltd. to test water that we stored in a selection of our tumblers for up to 48 hours. Our conclusion from the AXYS results is that our tumblers may have the potential for miniscule levels of BPA estimated to be 0.5 parts per billion or less, to migrate into water. On that basis, one would need to drink 17,000 16 oz glasses or 2,100 gallons of water from our tumblers daily to exceed the recognized safety threshold.

Hmmm ... so, they're admitting there is BPA in the tumblers, but saying it's not enough to be harmful. That leave me in a quandary: Should I resume using them, or leave them on the shelf and keep on drinking out of glass glasses.

For now, I'll stick to the glass, and leave the BPAs on the shelf.

Dumping the BPAs: Goodbye, dear double-walled glasses!

So, I just wrote a blog for Examiner on how to avoid consuming bisphenol-A, or BPA, a chemical additive in plastics and resins that has been linked to or a suspect in health problems ranging from cancer to obesity to birth defects.

I've been hearing the rumblings about the dangers of ingesting BPAs for a couple of years now, especially from the leaching of bisphenol-A into your food when microwaving it in plastic storage containers. So, I switched to glass (Pyrex) containers, especially when reheating my leftovers. I do use plastic containers to store food in the fridge, but never use them in the microwave.

I also bought a metal water bottle and fill it with filtered water from the fridge on a regular basis.

But these measures, it seems, were only the first steps. After researching "good" vs. "bad" plastics for the Examiner article, I found out that I must avoid using anything with the numbers 3, 6, 7 -- or no number. Also, containers that are scratched, stained or worn from use should not be kept. So, I'm going through my cabinets as I write this (well, OK, not exactly as I write this: my arms can't reach that far!) and clearing out all the "bad" containers.

This also forced me to take a look at my beloved double-walled plastic glasses. I've been using these insulated tumblers for years, because they are designed to avoid "sweating," a pesky problem here in hot and humid South Florida. I keep a tumbler filled with water by my side pretty much 24/7. But these plastics have no number on them -- meaning there's a very good likelihood that they were produced using BPA, which is known to make plastics very sturdy without making them cloudy.

Gulp! As I've been doing the "healthy" thing, eschewing sodas and other harmful beverages in favor of good old H2O, have I been ingesting BPAs this whole time? To find out for sure, I just wrote to the company that made these products, Tervis.

In the meantime, it's goodbye, double-walled tumblers made of plastic; hello, glasses made of ... glass. Guess it's time to start using coasters again!