OK, that’s like the 10th time I have seen you suggest “The Abs Diet”
(and no, I didn’t google to see how many times you have actually
mentioned this book). I honestly thought you were kidding.

So what’s the deal. I checked out the website and this is
representative of the sort of claims made.

Simply put, The Abs Diet is a scientifically proven food plan that
turns on your metabolic fat furnaces and puts the resulting energy
to work building muscle. Within 2 weeks, you’ll lose up to 12
pounds of fat–from your belly first! From there, you’ll convert
fat to muscle with a sensible exercise (30 minutes three times a
week) and eating (six meals a day!) plan that will give you your
best physique and keep you at optimal health for life. This is a
diet plan anyone can stick to: The portions are man-size, the
instructions are simple, and the results will be food that even
Archie Bunker would love!

This sort of ad copy rings my alarm bells, and it is not the worst of
it either. Heck, there are several places on the website where the
diet promises to “turn fat into muscle.”

Some I’m sure would say it smacks of hucksterism, but I see it as an
entertaining style of writing. References to pop culture in Archie
Bunker, enthusiasm-building visual imagery in “fat furnaces” and, yes,
a BUY NOW! TODAY! directive in “you’ll lose up to 12 pounds of
fat–from your belly first!” But the information is rock solid.

I know I’m a cheerleader for this book and, yes, biased, so check out
what Publishers Weekly has to say:

Eat everything. Concentrate on whole grains. Drink milk. Balance
protein with carbohydrates. Avoid processed sugars. Do some exercise.
The idea that a diet book making such proposals comes as a pleasant
surprise shows just how far afield we’ve gone in the search for new
ways to be fit. The only thing new about this diet by the
editor-in-chief of Men’s Health is its name, and this, one can presume,
is because nowadays, a book simply called “Sensible Eating” wouldn’t
sell. The book’s title is indeed misleading; only the final chapter
deals solely with abs. The rest is full of rational recommendations for
a realistic diet plan: eat more and smaller meals; have oatmeal in the
morning for a nourishing breakfast; don’t starve yourself; drink plenty
of water; and stay away from sodas and foods that contain high-fructose
corn syrup. Whether readers will, in the end, walk away with abs of
steel is not really the point. They’ll control their weight in a
healthy way, without counting calories, cutting out whole food groups
or supporting the beef futures market. Best of all, this book tells
readers why it works: increase your body’s metabolism, gain some muscle
and fat burns away. The authors make this seem like a fresh and very
attainable ideal.
/quote from
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1579549985/104-4021844-4537547?v=gla…
aka http://tinyurl.com/pmykv

The Amazon link or TinyURL link will take you to Amazon’s Abs Diet page
which, along with book specifics, offers 146 customer reviews not all
of which are especially glowing, but that might dull your alarm bells a
bit.

So what’s the deal with this book?

It’s Harley orange! What can I say?

Seriously, I was first introduced to the book courtesy of Amazing Abs,
a just-less-than-magazine-size book from Men’s Health and the good
people at Rodale Inc.

Amazing Abs has much the same info as The Abs Diet but with a lot more
pictures. The cover screams “LOSE YOUR GUT! Exclusive! Abs Diet
Excerpt” and has a pic of a guy displaying a cover model six-pack.

I liked the humor and no-nonsense approach used in that book. Diet and
exercise plans, visually appealing with tons of pics of male and female
models demonstrating correct exercise performance. Amazing Abs is a
collection of bits and pieces of other Rodale books edited together in
a truly artful way, imo. Informative, attractive, accessible.

Enjoying that book piqued my interest in The Abs Diet. Fwiw, it’s a New
York Times bestseller. It’s written in an engaging manner,
straightforward, intelligent, and, yes, again, with humor. Early in the
book, the message “Changing the Way You Think About the Word Diet” is
offered as a headline. The book does just that. The writers say it
better than I ever could:

“For years – or maybe for all your life – you’ve probably had one
notion about what dieting needs to be. Restrict your foods, eat like a
supermodel, sweat on the treadmill, and you’ll lose fat. In reality,
those could be the very reasons why you couldn’t lose weight. It’s why
you gained back what you lost. It’s the reason why your steamboat
metabolism may have geared down to that of an anchored barge. It’s why
you don’t see much progress when you try new weight-loss programs. And
it’s why the only real recipe many diet plans offer is a recipe for
pecan-encrusted failure.”

That’s some visual imagery. I like it. A lot. Yeah, it could probably
be boiled down to five or ten pages of text, but for ten bucks, this
book and its philosophy, imo, can’t be beat.

And, yes, David Zinczenko (with Ted Spiker) has a good bit of P.T.
Barnum or carnival barker in him, but, imo, this book is not for
suckers*. Zinczenko’s enthusiasm leaps from the page. Good information,
visually appealing, right price, and a motivational writing style all
equal a book I’m glad I purchased. Ymmv. ;o)

AGAIN, YMMV! HOWEVER ~*I*~ FOUND IT INTERESTING! :o)

I also picked up The Abs Diet Eat Right Every Time Guide which includes
789 of what the authors call the best on-the-go food choices. It’s
offered as a complete supermarket survival guide and contains 60
six-minute meals for a six-pack.

“The bulk of medical research is funded by taxpayers, not patients. The same
goes for hospital overhead costs and a lot of capital expenditure items.”

Clearly, we have been “conned” by high medical charges simply because the
capital expenditure and overhead costs which are paid by taxpayer were
“double charge” into the medical bills we paid. Capital expenditure like
building, expensive equipment and other overhead costs on equipment are
“sunk costs” that were from govt capital fund received taxpayers taxes and
hence should be zero cost to the hospital. It seems the hospital recycles
the sunk costs many times and then recover from its patients all over again.

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/storyprintfriendly/0,1887,214273-106…
,00.html?

OCT 12, 2003
Our Columnist
One man shakes up health care
By Chua Lee Hoong

SHAKING up Singapore? It’s not just the shake-up-your-Sunday Sunday Times
that’s been doing so; Mr Khaw Boon Wan has too.

Less than the proverbial 100 days into his new job, the Acting Health
Minister has already embarked on the promise he made on the day he took
office, to bring health-care costs down. Speed aside, what’s getting people
talking is also the way he’s set about doing this: Show them, don’t preach
at them.

Consider the chronology.

Aug 1: Taking over the helm of the ministry, he announces that his main aims
will be to promote health (quotable quote: ‘After all, we are a Ministry of
Health, not a Ministry of Illness’) and review health-care costs.

Sept 29: He holds a press conference announcing that his ministry has
collated and put on the Internet billing data for 28 common ailments that
public hospitals treat.

He leaves the media (and the public) to draw their own conclusions from the
data, which is arranged according to hospitals. ‘I only churn out data, no
comments. The public, GPs, and hospitals can examine for themselves,’ he
says.

It’s a deceptively laid-back line. The data has been collated in such a way
that the questions begging to be asked are obvious. He supplies them
himself: ‘Why am I more expensive?’ and ‘If we are outliers, why?’

Nowhere during the press conference does he point any finger at any
hospital. The data has spoken; he doesn’t need to.

Over the next few days, the medical community buzzes as it examines the data
tables in greater detail. It’s a time of intense financial soul-searching
for public hospitals charging the most for particular ailments.

Oct 4: With the message he wants to put out sunk deeply into the minds of
hospitals here, Mr Khaw now becomes explicit. Stop silly competition such as
fighting for patient share by engaging big names and splurging on the latest
equipment, he tells a medical gathering.

They’ve ‘gone a bit astray’ and there’s a danger of a ‘perverse outcome’ in
which hospital chiefs push for more patient days, more clinic visits, more
surgery and more prescriptions – which would add up to higher health-care
costs.

So hospitals are now feverishly reviewing how to cut their costs. A
gratified Mr Khaw said on Tuesday: ‘I think it’s coming along nicely. So
let’s keep it up.’

So how did Mr Khaw manage to get things moving so fast?

To be sure, he’s got incumbent advantage of a sort: he spent the first 14
years of his working life as an administrator in MOH. He helped formulate
Medisave; he restructured hospitals; and he even headed three of them. So he
knows the ins and outs of the hospitals, what’s really necessary and what’s
not.

Asked, for instance, by a journalist why he wouldn’t print flyers with the
billing data for the entire population to read and keep, he trotted out a
statistic I doubt many know: that at any one point in time, only 1 per cent
of the population will be sick and interested in data like this.

Why print something that’s going to be glanced at and thrown away by 99 per
cent of the people? (He was too gracious to add: ‘Far cheaper to get the
newspapers to print it – It’s a win-win outcome!’)

But it’s not just insider knowledge that’s enabling Mr Khaw to get things
moving. It’s also a canny political sense that shouldn’t be rare but
unfortunately is.

He had the astuteness to work with the Consumers Association of Singapore in
collating the data, and to harness public opinion by bringing the data
before the media. He could have simply disseminated the data within the
medical community, but he chose to go beyond.

In doing so, he showed he was unafraid to risk unpopularity by exercising
leadership. Leaders grasp nettles.

Mr Eddie Teo, permanent secretary in the Prime Minister’s Office and
responsible for developing public servants, wrote recently: ‘A leader is
someone who brings about adaptive, as opposed to technical, change.

‘He makes changes that challenge and upset the status quo and he must
convince the people who are upset that the changes are for their own good
and the good of the organisation.’

The verdict is still out, of course, on whether the changes that Mr Khaw is
introducing will be for the better.

There are those, such as my sister who is a frequent user of hospital
services, who believe that bringing hospital costs down will lead to
dangerous consequences – cutting corners, compromising care and losing the
cutting edge as a health-care hub. In her case, however, her employer –
Singapore Press Holdings – pays the bulk of her hospital expenses.

For those who have to pay for their health-care expenses themselves, it must
be reassuring to know that the minister in charge is someone who knows that
more expensive doesn’t necessarily mean better, and that regular price
increases need not be a fact of life.

Will Mr Khaw’s approach mean Singapore losing the cutting edge as a medical
centre? Hardly. The bulk of medical research is funded by taxpayers, not
patients. The same goes for hospital overhead costs and a lot of capital
expenditure items.

What the new minister’s approach does is highlight the fact that the people
who make up the bulk of hospitals’ clientele are the not-much-money-to-spare
heartlanders, not high-income earners or the regional rich who come to
Singapore for medical tourism.

Keep cutting-edge stuff for these groups – and charge them accordingly.

Have you ever thought that the reason there are so many
physical problems in the people of this nation is the lack of
proper nutrition?

If you have you are asking the right question.

If you think you can eat your way to health you are right but
here is a problem.

The nutritional value of the food we eat is not as high as it
used to be due to farming techniques and the need for the
farmer to always produce the same crops because that’s
where he gets the best return.

This is not bad, but it does deplete the land and therefore
the food we eat has less of the vitamins and minerals present
that would be there with proper crop rotation.

True, nutritional supplements are necessary. But buying the right
supplements is the key. Fortunatley, there is an easy way to figure out
which vitamins you need. There’s an article at http://www.ru-healthy.com
featuring a company that does a urine test to determine the correct
formulation of vitamin supplement for your own body’s needs. The test is
quick and easy. They also provide a urine test that assists in formulating
a weight management program. You can also find this available at
http://www.custom4u.cjb.net

It is hard to get enough of some vitamins (noteably vitamin E and
many of the B vitamins), even if you eat a very healthy diet every
single day. I know, because I eat a very healthy, high-fiber, fruit,
whole-grain, and vegtable-based diet and I am still deficient,
mainly in the B’s. And so I supplement with a high-quality multi-vitamin
and mineral supplement (just one capsule a day, not a fistful of stuff).

It’s economical and I am certain that I am getting all I need. I think
a lot of doctors are reluctant to recommend supplements for this reason:
A lot of people take vitamins as a SUBSTITUTE for a healthy diet. But
that is very poor logic. Vitamins are meant to SUPPLEMENT an already
healthy and nutritious diet.

A lot of people will tell you that if you eat a healthy, natural, well-
rounded diet that you don’t need a supplement. I used to be the person
who shouted this mantra the loudest. That is, until I became deficient.
Now I know better.

In my Health Program the easiest thing you can do to improve your health is
take supplements, it is also the least effective thing you can do. And, of
course, I am referring to health maintenance. Supplements can be very
effective in treating temporary health conditions.

Next, Exercising is slightly harder do, and it provides even better health
results. It is fairly easy to implement, because it takes only X minutes a
week. And, once it is over for the day, it is over. However, many people
find exercising at a high enough intensity a mentally difficult thing to
accomplish.

In the middle of difficulty and effectiveness is eating a healthy diet. It
is both time consuming and requires making appropriate dietary decisions
every moment of your life.

Near the top of difficulty is improving your ATTITUDE department. To become
a centenarian you will virtually have to redefine who you are. It
extremely difficult and extremely effective in promoting a long life. This
is how people with a lousy diet and lousy habits like smoking make it to the
age of 100.

The hardest department to work on is RESILIENCE. Resilience is
operationally implementing perfect health in your Mind, Body, and Spirit
every minute of your existence. It requires a high degree of success in all
the areas of the above areas. It requires a high degree of control over
every aspect of your life.

Natural Health Advocate of pro-active approaches to preventing Diseases of
Civilization, promoting Optimum Health, and Longevity through moderation and
balance in five areas: Diet, Nutritional Supplements, Exercise, Attitude,
and Resilience. The primary causes of ill health are faulty living habits. A
proper lifestyle with patience will prevent, or correct, all Nutritional
Deficiencies and Health Conditions.

Having had some exposure to the field of health, what exactly is the
supposed health issue involved with being shirtless? Germs are most
generally spread from either the mouth/nose or the hands, not the torso.

As an extreme example, if you were asked to lick either someone’s finger
or someone’s shoulder, which would you pick? I would have to assume the
shoulder would be cleaner. In a grocery store, people handle produce
without any concern for health issues. Who knows where those hands have
been?

It seems the “health” aspect is being exploited by those who have
prudery issues.

From a fashion standpoint, that would be debatable, as I doubt a woman
wearing the most immodest of bikini tops would be asked to leave a store
as quickly as a man with no shirt on – and the difference between the
two being less than a square foot of cloth.

From a sexual standpoint, however, I believe you would be hitting closer
to home. A man with no shirt lends sexual overtone (from subtle to
overt, depending on your viewpoint) in an environment where torso
coverage is otherwise the norm. Society, despite all its seeming
open-mindedness, does not cope well when confronted with anything which
forces it to recognize sexuality outside of certain predefined
situations — the bedroom, R and X rated movies, certain magazines and
clothing catalogs, etc. And, interestingly enough, it is the visibility
of the man’s nipples that create that sexual overtone.

Generally speaking, no one wants to deal with their feelings of animal
arousal (if they will even admit that) while deciding if they want to
buy spaghetti or linguini.

A shirtless man in a grocery store is an isolated man — except there’s
a heck of a lot more surreptitious attention being paid to him than
anyone else. Most everyone else will build a mental wall around him to
keep him at a safe distance. Interestingly enough, when a person makes
contact with a shirtless man in a grocery store one of two things
happens: (1) that person becomes an outcast (everyone else will build a
mental wall around that person because he/she has left the properly
clothed group — and they’re jealous); or (2) that person puts everyone
else at ease, by acting as a surrogate for the group and neutralizing
the sexuality of the shirtless man.

As for me, I prefer no words be spoken and to let the sexual tension
linger.

Does everybody here agree with that last bold statement? Especially you
str8 guys?

Because I wouldn’t have said so, despite having two pieces of evidence
that could be read in its favor.

1. My gym used to have no problem with me wearing a MalePower shirt
I bought a while ago (and several knock-offs I’d had made) that amounted
to an I-back in front AND back. But some of the women finally
complained to mgt about the bodybuilder types in show-it-all-off string
tanks, specifically mentioning their nipples. And mgt told me —
diffidently but firmly — that the BBs had (fairly) pointed out that
the rule would apply to me, and I’d have to wear more shirt from then
on. (First time in my life I was ever lumped with the bodies beautiful,
I can tell you!)

The actual enforcement situation now, however, seems to be that if a
guy’s shirt skims his nipples that’s close enough. In other words,
flashing is okay, but not flaunting!

2. Some while ago I saw a gay gag greeting card with a gorgeous
shirtles guy on the front (so far we’ve narrowed down the field by
perhaps 10%) and wording something like “Nice nipples!” (They looked OK
to me, although despite my shirtlessness fetish, I’m not a nipple man.)
Inside, it read something like, “Dimples! I meant dimples! Dimples!”

Now, I though that was pretty stupid, on the grounds that once a guy
comments on another guy’s looks at all, he’s pretty well “dropped a
hairpin” with a loud clang! But if nipples are seen by str8 guys TOO as
visual (as well as physical) erogenous zones, whereas dimples are just
good looks, then the card’s joke makes a lot more sense.

I think you may have something in this nipple thing. I have another
example to share.
I work at a large public library that has no dress code other than bland
“professional appearance” or “attire appropriate for the job” type
guidelines.
Some of the younger student types (male and female) like to push this to see
just how much they can get away with. I have seen all manner and color of
hair styles, the shortest skirts imagineable, piercings everywhere, tattoos,
shorts, female belly shirts and male tank tops.
One memorable young man wore a mohawk that reached 2 feet in the air with a
Dennis Rodman color scheme. Nothing was said until his tank tops got to the
point where a side view revealed his nipple rings. This seemed to be the
last straw and the poor lad was “counseled” and we were never again to see
his jewelry. Another young man showed up with just a vest, no shirt with a
hint of nipple showing from the side. He too was “counseled.” I, of
course, would never counsel a young man to wear more clothing, but then
again, I don’t supervise any of them either.
Apparently, new hires are also “counseled” about approriate attire, because
there has not been even a hint of exposed male nipple in a long time…
believe me I watch for this!

I had always equated the male nipple at about the same level of sexuality as
the female navel. Of course now we are seeing all kinds of female navels on
all kinds of bellies everywhere while the male nipple remains taboo. Is
this the result of female clothing liberation or the fact the st8 male
power structure enjoys provocative female attire but suppresses similar
male exposure? Trying to suppress latent homosexual feelings perhaps?
(How’s that for provocative?)

A recent study suggests that oral sex is unsafe.

The study involved exposing monkeys to SIV (an AIDS-like virus
from which HIV is probably derived). The experiments showed
that infection occurred orally with fewer virus particles than were
used in similar, controlled rectal experiments.

In effect, said Dr. Ruth M. Ruprecht, “this study shows that people
need to know that oral sex is not safe sex.”

The gay community should take this as a wake-up call that
conventional wisdom can sometimes be wrong. Regarding
oral sex, we cannot afford to wrong. Therefore we must
presume oral sex to be dangerous until proven otherwise.

An OUT article, published around two years ago, outlined a large study
which showed convincingly that a small but significant percentage of
people who *only* practiced oral sex seroconverted.

In fact, the study concluded (to the best of my recollection) that
having oral sex with a large number of infected partners will lead
to a non-trivial risk of contracting HIV infection, and that the only
sense in which the risk from sucking cock can be said to be “very low”
is when computed per exposure. Certainly it’s far less risky than
unprotected receptive anal intercourse, but the point was that if you
did it with enough partners your risk would be moderate. Another
disturbing finding was that stopping before orgasm did not
substantially reduce the risk of infection over swallowing.
Apparently, the infection is nearly as concentrated in pre-come, and
since the exposure is via the
gums and other mouth tissues, you’re actually exposed to pre-come for
much longer than to come (unless, of course, your partner is
particularly excited…)

The study also discovered a bias, or statistical “masking effect”
which caused the oral vector to escape detection up to that point.
In simple terms, whenever an interviewed HIV-positive person reported
having engaged in anal sex, that was declared to be the vector of the
(sexually-transmitted) infection, because it was already known to be
high-risk. These vectors were blamed even when other activities (e.g.
oral sex) were reported. Thus anal sex gets slightly more blame than
it deserves, and oral sex gets no blame at all. [The same situation
probably occurs with IV drug users who also engage in oral sex — it
is always blamed on the IV drug use even though a small percentage
might have been from the oral sex.) The problem is that apparently
nobody can figure out how much masking effect there is. So there’s
still legitimately the question of whether the risk is quite low or
just low, but it has been dishonest to day there is no risk for quite
some time now.

Well, no one CAN say–because that risk is dependent on many
variables. Presume, though, that we are talking about an HIV-negative
person sucking an HIV+ man’s cock. (The reverse, an HIV+ person
sucking an HIV- man’s cock may also have very minimal risk.)

The variables that can increase the risk for the cocksucker are

1) Tears/sores/bleeding gums in his mouth;
2) Tears/sores on the penis;
3)The man’s viral load–higher viral load will increase likelihood of
infection;
4) the number of times a guy goes down on HIV+ cock.
5) the extent of takingi in pre-cum or ejaculate–and again, how
frequently a person is exposed.

So the risk will increase with the greater frequency of exposure, with
these variables in mind. Thus, it’s a judgment call that each person
has to make. Erring on the side of safety is judicious but sucking
condoms ain’t exactly erotic (whereas anal sex with a condom can be).

Ultimately, though, stats go right the fuck out the window when it’s
your life. How many planes go down in a year? Doesn’t matter if
you’re on the one that crashes. Yet despite that, it doesn’t stop
people from flying!

Can anyone recommend the best type of exercise to tone following substantial
weight loss. Is running a good choice?

Running is an aerobic exercise that is efficient in increasing your
metabolism which stimulates greater caloric needs. As far as toning, you
should do some basic weight lifting exercises with low weight and high reps.
After a substantial weight loss, your muscles have had a lot taken out of
them, since it is very hard to lose fat without some muscle loss. Allow
yourself to return some muscle strength through weight training which will
help considerably in keeping the excess fat off.

1.) Running doesn’t do dick to increase your metabolism. You burn more
calories when you are actually in the act of running then you would if
you were sitting around, but your resting metabolism doesn’t increase.
See any well-run study on this topic in the last three years.

2.) Adding lean muscle by busting your ass on the weights is the only
way, short of drugs and drug-like supplements, to increase your resting
metabolism.

3.) Forget “low weight and high reps” for “toning”. Use good form to
make sure you develop the entire muscle, but use as heavy a weight as
you can handle for ~10 reps, and go to failure. If you have any kind of
decent genetics, you can add plenty of muscle over time without looking
bulky, if you use good form.

Any aerobic exercise will increase your metabolism while
your performing the exercise and for a few hours afterwards. It does not
increase your basal metabolic rate. But I never said that it did. Only
adding muscle will alter your BMR. I see that some people try to read
things into statements. I will try to be more specific next time.

This post (to me at least) is from a beginner. If you tell a newbie to bust
their butt and work to failure their first day, do you know what you get? A
person who never comes back to the gym. Then what good is that?

What do you call high reps? High reps to me is 10-15 reps. I’m not one who
supports the 50 rep, one set BS. Again, maybe I should be more specific.

Finally, just because my web site doesn’t meet your needs as an extremely
experienced weight lifter, doesn’t mean that it won’t help a beginner. I
have been subscribing to this NG for about 6 months and I believe most of
the posts come from those who are new to weight training. My web site and
my answers are geared for those people.

My clients (mostly teenagers from the Y and two local high schools) are not
looking to be professional body builders. As they start out, they don’t
need someone telling them to workout 6 times a week, work the muscles until
complete failure, take 23 different supplement pills, eat 8 times a day of
high protein and low fat, and don’t bother with any aerobic exercise. I
realize this is an exageration, but if they listened to all the advise the
experts are telling them, they would never step into a gym again.

The gym where I workout subscribes to the usual assortment of fitness
magazines. While drinking my protein shake I picked up the latest issue
(Nov 2001) of “Men’s Health”. “BOOST YOUR SEX APPEAL”, the teaser reads
on the front cover. My trainwreck fascination instantly took hold. I
opened to the table of contents:

“How to Impress a Woman – Take it from that gorgeous blonde at the bar
last night: You’ve got a few things to work on.”

“The Fertility Diet – Eat your way to a bigger family (and great sex,
too!)”

WHAT??! It looks like the breeders are taking over at “Men’s Health”. Not
that I will mourn the loss of a good magazine. No loss at all, actually.

When I started working out last year, it didn’t take me long to figure out
that MH was not worth much as a workout mag. No, you *can’t* have perfect
abs in just 4 weeks! The market competition among fitness magazines often
results in ridiculous claims on everyone’s front covers: PUT ON 50lbs OF
MUSCLE WHILE YOU SLEEP!

The allure of such articles is perfectly matched with the obsessive desire
of modern men (and women) to get something for nothing, to think they can
somehow cheat the system. There’s an old saying among con artists: You
can’t con an honest man. But I would hesitate to accuse MH of conning, or
their targeted readers of being dishonest. I think they’re just stupid.

I’m not sure I’ve ever met the prototypical MH reader. To be honest, I’m
not sure I ever want to meet him. Far from getting something for nothing,
these men seem to be killing themselves and getting nothing in return. MH
tries to guide them through their clueless, wretched lives by dishing out
advice on how to look and act.

The conceptual MH “man” must spend hours at the gym doing the latest
exercises. He shaves his chest. He dresses in the latest cool men’s
fashions. He knows how to eat right. His teeth are perfect. He drives
the right car. He gets that promotion at work. He gets the MH lifestyle
down to the letter. He has discovered his place in the world as a healthy
man.

And he STILL can’t seem to get laid.

Each issue of MH appears to have several articles on the subject. A visit
to the Men’s Health “bookstore” on the web reveals a curious number of
books on how to meet and fuck females. Is this really necessary? Surely
the smiling gentleman on this month’s front cover has no need for such
prosaic advice. So who are all these men that keep turning to MH and
asking, “Now what?” “OK, we’re in bed naked. She’s in my arms purring,
yielding. My dick is hard. Should I put it in?”

The current issue has the answer under the topic “Fatherhood”. The answer
is “Yes, put it in… AND IMPREGNATE HER, YOU SILLY FOOL!” Countless MH
readers have now tossed out the condoms and put “fatherhood” on their
calendars. The article’s title on page 82 says: “Want to be a dad, real
bad? Start cooking. Makes One Baby”

Here are the section headings in the article:

MAKE HER BREAKFAST IN BED
SNEAK IN A NOONER
SERVE DINNER FAMILY-STYLE
HAVE HER FOR DESSERT

Isn’t that noble? And the arousing photograph isn’t helping matters as I
hear the Siren’s seductive call.

Another article on page 114, also under the heading “Fatherhood”, compares
the fertility rates in different cities. Apparently Fresno has the
highest rate while Pittsburgh has the lowest. (This is because Fresno has
all those latinos and asians. Yes, it says that.) The article goes on:

“How men in Pittsburgh can catch up: Have sex – often. Then check your
medications.”

Woo hoo! I’m feeling more virile already. The message is clear,
fatherhood is about impregnating a hot babe. The ultimate sexual
fulfillment. After that, it’s back to the gym for those perfect abs.