Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Health : The Atlantic: Research Is Only Foolproof With Female Scientists

Health : The Atlantic
Health news and analysis on The Atlantic. 
More Tickets. Better Service. Lower Prices.

Buy or sell tickets for concerts, sports, or theater. You'll find a huge and affordable selection at Ticket Liquidator!
From our sponsors
thumbnail Research Is Only Foolproof With Female Scientists
Apr 30th 2014, 17:03, by Judith Ohikuare

In the field of pain studies, urban legend had it that the presence of experimenters decreased pain behavior in mice and rats, and that more pain would be recorded if experimenters left the room.

"It was sort of lab lore. A thing that people whispered about sometimes in meetings," says Dr. Jeffrey Mogil, chair of the Pain Genetics Lab at McGill University. "After hearing this story on and off for 15 years I finally said, 'Listen, if you think this is true, let's do it properly and see if it is.'"

Stress is known to have an analgesic, or pain inhibiting effect. So for the first experiment, Mogil and his team injected lab mice with an inflammatory agent and recorded the pain responses with an experimenter present in the room, and the mice's responses when the experimenter was absent. In subsequent experiments, the experimenter was replaced with t-shirts worn by human males and females, as well as bedding material from the mice's own cages and from different animals including other mice, guinea pigs, rats, cats, and dogs—both castrated and "gonadally intact."

The results were a "huge shock," says Mogil. The researchers' suspicions were confirmed, but only halfway: Experimenters did decrease pain in mice—but only male experimenters.

As noted in their findings, which were published in Nature Methods this week, male experimenters and olfactory stimuli produced no effect and neutralized the effect of male stimuli when presented together. On average, the pain response in the mice decreased a significant 36 percent after the introduction of stimuli from male experimenters and un-castrated male animals, and the effect proved to be "exactly as stressful" as two comparison conditions—a three-minute swim in cold water and 15 minutes of restraint in a tube.

"We weren't surprised that those [comparison conditions] would produce stress because we knew they would, but we were surprised that the simple presence of male olfactory stimuli could produce stresses of an equivalent level," Mogil says. "It's quite impressive. This is a very robust amount of stress to not know about until 2014."

He speculates that since bedding from stranger mice produces the effect, what causes the stress is the thought of imminent territorial aggression from males in general, rather than the threat of predation from human males specifically. "What they're afraid of is strange male mice," he explains. "It's just that other male mammals, including us, smell like male mice."

Mogil's theory might also explain why the presence of female researchers and olfactory stimuli defuse the effect of stress-induced analgesia: If the mice smell a mixed-sexed group, the "strange" male mouse is likely to be within a group or with its family, and much less likely to be aggressive or defending territory. The scientist has received a grant to observe whether the same effect is true for people. He believes that it will be, however, since the stress disappears once the animal convinces itself there's no actual danger, "humans would be able to do that fairly quickly"—and any observable stress response would likely be much smaller and shorter-lived.

"A lot of people may interpret this study as bad news that animal testing doesn't work or can fatally confound [research], but I don't look at it that way," says Mogil. "I think a stronger case can be made that, actually, this is good news for animal research."

Growing concerns about the ability to replicate the results of animal testing and the occurrence of false positives may be assuaged by the premise of this new explanation: That it isn't about one lab being right and another wrong, but that both labs are right given their particular environmental context.

"The biological phenomena under study are interacting with these laboratory environmental factors that we don't know about. That means that the results are true, but are just more complicated than we currently understand," says Mogil. "I've seen how much inertia there is in science, but if we started to pay attention to this sort of thing, then we would understand what factors actually matter, and that would make research going forward stronger."

In this case, while the sex effect on mice does go away after extended exposure to male olfactory stimuli, Mogil understands that it is unreasonable to mandate that a female researcher always be present in the room, or even to ask male researchers to sit in a room with mice or rats for 30 to 45 minutes before testing. Instead, he suggests the simple solution of including information about the researchers' sex in their methods section.

"Now that people know this, they can go back and look over their old data and hopefully be able to explain why, for example, they had an effect when with one student, but when a new student took over the project, the effect went away; or why they weren't able to replicate the lab in their field in another city," Mogil says. "I'm hoping that this will solve some existing mysteries."








You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Health : The Atlantic: Why We Unfriend

Health : The Atlantic
Health news and analysis on The Atlantic. 
More Tickets. Better Service. Lower Prices.

Buy or sell tickets for concerts, sports, or theater. You'll find a huge and affordable selection at Ticket Liquidator!
From our sponsors
thumbnail Why We Unfriend
Apr 30th 2014, 15:00, by Olga Khazan

In the 1997 movie Romy and Michele's High School Reunion, the two title characters, worried that they haven't done anything noteworthy to share at said reunion, decide instead to lie and claim they invented Post-it notes.

Their story quickly unravels, of course, but had the movie been made a decade later, even the very concept of the ruse would have been impossible. Everyone would have known about Romy's daily slog at the Jaguar dealership through Facebook.

Or would they?

The ebb and flow of Facebook friendships has become fruitful territory for social scientists in recent years. At least 63 percent of people report having unfriended someone on Facebook, but what prompts these digital rejections can tell us a lot about both the nature of real-life friendship and about how we manage our online personalities.

Past research by Christopher Sibona of the University of Colorado Denver found that the four most common reasons for unfriending on Facebook were: "frequent/unimportant posts, polarizing posts (politics and religion), inappropriate posts (sexist, racist remarks), and everyday life posts (child, spouse, eating habits, etc.) and in that order of frequency."

But this time, Sibona sought to determine who, exactly, these jilted Face-friends are. And are we more willing to tolerate a sexist quip from an elderly relative than we are from a kickball teammate?

In 2010, he contacted 7,327 Twitter users, figuring if they were active on that, much smaller, social network, they were probably familiar with the larger one, too. He distributed online surveys to those who tweeted back.

"A total of 2,865 surveys were started and 1,552 were completed; 54 percent of those who started the survey completed the survey," he wrote.

The survey asked the participants to identify the last person they unfriended on Facebook, and to classify the nature of the friendship.

Christopher Sibona

It turns out, these ex-friends were most likely to be a high-school buddy, a work colleague, a "friend of a friend," or a category Sibona called "Other": "didn't know her," "former student," or, ominously, "enemy."

High-school and work friends were also two commonly cited categories of people the participants said they had recently been unfriended by.

High-school friends were the most likely category to both unfriend and be unfriended. The nature of the offending status updates, though, differed among categories of friends.

In the case of high-school friends, the turn-off was likeliest to be a pattern of frequent, polarizing updates. There are only so many grammatically incorrect truther rants one cares to read in the Starbucks line, after all.

"The results show that survey respondents who unfriended high school friend types indicated that the person they unfriended posted statistically significantly more often about polarizing topics and frequent/unimportant topics than friends who were not from high school," Sibona wrote in the study, recently presented at the Hawaii International Conference on System Science.

Work friends, meanwhile, were more likely to be unfriended for their real-life behaviors. (However, perhaps the high-school friends would have had just as many opportunities to be annoying in person, if they didn't all live in Toledo.)

"The general term of friend on social networking sites can be misleading because a given dyad does not always represent friendship in the common sense," Sibona concludes.

Indeed, as this and other studies show, "friend," in the Facebook sense, represents people who say things we want to hear, for as long as we wish to hear them.








You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Health : The Atlantic: The Surprising Birthplace of the First Sperm Bank

Health : The Atlantic
Health news and analysis on The Atlantic. 
More Tickets. Better Service. Lower Prices.

Buy or sell tickets for concerts, sports, or theater. You'll find a huge and affordable selection at Ticket Liquidator!
From our sponsors
thumbnail The Surprising Birthplace of the First Sperm Bank
Apr 28th 2014, 15:59, by Alexis C. Madrigal

In a country scandalized and outraged so easily, the sperm bank has been naturalized. To say one works at a sperm bank would cause no more of a commotion than to say one works at an investment bank, surely.

But it was not always so.

There had to be a first sperm bank, and those early bankers felt the excitement and fear of the new.

The year was 1952. They were two doctors in Iowa. And they had figured out how to freeze sperm, thaw it back to active life, and use it to help families to conceive.

The year after they began, a nationwide poll found 28 percent of Americans approved of artificial insemination. That winter, three babies born from thawed sperm were born.

* * *

If at first Iowa seems like a surprising place for the technique to get its start, consider this: humans are animals, too, and Iowa was a hotbed of animal research, particularly in the realm of dairy cows, which farmers had been artificially inseminating since the 1930s.

The bull-semen market was already large—and by the early '50s, up to three-quarters of breeders were using sperm from champion bulls. There was a big incentive for researchers to experiment with ways of spreading champion sperm around as widely and for as long as possible. Plus, with bulls, the stakes were lower.

The idea of assisted reproduction in humans elicited fear and skepticism. Such technologies weren't yet seen as a tool that would enhance reproductive choices, but as a possible threat that might be wielded by the state. 

Consider how writer George Orwell imagined the future in Nineteen Eighty-Four

"Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother."

While Orwell and others may have worried about the social implications of reproductive technologies for humans, animal researchers were celebrating the genetic improvement of their herds as reflected in better milk production. It might have been unnatural, but it wasn't unholy.

So farm researchers became the leading edge of biological research into reproduction. And one thing they'd discovered was simple and amazing: sperm are rugged little biological machines that will always, no matter where and no matter what, look for an egg to fertilize.

A champion bull having his semen collected. (Reuters)

By the early 1950s, British scientists had successfully frozen sperm and inseminated a cow, leading to the birth of a little calf they named Frosty.

And it was about this time that a graduate student named Jerome Sherman began tinkering with freezing his own sperm, "testing freezing protocols in search of a technique that would maximize the percentage of viable sperm," according to Northeastern law professor and historian of science Kara Swanson's fascinating paper, The Birth of the Sperm Bank, from which this account is largely drawn.

There were three main variables that Sherman optimized by building on existing work in animals: how slowly to cool down or heat up the sperm, how much semen to use, and what kinds of additives to mix into the solution.

It's not hard to test for viability, after all. After thawing out the sperm, Sherman could simply look at them under a microscope and count how many were moving well. To this day, visual inspection remains the dominant way of evaluating sperm quality.

Sherman had been more focused on freezing kidney tissue as part of his academic work, but after meeting Raymond Bunge, a urologist out to make a name for himself, his sperm-freezing hobby became his actual scholarly job.

Their first paper together describes a technique that seemed to keep the sperm swimming. Add some glycerol—a sugary chemical sometimes used in low-fat cookies—then slowly bring down the temperature. They published their findings in the Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine.

By the time the paper came out, three women had been inseminated with the previously frozen sperm. Bunge was on the staff at Iowa's fertility clinic, and so within months of Sherman's experiments beginning, the duo had real patients on whom they could test the new procedure.

By July, three pregnancies were in progress: they were to be the first children conceived with sperm that had been frozen and thawed. The two scientists had quickly translated animal breeding science into human reproductive medicine.

They tried to publish the results in the journal Science, the most prestigious American publication, but we're turned down until "the products of the conception have been observed." That is to say, they'd proven that frozen sperm could fertilize an egg and cause a pregnancy, but they didn't really know if the freezing process would do something unexpected in the reproductive process. In other words, they weren't sure how the babies would turn out. They X-rayed the fetal skeletons—a common procedure at the time—and everything seemed okay.

So they sent their paper to Nature in Britain, where it was accepted. The article appeared in October 1953. The related press release was titled, "Women Pregnant by Frozen Human Sperm."

That announcement eventually caught the attention of the New York Times, among others. The Times noted that it was an unprecedented event, but that "frozen cells have been used widely in animal husbandry," and that prize bull semen had been "flown as far as Argentina." 

Back in Iowa, as the researchers waited for the first baby to be born, letters began to pour in. Bunge recalls receiving notes from people who called him "a scientific monster, un-Christian, and a disgrace to medicine."

In late December, the first baby arrived. At first all seemed well, but soon the baby was found to be blind in one eye. Then the child started having seizures. Bunge wrote to colleagues all over the country trying to determine if the frozen sperm had played a role in the problems. After several months, the diagnosis came in: Toxoplasmosis, a parasite the mother contracted during pregnancy. (Pregnant women today are cautioned to avoid cat's litter boxes and gardening to prevent exposure to the parasite.) In their paper about the frozen-sperm children—the others were born shortly thereafter—all of them were were described as normal.

* * *

Bunge, at least, was put off by the negative attention that the work drew, especially after a sensationalistic article ran in the local Cedar Rapids Gazette (Headline: "Fatherhood After Death Has Now Been Proved Possible.") It wasn't easy pioneering new reproductive technologies in the heartland. Some sperm was kept frozen at the University of Iowa for years afterward, but large-scale use of it or its sale to consumers never developed. 

Sherman remained enthusiastic. He moved on to the University of Arkansas and was great promoter of cryobiology and reproductive technology. Despite bad publicity and continuing problems with frozen sperm, the process gradually became normalized as more and more babies were born with their aid.

Social acceptance came in part with the emergence of HIV in the mid-1980s. Because HIV infections sometimes took months to show up on the tests of the time, doctors realized they could effectively quarantine sperm by freezing them, giving them time to retest donors for HIV before using that sperm. 

Looking back at the Cedar Gazette article and others, what was most fascinating to people at the time wasn't that sperm might be donated, sold, and bought, but that fathering a child might be possible after death. While the possibility of posthumous conception remains with us—and even went before the Supreme Court—it is no longer the focus in thinking about fertilization treatments. The really wild possibilities have never come to pass. And although commercial sperm banks advertise certain genetic traits, there is no library of Great Men to choose from. Humans are not dairy cattle and we do not have anyone optimizing us for production, or anything else.

Instead of using assisted reproductive technologies as Orwell (or Aldous Huxley) imagined, we've deployed them in line with the values of freedom and autonomy, not improvement and optimization. We've used assisted reproductive technology to extend the possibilities of parenthood to gay, lesbian, and single people under the banner of reproductive choice. 

But it did not have to be this way, and it's important to remember that.

"Assisted reproductive technologies demand as much social as technological innovation to make sense of the biological and social relationships that [assisted reproductive technologies] forge and deny," anthropologist Charis Thompson has noted. That is to say, technologies like sperm banking, artificial insemination, and in-vitro fertilization themselves contained multiple possibilities, and it was how they unfolded in our culture that prevented the totalitarian future our ancestors feared.  

"The technology that enables today's sperm banks was developed in the 1950s," Northeastern's Swanson writes. "What has changed in the intervening half century is the legal, social, and political context for using frozen semen, not human biology."


You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

CNN.com - Health: 10 healthy eating apps

CNN.com - Health
CNN.com delivers up-to-the-minute news and information on the latest top stories, weather, entertainment, politics and more. 
Host Unlimited Domains

Unlimited Domains, Unlimited Disk Space and Unlimited Transfer For One Low Price.
From our sponsors
10 healthy eating apps
Apr 30th 2014, 12:44

I've always known that dozens of fantastic programs were waiting for me beneath that little blue App Store icon, and one of my resolutions this year was to start taking advantage of them.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

CNN.com - Health: 10 healthy eating apps

CNN.com - Health
CNN.com delivers up-to-the-minute news and information on the latest top stories, weather, entertainment, politics and more. 
Host Unlimited Domains

Unlimited Domains, Unlimited Disk Space and Unlimited Transfer For One Low Price.
From our sponsors
10 healthy eating apps
Apr 30th 2014, 12:46

Thinking about buying organic? Hunting for safe seafood? Nutritionist Cynthia Sass shares her favorite healthy apps.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Health : The Atlantic: Soylent, Meal Replacements, and the Hurdle of Boredom

Health : The Atlantic
Health news and analysis on The Atlantic. 
More Tickets. Better Service. Lower Prices.

Buy or sell tickets for concerts, sports, or theater. You'll find a huge and affordable selection at Ticket Liquidator!
From our sponsors
thumbnail Soylent, Meal Replacements, and the Hurdle of Boredom
Apr 30th 2014, 13:00, by Julie Beck

King William I, or William the Conqueror, was, by all accounts, a very fat man. Some say that in 1087, he decided he was too fat to ride his horse. So he went on a liquid diet, eating nothing and drinking only alcohol for days. I guess technically it was a liquor diet. No word on how well it worked, but he did ride his horse again the following year.

The phrase "liquid diet" typically connotes weight loss, an abstention from food to atone for eating too much of it earlier. Juice cleanses, Slimfast come to mind. Above all, something temporary. Once you've cleansed or slimmed or atoned, you'll be back on the solid stuff. Plus, those diets aren't usually very successful, as Robin Kanarek, interim dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition at Tufts University, points out. "Once you go off the diet, you tend to gain all the weight back," she says. And it's more difficult to stick to them, because it's boring to have nothing but the same taste, the same texture, every meal.

There are some liquid diets with intentions other than dropping pounds, of course. Hospitals put people on liquid diets before surgeries, to keep them hydrated, but those diets are really just a stopgap—they don't provide all the nutrition a person really needs. Then there are meal-replacement beverages, like Carnation Instant Breakfasts. Carnation's website promises the shakes will deliver "balanced breakfast nutrition," but I doubt anyone lives entirely off of them.

The most recent and extreme entry into the canon of liquid diets is Rob Rhinehart's Soylent—a beverage made of nutrients (protein, carbohydrates, vitamins, etc.) in their raw form. He found himself exhausted by his constant need to prepare and consume food the traditional way, so he invented the drink and tested it on himself, to see if he could totally replace food. He wrote about the experience on his blog, and the Internet lost its collective mind. When Rhinehart put together a Kickstarter last year with the goal of manufacturing Soylent, it was completely funded within two hours. Now, after working with RFI Ingredients to tweak the recipe and get it ready for production, it's ready to ship. The first batch, for people who contributed to the Kickstarter, started shipping last week.

Its healthiness is up for debate. In the FAQ section of the Soylent website, the creators answer the "Is it safe?" question with: "Everything in Soylent is GRAS (generally recognized as safe) by the FDA. The founders and scores of DIYers have been living on Soylent for months and there is much evidence that is considerably healthier than a typical diet."

Kanarek says that some studies have found that absorption of nutrients such as omega-3 fatty acids is better when participants get them from food than from supplements. "There are other things in those foods besides pure vitamins and minerals," she says. "I think the problem [with Soylent] is we won't know the answer until people have done it for some period of time."

Marcia Pelchat, an associate member at the Monell Chemical Sense Center, also reserves judgment. "I would want to run a clinical trial before saying whether it's good one way or the other," she says. "It'll be interesting to see."

If Soylent is all it claims to be, it could be a big deal. More than just serving as a quick fix for people too busy to make dinner, it could have implications for world hunger and nutrition, especially if it's cheap and easy to manufacture. (Rhinehart says that now, Soylent provides "three calories per penny," and they hope to lower the price from here.) But this is all if—and it's a big if—people actually want to drink it.

My own Soylent experience was less than ideal. I lived on a homemade DIY version for a week last year, and while I lost three pounds and never felt hungry, I found the drink distasteful and occasionally gastrointestinally challenging. (To be fair, this was a homemade version, so the fault's not totally with Rhinehart et al. on that. The manufactured version is certainly different, and Rhinehart has long claimed the drink to be "delicious," and that he feels great while living on it). It kept me nourished, and didn't cause any lasting harm.

During my Soylent adventure, I spoke with science writer Mary Roach, author of Gulp: Adventures on the Alimentary Canal, who seemed skeptical that the beverage would find a wide audience.

"We, as humans, seem to have this need to chew," Roach told me then. "Animals and humans like to chew; they like to destroy things with their mouths. It's kind of a basic pleasure."

NASA discovered as much when it tested a milkshake-esque liquid diet at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in 1964 (astronauts, presumably, being even more inconvenienced by food than Rhinehart). "The milkshake diet was unbelievably unpopular," Roach said. "The subjects were emptying it under the floorboards of the space cabin simulator. It was that unappealing."

Soylent is not entirely unlike a milkshake. Without added flavoring, the version I had tasted yeasty and chemically, like a vanilla milkshake that traveled through a wormhole and came out wrong. Its taste has also been described as "unsweetened custard," "slightly sweet and earthy with a strong yeasty aftertaste," and "chalky." Rhinehart says it's "more sweet than anything."

Humans, generally, don't like bland, monotonous food. "The mouth really does get bored," Roach said. "I can't think of anything more depressing than living on a milkshake texture."

In a 2000 study on food cravings, Pelchat examined the effects of a "nutritionally adequate, liquid, sweet, monotonous diet" (hm, what does that sound like?) on young and elderly adults' cravings. She found that while people's liking for the diet didn't change significantly over five days, the young adults did start to crave more savory foods, or entrees. Their cravings for sweet foods were the same both on and off the diet. Elderly adults seemed more okay with the monotony, and didn't have significant changes in cravings.

"Older participants didn't complain as much as the younger people did about a chemical or vitamin taste," Pechat adds. One danger of older adults' willingness to go along with boring diets is that they might not get adequate nutrition—Soylent, in these cases, could be a boon.

"Society has been going in the direction of convenience foods and healthy meal substitutes, protein bars and things like that," Pelchat says. "So I guess it's not totally surprising that somebody would want to go one step further." She notes that while she's found in her studies that monotonous diets tend to induce cravings, it may be different if someone chooses to live on Soylent, as opposed to being told to drink the same beverage for five days for a study.

The monotony effect extends beyond just liquids—solid meal replacements tend to meet with similarly lukewarm responses. Pelchat says that servicemen eating the U.S. military's "Meals Ready to Eat" (MRE) rations sometimes had trouble taking in enough calories because, even though there were different options, there wasn't a large variety. Early this year, the Department of Defense awarded $16 million to Louisiana State University to support research to improve soldier health and make the MREs more palatable. A boring, non-military diet could have bring similar problems—a 2011 study published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that daily exposure to the same food caused women to eat fewer calories.

Taking this to an extreme, some prisons serve a bland "nutraloaf" as punishment for unruly inmates. While prison officials claim it provides all necessary nutrients, NPR reports that the boredom of having it for every meal causes some prisoners to stop eating altogether, which is why some human rights advocates say it's an unethical form of punishment. Chicago Magazine dining critic Jeff Ruby once tried the loaf at Cook County Jail, and described the taste as "blank, as though someone physically removed all hints of flavor."

Pelchat says she and her team have done some experimenting with creating a loaf of their own—a "slightly sweet, slightly savory cheese bread" that also included vegetables, protein powder, and milk powder. It was intended not as a punishment though, just an attempt to create a nutritionally-complete food source.

"It wasn't actually horrible," she says. "If we put the freshly baked loaf out at work, people did eat all of it."

Obviously, Rhinehart's gotten a lot of interest in his idea, mostly from "younger, educated males," he says. Men like himself, who don't want to spend time on food. Maybe they don't get that much pleasure from it to begin with, and don't mind the monotony as much. Pelchat says in another study she did, she asked people if a pill were invented that contained all the nutrients they needed, would they take it? Though most people, even picky eaters, said they'd stick with food, "some people said, 'Yes, it's a big pain to make food, and I just eat to maintain myself. I don't enjoy it that much, so sure,'" Pelchat says.

It's not hard to imagine situations in which Soylent would be very convenient. Perhaps for some people, Soylent could serve as a healthier fast food—something to grab when you're running late instead of going through the McDonald's drive through. Or backpackers could bring the powder and oil with them to mix quickly while hiking. "Another interesting piece of food trivia we've come across is that people are more likely to eat the same breakfast every day than to [do that] for lunch or dinner," Pelchat adds.

It's the thought of replacing most meals with Soylent that seems unlikely to catch on.

"Based on everything that I know about variety and crunch and the human mouth and the human psyche, I wouldn't think it would be a tremendously wide-reaching or long-lasting fad," Roach said. "But who knows?"

"I'd rather get takeout," Pelchat says.








You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions