Old Mother Hen says "Don't eat between meals!"
This "eat lots of small meals all day" business? For the birds! Three meals a day is plenty - just like your mom (or grandma) used to
say. Even fewer might be better. Think insulin and saliva, i.e. weight
and teeth.
First insulin. When you eat, your pancreas sends out a surge of insulin to take care of the glucose in your blood. Insulin tells your body to store sugars as fats. The more insulin you send through your bloodstream, the more fat your body wants to keep on hand.
If you go several hours between meals, you have a chance to switch from insulin-propelled fat storage to fat burning. This is normal and healthy, and the fat is after all there to be burned as fuel.
If your insulin levels never drop, i.e. because you are eating every two or three hours, then you stay in fat storage mode and never let your body access those stored calories. That makes it much harder to lose weight or even just to avoid gaining. (Of course, some sources claiming that eating just one meal a day causes high insulin levels. Not sure how that works, but it buys into what fasting proponents consider the myths of fasting and a misunderstanding of the thermic effect of food.)
Lots of experts insist that if you go too long between meals, you will get so hungry that you will lose all self-control and wolf down anything in sight in huge quantities. OMH wonders if there is empirical evidence to support that claim. There is certainly evidence contradicting it. ("We conclude that increasing MF does not promote greater body weight loss under the conditions described in the present study.") Nutritionists are now suggesting that there is no good evidence to support the recommendation of several small meals a day, and point out that that practice specifically curtails fasting duration - and fasting has benefits for most healthy patients. Frequent meals also apparently cause higher levels of inflammation.
Certainly plenty of people manage to skip meals all the time without turning into ravening barbarians. Muslims fast every day for a month every year. Christians and Jews have traditionally followed fasting protocols without ill effect, and without losing all self-control. Skipping breakfast is not bad for weight loss, and in fact that it can HELP people lose weight.
Second, saliva. Saliva remineralizes tooth enamel. Right after eating, mouth pH drops, and acidic environments cause demineralization. Snacking throughout the day is particularly bad for teeth because it keeps the mouth acidic for long periods. It takes a good two hours after eating for the mouth to restore the enamel after eating or drinking.
Constant snacking = environment that contributes to tooth decay.
Why, oh why, then, do the "experts" tell us to eat all the darn time? Why are preschoolers issued permanent snack cups and sippy cups? Why do first graders get a mid-morning snack before their 11:00 lunch? Why do dieticians insist that "grazing" was the way we were "designed to eat"
? (Designed? By whom?)
OMH wishes she knew. Could it be big sugar, big food, and the nefarious conspiracy to get people to eat lots and lots of carbs? Mebbe. What is certainly true is that people do not have to eat all the time, and they certainly don't need lots of carbs to "keep up their blood sugar."
Grandma knew what she was talking about.
Monday, June 12, 2017
I can skip breakfast!
In my quest to maintain a desirable weight without having to track every calorie I consume, I've been experimenting with a low carb high fat (LCHF) diet. (The Diet Doctor has lots of good information about this, along with nice recipes.) Do I want to do this my whole life? Well, I don't know; I do love the bread in France. But it seems to work, and goodness knows it would be nice to have a way to quickly shed those pounds that sometimes accumulate during travel or holidays.
To make it even easier - I hope! - I've just started tossing in intermittent fasting. This has become a thing of the past couple of years, with lots of books tossed into the ring. They all say basically the same thing - fasting is a really good way to lose weight.
Dr. Jason Fung's book The Complete Guide to Fasting has a really good explanation of how fasting works. In essence, fasting reduces insulin levels. Insulin is what stores away sugar as fat. Insulin rises after eating, and then drops several hours later. When insulin levels are high, you store fat. When they are low, you burn it as fuel. The longer you go between meals, the longer insulin levels stay low and the longer you are a fat-burning machine.
He debunks lots of the myths about fasting, in particular the notion that not eating will cause your metabolism to drop. Apparently that does not happen; reducing calories will drop your metabolism, but irregular fasting won't.
My biggest worry was that I wouldn't be able to do it. All my life I've heard that we have to eat three meals a day, plus snacks in between. Nutritionists still tell us to eat frequently to "keep up our blood sugar." Back in law school I worked with a trainer using an adapted Zone diet, and she had me eating three meals plus two snacks every day - with carefully balanced carbs, fats, and protein, and every single bit recorded and added up to hit a calorie count around 1630. It worked - I lost a pound a week easily - but was it really necessary?
I really don't want to have to track every calorie. Been there, done that, it worked, but I just don't feel like it.
So... a month ago I started skipping breakfast occasionally. Just to see if I could. It was a leap of faith, I tell you. After all, my whole life I've heard that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. It kick-starts your metabolism! Skipping breakfast could lead to a dead brain, low energy, weight gain - who knows?
And the thing is, I used to always be hungry in the morning. I WANTED to eat breakfast.
I know lots of people supposedly are not hungry first thing. It would be nice to be one of them.
But Dr. Fung says you can "fast" by drinking coffee with a teaspoon or so of cream in it. So I tried that one day. I got up, drank coffee with cream, and then went to a 10:00 yoga class. I was shaky, but I didn't die. At lunchtime I ate a no-carb lunch. And that was that.
So I kept doing it. The mornings when I went to yoga at 9 or 10, I just had coffee, and then lunch. We eat dinner pretty late, around 8:45, but that still makes for a 15 or 16-hour fast, especially if I can push lunch til 1.
And you know what? It's okay! Doing yoga has gotten easier. Some days I try to fit in an hour of walking before lunch too - really maximize the fat-burning machine benefits, ya know! The keto crowd insists that we can use our stored fat as fuel - and my goodness, isn't that what it's for? Even the leanest of us supposedly has enough fat to power a marathon. So I should be able to manage an hour of hot yoga and a 3.5-mile walk without breakfast.
And I can. It's not even hard. I don't feel weak or shaky. I'm not even hungry much of the time.
I find it impossible to believe that I'm in some way harming myself by skipping breakfast.
Oh, and the mornings I don't do yoga? I eat bacon and eggs. It's awesome.
To make it even easier - I hope! - I've just started tossing in intermittent fasting. This has become a thing of the past couple of years, with lots of books tossed into the ring. They all say basically the same thing - fasting is a really good way to lose weight.
Dr. Jason Fung's book The Complete Guide to Fasting has a really good explanation of how fasting works. In essence, fasting reduces insulin levels. Insulin is what stores away sugar as fat. Insulin rises after eating, and then drops several hours later. When insulin levels are high, you store fat. When they are low, you burn it as fuel. The longer you go between meals, the longer insulin levels stay low and the longer you are a fat-burning machine.
He debunks lots of the myths about fasting, in particular the notion that not eating will cause your metabolism to drop. Apparently that does not happen; reducing calories will drop your metabolism, but irregular fasting won't.
My biggest worry was that I wouldn't be able to do it. All my life I've heard that we have to eat three meals a day, plus snacks in between. Nutritionists still tell us to eat frequently to "keep up our blood sugar." Back in law school I worked with a trainer using an adapted Zone diet, and she had me eating three meals plus two snacks every day - with carefully balanced carbs, fats, and protein, and every single bit recorded and added up to hit a calorie count around 1630. It worked - I lost a pound a week easily - but was it really necessary?
I really don't want to have to track every calorie. Been there, done that, it worked, but I just don't feel like it.
So... a month ago I started skipping breakfast occasionally. Just to see if I could. It was a leap of faith, I tell you. After all, my whole life I've heard that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. It kick-starts your metabolism! Skipping breakfast could lead to a dead brain, low energy, weight gain - who knows?
And the thing is, I used to always be hungry in the morning. I WANTED to eat breakfast.
I know lots of people supposedly are not hungry first thing. It would be nice to be one of them.
But Dr. Fung says you can "fast" by drinking coffee with a teaspoon or so of cream in it. So I tried that one day. I got up, drank coffee with cream, and then went to a 10:00 yoga class. I was shaky, but I didn't die. At lunchtime I ate a no-carb lunch. And that was that.
So I kept doing it. The mornings when I went to yoga at 9 or 10, I just had coffee, and then lunch. We eat dinner pretty late, around 8:45, but that still makes for a 15 or 16-hour fast, especially if I can push lunch til 1.
And you know what? It's okay! Doing yoga has gotten easier. Some days I try to fit in an hour of walking before lunch too - really maximize the fat-burning machine benefits, ya know! The keto crowd insists that we can use our stored fat as fuel - and my goodness, isn't that what it's for? Even the leanest of us supposedly has enough fat to power a marathon. So I should be able to manage an hour of hot yoga and a 3.5-mile walk without breakfast.
And I can. It's not even hard. I don't feel weak or shaky. I'm not even hungry much of the time.
I find it impossible to believe that I'm in some way harming myself by skipping breakfast.
Oh, and the mornings I don't do yoga? I eat bacon and eggs. It's awesome.
Friday, February 17, 2017
Tennis Elbow - Quick Fix
Tennis elbow is a miserable thing. Old Mother Hen can tell you - it's really painful and quite debilitating, and it can be the devil to get rid of.
Or at least it used to be. Now there's a quick fix all over the Internet, and because Old Mother Hen believes in getting down to business, here it is: buy this exercise band. Use it to do this exercise. Called the Tyler Twist, this exercise creates an eccentric contraction on the muscles. It really works.
You feel tennis elbow on the outside of the elbow, from the bony protuberance at the top down into the forearm. Gripping anything with your hand is painful. The injury itself hurts like bejesus if you press on it, which makes sense, since it is actually a tear of the tendon that attaches the muscles of the forearm to the elbow.
Doctors call tennis elbow lateral epicondylitis.
Old Mother Hen has had tennis elbow twice, left elbow (from hitting tons of golf balls but mostly the ground at the driving range after her father died) and right elbow (falling out of side plank doing hung-over yoga). (Never from tennis. Old Mother Hen has not played tennis since she was a young spring chicken at Duke in a different century.) (And never from overuse, even if it supposedly is an overuse injury. Sudden trauma - like repeatedly whacking the ground hard with a golf club - can do the job too.)
The first bout of tennis elbow lasted for six months or more. Waiting for it to get better did not work. A hand doctor had much useful advice on golf swing and grip, but nothing to say about fixing tennis elbow. He said it would go away after a while. It did not. (He also said titanium clubs would not have helped.) After another month of pain, I went to physical therapy. That consisted of weeks of hour-long sessions of cross-tissue massage (painful), TENS machines (painful and shocky), and ultrasound (just boring), plus numerous exercises with rubber tubing. This eventually did the job.
Fortunately the Internet evolves, so when OMH hurt her elbow in yoga class, the world brain was there to help. Also, you can buy all sorts of things online. A pressure band did little or nothing to improve the pain, though it looked awesome, but the Tyler Twist did the job.
Or at least it used to be. Now there's a quick fix all over the Internet, and because Old Mother Hen believes in getting down to business, here it is: buy this exercise band. Use it to do this exercise. Called the Tyler Twist, this exercise creates an eccentric contraction on the muscles. It really works.
You feel tennis elbow on the outside of the elbow, from the bony protuberance at the top down into the forearm. Gripping anything with your hand is painful. The injury itself hurts like bejesus if you press on it, which makes sense, since it is actually a tear of the tendon that attaches the muscles of the forearm to the elbow.
Doctors call tennis elbow lateral epicondylitis.
Old Mother Hen has had tennis elbow twice, left elbow (from hitting tons of golf balls but mostly the ground at the driving range after her father died) and right elbow (falling out of side plank doing hung-over yoga). (Never from tennis. Old Mother Hen has not played tennis since she was a young spring chicken at Duke in a different century.) (And never from overuse, even if it supposedly is an overuse injury. Sudden trauma - like repeatedly whacking the ground hard with a golf club - can do the job too.)
The first bout of tennis elbow lasted for six months or more. Waiting for it to get better did not work. A hand doctor had much useful advice on golf swing and grip, but nothing to say about fixing tennis elbow. He said it would go away after a while. It did not. (He also said titanium clubs would not have helped.) After another month of pain, I went to physical therapy. That consisted of weeks of hour-long sessions of cross-tissue massage (painful), TENS machines (painful and shocky), and ultrasound (just boring), plus numerous exercises with rubber tubing. This eventually did the job.
Fortunately the Internet evolves, so when OMH hurt her elbow in yoga class, the world brain was there to help. Also, you can buy all sorts of things online. A pressure band did little or nothing to improve the pain, though it looked awesome, but the Tyler Twist did the job.
Monday, February 13, 2017
Innovations in Toothpaste - from Asia!
Toothpaste and dental technology are moving fast, and U.S. drugstores can't keep up!
Thanks to Amazon, Old Mother Hen has discovered the latest dental miracle from Japan: nano-hydroxyapatite. Where we have fluoride, they have hydroxyapatite, which could be even better at fixing enamel. (Fluoride isn't the only element involved in enamel; you also need calcium and phosphate ions, which are part of the hydroxyapatite (Ca10 (PO4)6 (OH)2) molecule.) Apagard Premio toothpaste contains this miracle ingredient. Reviewers rave about it filling in grooves in veneers (can that happen?), curing severe sensitivity, and generally being an awesome toothpaste. (Which it should be, at that price.)
Japan is apparently on the forefront of dental technologies. Japanese dentists have used silver diamine fluoride to treat cavities for years, instead of the American drill-and-fill technique. Though it has drawbacks (blackening teeth?), for back teeth it's a much less destructive way to kill bacteria and stop decay. It could even be a caries "silver-fluoride bullet"!
Old Mother Hen worked in Japan for two years in the early 1990s, and back then she saw lots of evidence that Japan was NOT on the forefront of dental technology. Or at least not all Japanese people were benefiting from it. Decay like this was alarmingly common. It would seem that things can change over 25 years!
There is even a Japanese dentist who has supposedly created a synthetic enamel, which can be applied like toothpaste and fix cavities with no drilling and no blackening. Too good to be true? We shall see.
Anyway, OMH has begun incorporating nano-hydroxyapatite into her tooth care routine. We shall see how it goes!
Thanks to Amazon, Old Mother Hen has discovered the latest dental miracle from Japan: nano-hydroxyapatite. Where we have fluoride, they have hydroxyapatite, which could be even better at fixing enamel. (Fluoride isn't the only element involved in enamel; you also need calcium and phosphate ions, which are part of the hydroxyapatite (Ca10 (PO4)6 (OH)2) molecule.) Apagard Premio toothpaste contains this miracle ingredient. Reviewers rave about it filling in grooves in veneers (can that happen?), curing severe sensitivity, and generally being an awesome toothpaste. (Which it should be, at that price.)
Japan is apparently on the forefront of dental technologies. Japanese dentists have used silver diamine fluoride to treat cavities for years, instead of the American drill-and-fill technique. Though it has drawbacks (blackening teeth?), for back teeth it's a much less destructive way to kill bacteria and stop decay. It could even be a caries "silver-fluoride bullet"!
Old Mother Hen worked in Japan for two years in the early 1990s, and back then she saw lots of evidence that Japan was NOT on the forefront of dental technology. Or at least not all Japanese people were benefiting from it. Decay like this was alarmingly common. It would seem that things can change over 25 years!
There is even a Japanese dentist who has supposedly created a synthetic enamel, which can be applied like toothpaste and fix cavities with no drilling and no blackening. Too good to be true? We shall see.
Anyway, OMH has begun incorporating nano-hydroxyapatite into her tooth care routine. We shall see how it goes!
Sunday, February 12, 2017
Arts and Culture: the Canaries in the Coal Mine
Why arts? Why study humanities? What good are paintings, buildings, literature, salon conversations?
Old Mother Hen will dispense with the usual arguments here. Of course arts bring beauty to life, refine one's ability to make an argument, etc.
Arts and humanities are valuable because their ability to exist is a good indicator of the health of civilization.
They are the canary in the coal mine. When a society is civilized, beautiful old buildings and boundary-expanding communication can thrive. When civilization collapses, nonessential beauty is one of the first things to go.
Sainte-Chapelle is a Gothic cathedral in Paris, famed for its ethereal stained glass, which on a sunny day makes the roof look as if it's floating atop a sea of blue light. Those windows were installed in the 1240s, and they are still there today. They've had ups and downs - they were damaged during the French Revolution but then restored, and they were removed to avoid being blasted to smithers during the second world war and replaced when the coast was clear. Today they face the threat of air pollution, but so far the nation believes it is important to put the time and money into conserving them.
Contrast the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan, deliberately destroyed by the Taliban in 2001 after standing for 1700 years. The loss of the statues is tragic, but what the loss says about the society is alarming.
We value our peaceful civilization, in which we can live unmolested in our homes and go about our business without worrying about attack, violent disruption of our transport, or loss of our shelter and food supply. When those conditions are met, we can worry about taking care of our delicate breakables. See Sainte-Chapelle - the French Revolution was an unhealthy moment in French civilization, and the church was correspondingly damaged. The nation cared enough about its pretty things, though, to put it back together again, and to protect it during an even more violent conflict.
So that's a real role for arts, humanities, and beautiful, delicate things - serving as a thermometer for the health of civilization.
Old Mother Hen will dispense with the usual arguments here. Of course arts bring beauty to life, refine one's ability to make an argument, etc.
Arts and humanities are valuable because their ability to exist is a good indicator of the health of civilization.
They are the canary in the coal mine. When a society is civilized, beautiful old buildings and boundary-expanding communication can thrive. When civilization collapses, nonessential beauty is one of the first things to go.
Sainte-Chapelle is a Gothic cathedral in Paris, famed for its ethereal stained glass, which on a sunny day makes the roof look as if it's floating atop a sea of blue light. Those windows were installed in the 1240s, and they are still there today. They've had ups and downs - they were damaged during the French Revolution but then restored, and they were removed to avoid being blasted to smithers during the second world war and replaced when the coast was clear. Today they face the threat of air pollution, but so far the nation believes it is important to put the time and money into conserving them.
Contrast the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan, deliberately destroyed by the Taliban in 2001 after standing for 1700 years. The loss of the statues is tragic, but what the loss says about the society is alarming.
We value our peaceful civilization, in which we can live unmolested in our homes and go about our business without worrying about attack, violent disruption of our transport, or loss of our shelter and food supply. When those conditions are met, we can worry about taking care of our delicate breakables. See Sainte-Chapelle - the French Revolution was an unhealthy moment in French civilization, and the church was correspondingly damaged. The nation cared enough about its pretty things, though, to put it back together again, and to protect it during an even more violent conflict.
So that's a real role for arts, humanities, and beautiful, delicate things - serving as a thermometer for the health of civilization.
Saturday, February 11, 2017
Natural Feet, Natural Shoes
Old Mother Hen believes that the natural body should be the baseline from which we measure normal. But shoes - where to begin!
The human foot has evolved very nicely to propel the human body. Solid heel, flexible toes, one-quarter of the bones in the human body, the foot is good at what it does. So why do people's feet hurt all the time?
Shoes. Shoes are a health disaster.
Here are the criteria for a healthy shoe:
1. Flat heel to toe.
2. Widest at the toes - the front end.
3. Flexible sole.
And no so-called "arch support"! The arch needs to move!
Oh, and light weight. The lighter the better.
Shoes that don't follow these rules cause feet to become deformed. A foot is naturally widest at the toes - toes should spread out like a fan. Years of wearing shoes with tapering toe boxes forces toes together and causes problems like bunions, corns, hammertoes, and general ugliness. Raised heels cause knee problems - see the work from the founder of Oesh Shoes. The folks at Natural Footgear have posted lots of articles describing the ways shoes harm feet.
Old Mother Hen knows this because her feet hurt for years. In the 1980s I always wore shoes that were too small. Those shoe measuring devices are mostly useless, and shoe salespeople always check fit based on the big toe - which can leave the other toes crammed into a tiny space. In the 1990s I had a soft corn on the inside of my left little toe - horrible burning pain. Lady lawyer dress shoes certainly didn't help. In the 2000s, I had metatarsalgia and years of shinsplints. I wore Dansko clogs, I bought gel pads, and nothing helped.
Merrell introduced its first barefoot shoes in 2012 or so, and my life changed. After three or four months of wearing the original barefoot pace glove, the metatarsalgia went away, never to be seen again. My toes could spread out! The shoes moved with my feet! No more shinsplints or heel blisters from a stiff sole and hard heel counter!
Sadly Merrell has largely abandoned its minimalist shoe offerings. (Merrell, you changed my life! Barefoot shoes are really a thing!) But fortunately lots of other companies have filled in the gap.
Okay, not lots. But a few. Enough. How many shoes does anyone need?
OMH will be posting detailed reviews of some of her favorites, but for the moment, here are a few possibilities of shoes for people looking for footwear that works with them, not against them.
Lems makes some nice shoes. I love the Primals, I've grown to love the Boulder Boots (though I don't love any ankle restriction) and Old Daddy Rooster finds the Nine to Five great for dress-up.
Altra Running is great, at least in its more minimal models. (The thicker the sole, the stiffer the performance and the less efficient the rebound - like hiking in sand or mud.) Super points for the wide toe box. I wore a pair of Altra Superiors (2.0) for the Tour du Mont Blanc last summer and had ZERO foot problems. (Reviews of recent models all complain that Altra has narrowed their toe box. Let's hope that's not so!)
Xero Shoes makes nice minimalist sandals. I wore their Z-Trail sandal all around Mexico City and the pyramids at Teotihuacan and love them. Old Daddy Rooster adores their new shoe, the Ipari Hana.
In the winter I live in fleece-lined Crocs, though they're awful for walking. I like Havaiana sandals in the summer.
And... well, there's not much else. Almost every shoe has arch support, almost every shoe has a raised heel, and just try to find a toe box wide enough to accommodate your little piggies. Currently Old Mother Hen is longing for an attractive and insulated pair of leather boots - something to wear with dresses? - (if she ever wears dresses again...) and some insulated low-top walking shoes. Cold is a real problem for hen toes.
A bright point on the horizon - Joe Nimble shoes are supposed to appear in the U.S. this year! OMH has high hopes.
The human foot has evolved very nicely to propel the human body. Solid heel, flexible toes, one-quarter of the bones in the human body, the foot is good at what it does. So why do people's feet hurt all the time?
Shoes. Shoes are a health disaster.
Here are the criteria for a healthy shoe:
1. Flat heel to toe.
2. Widest at the toes - the front end.
3. Flexible sole.
And no so-called "arch support"! The arch needs to move!
Oh, and light weight. The lighter the better.
Shoes that don't follow these rules cause feet to become deformed. A foot is naturally widest at the toes - toes should spread out like a fan. Years of wearing shoes with tapering toe boxes forces toes together and causes problems like bunions, corns, hammertoes, and general ugliness. Raised heels cause knee problems - see the work from the founder of Oesh Shoes. The folks at Natural Footgear have posted lots of articles describing the ways shoes harm feet.
Old Mother Hen knows this because her feet hurt for years. In the 1980s I always wore shoes that were too small. Those shoe measuring devices are mostly useless, and shoe salespeople always check fit based on the big toe - which can leave the other toes crammed into a tiny space. In the 1990s I had a soft corn on the inside of my left little toe - horrible burning pain. Lady lawyer dress shoes certainly didn't help. In the 2000s, I had metatarsalgia and years of shinsplints. I wore Dansko clogs, I bought gel pads, and nothing helped.
Merrell introduced its first barefoot shoes in 2012 or so, and my life changed. After three or four months of wearing the original barefoot pace glove, the metatarsalgia went away, never to be seen again. My toes could spread out! The shoes moved with my feet! No more shinsplints or heel blisters from a stiff sole and hard heel counter!
Sadly Merrell has largely abandoned its minimalist shoe offerings. (Merrell, you changed my life! Barefoot shoes are really a thing!) But fortunately lots of other companies have filled in the gap.
Okay, not lots. But a few. Enough. How many shoes does anyone need?
OMH will be posting detailed reviews of some of her favorites, but for the moment, here are a few possibilities of shoes for people looking for footwear that works with them, not against them.
Lems makes some nice shoes. I love the Primals, I've grown to love the Boulder Boots (though I don't love any ankle restriction) and Old Daddy Rooster finds the Nine to Five great for dress-up.
Altra Running is great, at least in its more minimal models. (The thicker the sole, the stiffer the performance and the less efficient the rebound - like hiking in sand or mud.) Super points for the wide toe box. I wore a pair of Altra Superiors (2.0) for the Tour du Mont Blanc last summer and had ZERO foot problems. (Reviews of recent models all complain that Altra has narrowed their toe box. Let's hope that's not so!)
Xero Shoes makes nice minimalist sandals. I wore their Z-Trail sandal all around Mexico City and the pyramids at Teotihuacan and love them. Old Daddy Rooster adores their new shoe, the Ipari Hana.
In the winter I live in fleece-lined Crocs, though they're awful for walking. I like Havaiana sandals in the summer.
And... well, there's not much else. Almost every shoe has arch support, almost every shoe has a raised heel, and just try to find a toe box wide enough to accommodate your little piggies. Currently Old Mother Hen is longing for an attractive and insulated pair of leather boots - something to wear with dresses? - (if she ever wears dresses again...) and some insulated low-top walking shoes. Cold is a real problem for hen toes.
A bright point on the horizon - Joe Nimble shoes are supposed to appear in the U.S. this year! OMH has high hopes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)