One thing I'd also point out is that the study linked to does not show an actual increase in cancer in people who consume Sucralose (although that could come later). There ARE lots of studies showing an increased risk of heart disease in people who consume a lot of sugar.

Well, I disagree with that 😆. I think we have a lot of new information coming out about some artificial sweeteners lately, but we've LONG known that sugar is bad. Did you see the link I posted? It's just one link, but there are plenty like it: there's an huge increase in heart disease with increased sugar consumption. Lots of sugar is just really terrible for your body in all sorts of ways--liver, heart, etc. etc. (and a whole lot more people die from heart disease than from artificial sweetener-linked cancer). I'm not sure we're all comparing apples to apples on this thread, though...if we're talking about the occasional dessert or sweetening your coffee a bit, sugar is fine for most people (I'm especially careful myself because of a strong family history of diabetes). The same occasional consumption of artificial sweeteners is probably fine, too, honestly. But plenty of people really do spend all day drinking sugary drinks....I think the big problem with these new studies about the dangers of artificial sweeteners is that we were assured it was a safe alternative to sugary drinks for so long. Most people already knew that the 96 oz convenience store Coke was not good for them (although a lot of people drink them anyway). But I'm not going to go tell my diabetic mom, who does indeed drink Diet Coke all day long, that she should switch to regular coke to avoid cancer. That would be worse for her. She should stop drinking sugary drinks, period, but she's not going to.

I don't think the the message here is that sugar is better for you than artificial sweeteners, though. There are plenty of health risks from sugar; that's why people try to find alternatives in the first place. Sadly, the message is probably that we're not really meant to consume sweetened foods at all in huge quantities (i.e. we're not supposed to spend all day drinking it). https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/the-sweet-danger-of-sugar

My second kid just finished his first year working on a clarinet performance degree; he's so happy and can't imagine doing anything else. My oldest just graduated from Macalester with a math major/data science minor. He may end up in grad school eventually, but he'll be working for now, and just got a job as a GIS analyst for a department of public safety near us; we are affectionately referring to him as "map cop" now, but I think maybe he wants us to stop 😂

Just updating in case anyone from the future is reading this...just got my labs back and my A1C is 5.8, so still pre-diabetic, but on the lower end of pre-diabetic (and down a smidge from last year). So the high fasting numbers are annoying, but were not a sign that things were about to go off the rails at least. I will keep experimenting with different things! I'm about to be gone on an RV trip for most of the summer, so I'm relieved that I'm not going to have to mess around with trying to adjust to metformin or something while I'm traveling.

I'd go with just e-mailing them back and explaining and asking again. I wouldn't worry that she's not going to call them...some colleges have extremely pushy admissions departments--I find it really off-putting, too, but I guess it must work a lot of the time or they wouldn't keep doing it?

It depends on the school. At LACs you usually don’t have to declare a major until end of sophomore year.

bunny trails...if my next kid applies to an Ivy, it will likely be Brown, so I'm pleased to see that he'll have a whole 6.7% chance of being admitted there, compared to 4% if he were a girl.

I'm saying it's not just small LACs, though (all your examples were SLACs). Vassar's the famous example, but top 20 universities favor men in admission, too. It's pretty much just STEM/engineering schools that don't, and there aren't nearly as many of them. So boys have the advantage in admission at MOST selective colleges. I guess I'm saying it's not some sign of a deep bias against boys, it's a sign that colleges like gender balance.

There are far fewer schools that are just STEM based, though. And it's not just SLACs colleges where men have an advantage, it's universities like Harvard, Vanderbilt, etc. etc. etc., too. My son actually had a spreadsheet that included a column about where he'd have the biggest advantage applying as a male. We weren't even surprised when he got into Vassar after a slew of waitlists at similar schools, because...boy. Schools do it because gender balance makes them more desirable to potential students (i.e. boys at MIT generally don't want to go to a school with way more men than women, and women at Vassar don't want to go to a school with way more women than men. By and large).

I finished Maggie O'Farrell's The Marriage Portrait a few days ago. It was well written, and I got through it a lot easier than Hamnet (even though I really liked Hamnet), but it was...a little silly? Not my favorite. Then I started The School for Good Mothers, but it was really feeling like a slog, and I disliked the main character, so I've abandoned the attempt. I'm on to Dark Matter now. I read a ton of sci-fi in 2020 as an escapist thing, but then not so much lately.

right--I meant the list chiguirre gave of well-paid traditionally female professions that men should consider. Doctors aren't in that category.

yeah, I was thinking of nursing as the exception on that list. My understanding is that things like PT don't pay well, though (although, having had a few PT sessions this year, I can say confidently that SOMEONE is making a lot of money off of it!)

Sure, but most male dominated professions that require a similar level of education pay way more. If I were making a list of professions that pay relatively poorly despite requiring a lot of education, I'd put a lot of those on there (and throw in some others, like librarian). Money-wise, you're much better off with a bachelors in CS than a masters in education. ETA: I haven't read the book, so just trying understand the argument...I just don't get why we'd be comparing jobs that don't require advanced training or education to ones that require at least a college degree and a masters or other advanced degree in many cases. I'm also certainly not arguing against men going into historically woman-dominated fields--there are plenty of reasons aside from money to do so. But I don't think it's a coincidence that those fields almost always pay more poorly than the fields historically dominated by men, adjusted for education level.

Most of those aren't well-paid professions, though? I mean, as someone who's married to a teacher, I'd love it if more men went in to professions that are dominated by women because then maybe those professions would start paying better.

Thanks for all the info! I have a rising senior, so I don't have to worry about this for a few more years, but it's really interesting to hear all of this. The College Board paid my college freshman son to take a digital SAT this past year as part of the testing phase, and he LOVED the desmos calculator.

Another Belle Island vote...we loved it. There's the aquarium and conservatory and Great Lakes museum...you can also walk about to see the Art Deco marble lighthouse. And the art museum is world class--the Diego Rivera murals are especially impressive.

I had a major bout of anxiety over the winter, and I definitely wonder if that had something to do with it. I also had covid for the first time, and there's a pretty undeniable connection between covid and new diabetes diagnoses, so...

I know my mother's sugar goes absolutely bonkers when she has any kind of illness or sometimes in response to medication changes for things totally unrelated to diabetes. I guess I should also say that it may not even matter much that my fasting numbers aren't great as long as I'm keeping things under control during the day. It will be interesting to see how the A1C is this year. I've been careful about what I eat, testing sugar regularly, exercising more, I weigh 10 pounds less than a year ago, plus all the supplements of dubious value....at least I can say I've done what I can if I do need meds. Also, I looked back through my records and the A1C had crept into pre-diabetic range one other time several years ago and then has been normal since until last year...so we'll see! (last year I had it done in early March, I think, whereas it's usually been at different times of year...I wonder if the difference was just having the holidays in the time period it was measuring).

The number of supplements that might or might not help is dizzying! Right now I'm taking cinnamon, garlic, vitamin d, magnesium, vitamin c (I don't think that one has anything to do with blood sugar, though), and a multivitamin with ginseng.

Thanks everyone! I already do eat pretty low carb and have for years (I vacillate between super low carb and just lowish carb), and I know how to eat /exercise to keep numbers in range during the day. I also know that I'll never be able to just eat what I want and keep my blood sugar okay; that has been true for a very long time (I had gestational diabetes with my first, so between that and family history I've kept an eye on my blood sugar for forever now). But my fasting numbers keep creeping up no matter how well I control things during the day...like my fasting blood sugar will usually be the highest number I see all day, with the possible exception of maybe an hour after eating, depending on what I eat. And then it doesn't go down in the morning--like I've done intermittent fasting, but I'll take it first thing in the morning and it will be 120 or whatever and then 4 hours later, no eating, exactly the same. I'm not really sure if I CAN do anything about it, but I'd love to try. I've now got eggs before bed, exercise later at night, and exercise first thing in the morning on my list of things to try! I know I've read that the liver controls glucose overnight and the pancreas after meals--not sure where or if that's accurate--but it would make sense that the things I do during the day wrt to food aren't going to help with whatever's happening overnight. Sometimes I think giving up and going on meds and eating a slice of pizza every once in awhile would be lovely...but I know that not having diabetes is better than having even well-managed diabetes, so I'm trying!

I aim for 10,000 steps a day--sometimes fall short but usually end up with 65,000 or so for the week, and I've added in 20-30 minutes of yoga 5ish days a week. Walking right after a meal works well for post-meal numbers, and I need to get more consistent about that (which is tricky, with kid schedules and all) but that fasting number is the stubborn one. It doesn't seem like stopping eating earlier in the evening helps with it, either, although I need to experiment more and actually track that. I wonder if a walk right before bed would be useful.

Last appointment my A1C was pre diabetic, and I have a VERY strong family history of diabetes (mother, grandmother, I think 4 out of 7 aunts and uncles on that side all diabetic; my mother was in her mid 40s when diagnosed, so younger than I am now), so...I'd sure love to stave off diabetes as long as possible. I test at home pretty regularly, and my post meal levels are generally fine as long as I don't eat anything super carby. But my fasting blood sugars have been stubbornly high, and are pretty much always at the high end of pre-diabetic range these days. And then it seems like it's tricky to get my numbers back in range early in the day because I'm starting from a higher baseline. I know from google that this is pretty common, but all the advice I can find it targeted at actual diabetics ("adjust how much medication you take at night!") Anyone had this issue and been able to deal with it without medication? It doesn't seem to matter much what I eat the night before; perhaps wine before bed helps some? But I haven't tried everything yet of course. I have been taking cinnamon right before bed. I have another A1C coming up in a few weeks, so I figure I still have a chance to help myself out some with that if I can fix this fast!

we just sent in the sale price for other houses in our subdivision (from zillow). Literally no other house in our subdivision had ever sold for what they assessed us at, so that worked pretty well.

We had around 1800 sq ft before getting another 1000 with our last move...but we had the same number of bathrooms (and kitchens!) in the old house as this one, so I don't think this one's much harder to clean. Perhaps if I spent more time dusting and wiping down baseboards and stuff instead of just being happy with non-gross bathrooms and things being relatively uncluttered.