the Jake Erickson tribute album (one song so far)

Below I play a version of "Winter", a song written by Jake Erickson in 2004, which also appears as the 12th track on the album Jake and I released in 2006.  For various reasons*, the album version didn't turn out quite as we wanted, but I've always liked the song.  Consider this** a tribute to an under-appreciated modern artist.  Perhaps other artists will join in the effort so we can make it a full album. :)


     

*All our recording was done with very limited time and money, and no prior experience.  We barely knew what we were doing in there, did most songs in a single take (for each part), and yet certain things turned out really well.  Others left something to be desired.  Before we recorded Winter, I gave Jake some suggestions about how to sing the song that I think backfired and made it sound worse, and I've always felt a little bad about that. Having just re-listened to it, I can say it is not without merit.  But I also think most of the live performances of the song Jake did were more satisfying than the studio version.

**Please excuse the poor framing of the video.  Recording songs with a camera placed on a stack of books in a cramped bedroom is not an exact science.

PS:  Stay tuned for the sharing of additional music, maybe even recorded with something other than my camera.  I recently procured a decent-quality digital recorder, and I've begun to dabble.  Now I just need a guitar that I don't hate...though I still use the hated one out of necessity.   

Update:  I recently started a new website about guitars, which I talk about in this post.  

Overdue Op Report

Last June I did surgery on my own toe, at home.  Sound ridiculous?  Well it was.  There's no getting around that fact.  But it seemed justified at the time, and even sounded kind of fun.      

Background  

a few days post-injury

Six days earlier I smashed my left big toe with a door.  It bled a little, and a few days later it was still painful and oozy.  Further investigation (trimming the nail back) revealed the flesh underneath was red and raw, and a pretty classic example of what's called a "subungual hematoma” (That just means excess blood causing pressure under the nail).  I'd experienced this once before, in 2004, when a basketball player landed on my toe—the same toe—with most of his weight.  A few days later I visited a podiatrist who removed the nail, releasing the pressure and allowing proper healing.

With that experience under my belt, not to mention my podiatry training, I figured I pretty well knew how to handle the situation.  So after observing the nail for a few more days, I decided it would be best to remove it completely.  The nail was already somewhat loose, and the flesh underneath would heal better with it gone.   

supply table

Now, removing a toenail is easy....if you have the proper supplies.  That includes certain surgical instruments (which I had, since I'd purchased some during school) as well as local anesthesia (which I did NOT have, and couldn't think of any way to get), and appropriately-sized needles and syringes (didn't have any of those, either, but figured I could scrounge some up).  

Obviously I could have gone to a podiatrist's office and let them do it for me.  But suffice it to say that I was cheap (and my insurance wouldn't have covered anything), and feeling kind of adventurous.  After all, it was right up my alley.  And all I needed was a a little lidocaine (that's the local anesthetic), and I'd be good to go!  

But where could I get lidocaine, other than the black market?  And where exactly is the black market?  I would have been perfectly willing to buy some there, had someone provided the location.

A breakthrough 

the O.R.

The problem of my absent anesthetic was solved when I read online that in the case of a drug allergy to lidocaine, an injection of diphenhydramine (aka benadryl) can be used in its place to provide anesthesia.  Um....really??

By the way, this is really bizarre because, as you probably know, benadryl is an antihistamine that's typically used by people with seasonal allergies, or as a sleep aide.  I'd certainly never heard of its being injected to produce anesthesia, and neither had my podiatry classmates (now in residency) that I subsequently mentioned it to.

Preparation 

Supplies!

Even with this breakthrough, getting supplies was trickier than I expected.  Benadryl abounds, but not in an injectable form.  I hypothesized that I could buy it in pill form, crush the pills in my handy mortar and pestle (which didn't exist), dissolve the powder in some water, and then inject that solution.  (This was a stupid idea for various reasons, but we'll get into that later). 

So I bought some benadryl tablets.  The only needles and syringes I could find were single-use, 1ml (small!) insulin syringes with 29 gauge (tiny!) needles attached, sold in a box of 100.  These were not at all ideal, but better than nothing....actually even that's debatable.  I also picked up some distilled water and alcohol swabs to further furnish my operating room.  

The Operation

The day had come, and it was kind of invigorating.  I was less invigorated when I realized that my crushed pills didn’t stay dissolved in the distilled water, instead settling to the bottom of whatever container they occupied.  As a result, it was nearly impossible to draw the mixture up into those insulin syringes before the diphen resettled to the bottom. (Not to mention it's nearly impossible to draw anything up into such small-gauge needles!  A 25 gauge needle is typical for such activities.)  It was equally challenging to actually inject the solution into my toe, due to both the settling and the smallness of the needles, which kept getting clogged by tiny pill particles.   Even when I did successfully inject fluid, some of it wasn’t as concentrated as it needed to be, due to the settling problems I mentioned.  So in case you hadn't gotten the message, that part was difficult.  But after a couple hours of finagling, most of my toe was numb, and I was ready for the fun part.

And it would have been pretty fun.  Except that despite my best efforts, one edge of the nail bed still had sensation.  I loosed the nail and separated it from the bed for the most part...but it was too painful to separate it on the edge that wasn't numb.  So I eventually yanked it off without having separated it 100%, and ripped off a chunk of flesh with it for good measure.  Yes, it was quite painful.  If you're having trouble relating to the experience, imagine sticking a butter knife under a small toenail to pry it up, only not being able to do so completely because it's too painful, and then ripping it off with pliers.

post-op

{Technical details:  Injected ~10cc's of impure solution, variable and unknown concentration.  Achieved numbness over 90% of surface area.  Loosened majority of nail with an elevator (all except medial edge), extracted whole nail and some adhered tissue from nail bed with a hemostat, observing proximal "feathery" edge.  Scraped proximal nail bed with currette to smooth and flatten, in hopes that the nail would grow back more smoothly and uniformly than it had since its prior avulsion in 2004.  Applied generous triple antibiotic ointment, followed by somewhat-sterile dressing.  Including application of anesthetic, op time ~3.5 hours.} 

Aftermath 

My toe was in a lot of pain that evening at the ward party, but I was very glad to be done with the surgery.  My biggest concern on day one was infection--my technique had been anything but sterile.  And for a couple days I thought I had one, due to a pattern of redness on and around the injection sites.

To make a long story (everything that happened after the surgery) fairly short, over the next few days I carefully assessed the spread and movement of the redness and ascertained that there was no infection, but only a local reaction of some sort to the various impurities I had injected along with the benadryl—read the ingredients in sleep aid pills sometime and imagine the possibilities.  Redness, swelling, and pain remained for several days, which was worriesome.  I nearly went to see a doctor.  But after a couple weeks it improved enough that I was comfortable and functional once again.  Gradual change continued and still does.  Even now, over 10 months later, there lingers a mild degree of redness and puffiness around the nail, but it’s rarely painful.  The main difference is that I have to trim the nail much more aggressively to avoid over-encroachment by the puffy skin around it, which otherwise results in pain, ingrown-toenail-like symptoms, and eventual ulceration (all of which are awesome). 

tracking possible infection

Do I have any regrets in life?  Yes.  Do I regret surgerizing my toe?  Maybe.  The goods and ills are nearly a wash.  One of the most important things I learned:  If you're thinking about crushing up oral benadryl pills that contain a million ancillary ingredients using a non-existent mortar and pestle in order to inject the produced solution into your own toe using tiny insulin syringes...it may not be the best idea you've ever come up with (though it could possibly be in the top ten). 

Can I get a larger slice of pie, please?

I'm tired of college football.  I've often been perturbed by it.  But after an ugly series of events⁽¹⁾ during Thanksgiving weekend, which led my brother Nathaniel to suggest that he would now boycott college football, I couldn't help but agree with his rationale.  It's just a mess.  And we watch it for the wrong reasons.

The college football model is one of "haves" and "have-nots".  Its motto is "Keep the little man down."   Their idea, lately, is that an unfair system will lead to controversy, which will generate interest, which will boost ratings, which will lead to lucrative TV contracts and big advertising money. And it works.

There are some people who like the system because it gives their team an advantage.  It's kind of like if you were born into the upper level of a rigid caste system and you thought, "Man, this caste system is awesome!  I'll always be at the top!"  Most people, on the other hand, realize the system is unfair, and wish for a change.  But both groups have something in common:  they watch the games.  They may whine and complain about the injustices, but they still watch.  And as a result, they feed the beast.  They become part of those controversy-boosted ratings which generate huge profits.

Now, even though the college football model "works" (makes quite a bit of money), I believe they would make a lot more money if they switched to a playoff system⁽²⁾.  So why don't they?  I think there are two main reasons.

1. It's new.  It would be a departure from their tried-and-tested model of controversy = ratings.  So if you're already making billions of dollars with minimal effort, why change your approach?  That's pretty understandable.  The other reason is less so. 
2. The people in charge want to maintain their larger slice of pie.  Teams from the six BCS conferences get a lot more money than teams from the other five conferences, and a huge recruiting advantage, and they don't want that to change.  They have "Bigger Slice of Pie Syndrome".  It's a serious condition.  

Those are the two major reasons why college football doesn't change.  They don't want to try something new when their unfair system beautifully generates billions of dollars already.  And the people in charge want to keep their larger pie slices.

To illustrate further, imagine yourself in a room.  In front of you is a table, and one it are two iterations of your favorite kind of pie.  Only, one of the pies is very large, and the other is small.  In this room there also happen to be ten of your friends.  Now you are given with two choices: 

• Option A: You can select the large pie, divide it into eleven equal slices (hard to do, by the way) and share it with all your friends.  You are told, however, that if you do this, there's a 0.1% chance the pie will spontaneously combust, and you will be left with no pie.  Also, you are warned that if you share the pie equally with your friends, they may become very powerful from the pie-nutrition (or "pietrition").  And who knows but that next time your friends will be the ones dividing the pie?  Perhaps with their newfound pie-strength they will no longer fear you, and will give you a smaller slice.  These seem like valid concerns to you.  

• Option B: You can select the small pie, cut a piece comprising 90% of it for yourself, and then leave the rest to be divided among your friends.  You strongly consider doing this because, even though you'll actually be getting less pie, there's not that 0.1% chance of the pie spontaneously combusting.  Gotta go with a sure thing, right?  Plus, you can't have your friends getting pie-strength.  Who knows what they can do with pie-strength?  Pie-strength is a thing of legends. 

So which do you choose?  If you choose the first option, you're a reasonable person.  If you choose the second, you're college football (and a hero to supporters of caste systems everywhere!).

And that's great and dandy that they're going to keep doing this, keep hogging pie and fearing new frontiers.  I can't do very much about it.  But starting today, no longer will I be part of the controversy-generated-ratings-boosting crowd of mindless followers.  Starting today, I renounce college football^(3),(4).  And you should too.

Join the movement. 

**********

Footnotes:
1.  Auburn somehow came back from a 21-0 deficit against Alabama, and Boise St. lost because their kicker choked twice.  (Plus BYU lost to Utah, which is always a downer for humanity.)  But more important than what these games meant for the race to the BCS title game, was how they begged the question:  Why should we care?  They were part of the fabricated drama, and part of our being drawn in, hopeful for the little guy to get a fair shot.  Only, those hopes are dashed 99 times out of 100, because the cards are stacked against them.

2.  A college football playoff system is easy to design, and there's no reason to believe it wouldn't generate a ridiculous amount of money.  Though there are other reasonable methods, I think the best system would be a 16-team playoff including the conference champions from all eleven conferences, plus five other teams chosen by a committee.  The first two rounds would be home games for the higher-seeded team, and the last two rounds (three games) would be played in high-profile bowl games.  I assert that all arguments made against such a system are disingenuous attempts to preserve the current, unfair system.

3. The one exception to this will be watching my own team.  I'm a fan of BYU, and I will continue to watch their games.  But I won't be drawn in by the fabricated drama of the "national championship" chase.  There's no such thing as a national championship in the BCS, so why should I care?  And BYU's approach, starting next year, largely aligns with my perspective.  When they decided to leave the Mountain West Conference and become independent, they knew this would actually decrease their chances of playing in a BCS game.  But they didn't care.  What they cared about was exposure, or in other words getting out of the crappy TV contracts of the MWC so their fans can watch games.  And starting next year that will be a lot easier, with games on ESPN and BYUTV (instead of "mtn.").  As a bonus, they will also make more money.  Screw the BCS. 

4.  Admittedly, there are good reasons to "renounce" many other sports or leagues as well. NBA players make way too much money.  Professional baseball is boring, and both the season and individual games are way too long.  The NFL causes a lot of head injuries which lead to premature dementia.  Plus it's played on Sunday, when it's better to be doing other things. And hockey isn't very fun to watch.  So by all means, stop watching those other sports, too.  I've hardly watched any baseball or hockey during the past ten years.  But at least all of those sports can say undefeated teams get to compete for a championship.  College football is not only unfair, but enjoys using that unfairness to lure us in.  And I won't be lured any longer.

A Field So White

So there's a white field.

How white, you ask?

Soooo white.  Sooooooooooo white!

It's A Field So White!

And now it's on YouTube!  Hooray!

Yeah, I know, this is pretty much the moment you've all been waiting for, the day when A Field So White would be available to the masses.  It reminds me a little bit of when the printing press was invented. 

Just in case you have no idea what I'm talking about-

A Field So White is a musical film produced in 1984, essentially a collection of inspirational music videos.  The songs are about helping other people and doing good stuff.  The music is by Lex de Azevedo (a fairly renowned LDS composer), and the music, clothing, and hair in the videos are straight out of the eighties!  Some people find this latter element humorous. 

I think this quote from the back of the video cover pretty much sums up how I feel about it:

"A Field So White promotes sharing, caring and loving activities.  It is a pioneering event in Christian entertainment and will become your favorite video to be played and re-played over and over again."

*****

A few years ago I did a google search to see if A Field So White had come out on DVD.  Not only was it not on DVD, it wasn't for sale anywhere!  And you still can't buy it new, though there are some used copies with exorbitant prices on Amazon.com.  It's not easy to get ahold of.  And the other day, after watching it for the first time in a few months, I thought to myself, "If somebody out there has a sudden urge to watch "Mrs. Mahoney" and does an online search, that person should not be disappointed."

And from now on, they won't be.  And neither will you. 

Now, a lot of people get a good chuckle out of the choreography and styles in A Field So White.  They think it's "funny".  I don't begrudge them that, but I actually quite enjoy the music and find the themes touching.  It's well-done!  It pulls at my heart-strings!  For some reason there are strings in my heart!

But whatever your purpose--to laugh at the eighties, to scoff at choreography you deem silly, or to be inspired to good acts while enjoying quality music--if you follow the links below, all of your wildest dreams will come true. At least it's possible. 

By the way, my favorites are "Maria Alvarez" and "Mrs. Mahoney", with a slight nod to "The Mighty Winds of Change."  "Share It" seems to enjoy a sort of cult status.  But they're all good.  

Note:  YouTube has a "playlist" feature which lets you put videos in a queue and save them as a playlist.  I made one with all the videos from "A Field So White" for easy viewing, you can do likewise if you want to watch them in order. 

The songs from A Field So White:

• Leaders of Tomorrow (opening song / intro)
• A Field So White
• Maria Alvarez
• Hold On
• Mrs. Mahoney 
• A Letter Home
• Share It
• The Mighty Winds of Change
• Child of Forever
• Leaders of Tomorrow (reprise with credits)
• Love the People (with closing credits) 

Texts are like Cows

I kind of hate text messages.  Do you kind of hate text messages?

Let me tell you why I feel so. 

But before I do that, I may as well say what they're good for.  Text messages are great for relaying one small bit of info, such as, "The dog has been fed", or, "Your house just burned down."  Or asking a simple question, like, "Can I eat your last doughnut?"  That's probably easier than making a phone call, right?  And obviously texts are better when no noise is allowed, such as during a dance recital.

Text messages are also less time-sensitive than phone calls, which can be nice if you're busy baking a pie.  (And even if you're not busy, you can always pretend you're busy....like when a girl you don't like texts to ask about your weekend plans.  This has not happened even once, though.)  And perhaps what texts are best suited for, something that really makes them worthwhile, is mass communication, such as inviting a 100 people to a fondue party on short notice, or changing the details of a rendezvous involving 600 people. 

And that's all nice.  Pretty nice.  But I still kind of hate text messages. And that's because far too often we lose our way as a society, and use text messages for what they are very poorly suited:

Extended conversations.


I hate it when text messages are used to have an extended conversation.  In fact, I loathe it.  But I don't abhor it, that's going too far. 



Here's the point.  When used for long conversations, texts usually become:

1. Distracting.  They're like an interrupting cow, and especially so if your ringer sounds like a "MOOO!!" (Kudos to you if this is the case.)  I generally have a pretty one-track mind (1.5 on a good day), so when I settle down to a task only to be interrupted over and over by a cow, it really slows me down.  If it were a mule it might not be as bad. 
2. Extremely inefficient.  An unofficial experiment just now showed that it takes about six times as long to enter a text message as to just speak it.  That's not so bad if it's a one-word message, as it doesn't take long to say a word like "Freakazoid!"  But imagine if you had to enter this entire blog post into your phone.  Or better yet, imagine if you were part of the hypothetical experiment where you place infinity monkeys in front of infinity typewriters until one of them types all the works of Shakespeare; only in this version, you are one of the monkeys, and you're using a cell phone instead of a typewriter.  Imagine how much faster you could inadvertently produce the entire works of Shakespeare by randomly talking instead of randomly enterting text on your phone?!  
3. Expensive for people with crappy cell phone plans.  
4. Inducers of tendonitis in the thumbs.   
5. Characteristic of teenage girls:  I would ask, who is most known for their dexterous and voluminous production of messages comprised of text?  That's right, girls aged 13-17.  So do you want to be more, or less similar to a teenage girl?  Or perhaps you literally are one, in which case you get a temporary pass on this point.  You also get a prize, because I doubt anyone of your demographic will read this.
6. Social Impropriety:  If you've ever read a Jane Austen novel, you know she's all about propriety.  And one sure way to violate her rules, and to lessen your chances of a happy marriage with Mr. Darcy or Elizabeth or whomever, is to send a lot of texts while in social settings.  I'm confident she would not approve. 

The bottom line for me is this:  You can be an interrupting cow, or you can not be an interrupting cow.  And don't forget there are pros and cons.  While "moos" can be annoying, even a cow of the interrupting variety can likely produce milk, and by association cheese and ice cream, which are always good, unless you're lactose intolerant, or trying to lose weight, or a vegan, or otherwise at odds with the dairy industry.

Or to put it another way, is the following your destiny?

"Knock, knock."
"Who's there?"
"Interrupting Cow."
"Interrupting C....."
"MMMOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!"

Diaper Advice from the Masses

A few months ago I asked my facebook friends for advice on what diapers are best.  Diapers are a big part of my life, so I needed to know.  Actually it was for my sister Annie, who's due to have her first baby....tomorrow!  Since old facebook statuses disappear into an unsearchable abyss, I'm posting the responses here for a handy reference.  Read on to expand your diaper knowledge.       

Additional suggestions welcome, thanks again to all those who contributed!

(The picture to the right is just shameless promotion of my cute niece Adriana...who happens to know a lot about diapers.)

All you mother-types out there, which disposable diapers are the best?

JJ says:

We go with pampers. They say huggies causes rash and they did to josie. The cheap ones are flimsy like paper. Never tried luvs or whatever the other one is. If you have newborn try the swaddlers.

Jodi says:

It depends on the baby. Huggies or Pampers though.
I loved the pampers swaddlers when Kristen was a baby. Now I use the Costco brand diapers though. Just as good as Huggies to me!

Eden says: 

We like the Huggies for Newborn-Size 2 then at Size 3 we like to switch to Luvs. Pampers gave my oldest a bad rash.

Jaron says:

We have tried them all and the ones that we prefer are the Target Brand diapers. Right now we are using Huggies, but that is only because that is the only brand available on this stinking island.

Ronnie says:

Huggies seems to work better on chubbier babies- but they have worked well on my skinny kids. I like the way Pampers smell. And recently I've gotten into Target diapers. I think they changed the material or the cut or something but I love them. They do a great job and it's a dramatic difference in price. Why pay a lot for something you throw away?
 
Actually though- I'm seriously thinking about getting into cloth diapering though- sure there's clean up- but my eco-friendly side would feel better about it. I also hear it's better for toilet training...

Amanda says:

Wow, I'm shocked to see good reviews of the Target brand! They totally leaked for my kids...but I'm glad they worked for you guys. I think it totally depends on weight and age. BUT I've tried the Costco Brand, Huggies, Pampers, the WalMart brand and the Target Brand. I like Pampers Swaddlers HANDS DOWN for newborns. They are soft and they fit well. After that I switch to the Costco brand. Huggies were good for my baby girl, but have leaked a lot more on Rio. 

So if it's a boy I'd say Swaddlers, then Costco or Pampers. Girl- Swaddlers then it doesn't really matter. I think the main difference in diapers are:
A. How comfortable they seem for the kiddo and
B. How often you have to change them

So, Target diapers were cheaper, but I had to change the kids 6 times a day to avoid leaking...they are also super-bulky for my skinny kiddos. With Huggies/Pampers I can change em 3 times a day and they seem like they'd be more comfy. Costco ones are almost as good as Huggies, I think. maybe one more change per day.

Okay, so there's my way-too-much-info analysis of the Diaper market. I should try LUVS then I'd have tried pretty much everything. :)

Michael says:

This is totally different for each kid. Ours can only use Huggies without getting diaper rash.

Marie says:

For newborns I think we used Huggies and liked them. We used luvs sometimes too but I didn't like the of them. I mainly used the walmart brand when Lilly grew bigger though and never had any problem with them. I was lucky cause I didn't have a baby prone to diaper rash

Ashley says:

Pampers Swaddlers for newborn to 6 months... In my opinion!!!!

Becky says:

IN CASE you haven't received enough answers...

I agree that Pampers Swaddlers are best for newborns - so SOFT! But then we switch to store-brand because they're loads cheaper and do the job credibly. Huggies are decent but seem to soak through easily. TMI?

P.S. I'm a little shocked Jaron responded to this. :-)

                                          *****

Addendum:  Several additional diaper suggestions can be found in the comments to this facebook note (the imported version of this blog post).  

Hooked on Phonics is overrated

I've got this really cute and awesome niece, Caslea, who's five years old.  She's also really smart. Recently she was asked to write down all the fun things she wanted to do over the weekend, and using her prodigious phonetics skills, this is what she came up with (I understood all except one):

1. go swimeeg
2. go to a reschot
3. woch a movy
4. hav fun
5. play the spanish game
6. ol uv us get a penny
7. be nise
8. play with eech uther
9. go bulleeg
10. go to the pork
11. play gams
12. eet canndy
13. go to chuckee cheese's
14. bee happy
15. by donut's
16. eet food
17. mak lemenad
18. get lecerish
19. do a pordy
20. mac stuff
21. blow bloo's
22. mace a cayk
23. go to disnlee land
24. have a pnicnik
25. play with zeeko
26. if someone left, mak a spis
27. go to the museeume
28. go on a chresher hunt
29. jres up
30. go to sleep
31. jreec lemunad

My favorite phonetics:  "chresher hunt", "jres up", "jreec lemunad"

Activities I most want to try:  "go to the pork", "ol uv us get a penny", "do a pordy"
 

She's only in kindergarten, but it's pretty awesome how she figures this stuff out.  She's obviously smarter than I was, I don't think I learned how to write like that until second grade....if ever.   

Also, I think her list would make for an extremely divertive weekend; next time I need some quality fun I'll refer to it.  Thanks Caz!

The Color Orange: How I almost turned into a carrot, and what I learned

I just got done eating a pound of carrots every day for a month (March 6th through April 4th).  Actually I got done over two weeks ago, but I've been on a really long road trip ever since and couldn't share any of my findings.  Now, at long last, the moment one or two (or even three) of you have been waiting for: 

What happened?

Eating a pound of carrots every day was difficult, much more so than I had anticipated.  But I did it anyway-I was dedicated to the Carrot Cause.  For the first 28 days or so, as I was plugging along, testing out new methods of eating carrots, and hoping my GI tract wouldn't implode, I didn't notice any change in my skin color.  On day 28, however, I compared my palms with those of a few other people, and we all agreed mine were a little more orange (or red, or both) than the others.  I kept looking around and asking people what they thought, and over the next few days I became convinced that:

1. Both my palms and my soles were more orange than before.  Not overwhelmingly so--no one stopped me on the street and screamed, "You have orange palms!"--but noticeably more than other people's.  
   
2. My face had more color to it - It seemed more red than orange, but it looked like I had spent a day or two outside, when in reality I had been living like a vampire for the prior several days and seen very little sun.  I also wasn't wearing any blush, so we can rule that out.                                                      
   
3. No other part of me changed color in any noticeable way.

 That's the good news--I observed some modest changes on certain parts of my body.  The bad news is, the pictures don't show it very clearly, and maybe only the keenest of observers will notice.  Whether it's because I have zero photography skills, or because it's hard to photograph one's own palms, or because I can't figure out when to use a flash and when not, the pictures are inadequate to really show what happened.  However, they aren't without merit--you can probably see at least a little color in the "after" pic of the palms, and when I looked at the enlarged "after" pic of my face I could see a tiny bit of red.       


Pictures (click to enlarge):

                  Before                                                                                            After

What else did I learn? 

First off, a pound of carrots is both more and less than you think.  It sounds like a lot, so at first you might say, "Wow, a whole pound of carrots every day!"  Then you look at the bag and you're not as impressed.  But then you try to eat them, and about halfway through your jaw is aching, your stomach is distended, you think you're turning into a carrot, and you still have half a bag to go.  That's when you say, "I don't think the human body is meant to ingest this many carrots in one day."   And you're probably right. 

Second, carrot smoothies are, for reasons unknown, anathema to my stomach.  The first few days were fairly smooth, and on day four I tried putting most of a day's carrots into a smoothy with some fruit (banana, apple, orange).  The smoothy tasted surprisingly good, and I thought I'd found a great way to get get the carrots down faster, and with less likelihood of developing jaw arthritis.  But a few hours after drinking the carrot smoothy, my stomach went crazy.  I had all sorts of bloating and pain.  Nothing could calm it (I tried a ton of remedies).  I didn't even blame it on the smoothy at first, I just thought I had exceeded some "carrot threshold" and I was paying the price.  And I almost gave up as a result.  But as my stomach very gradually calmed over the next five days or so, I kept thinking back to the smoothy and growing more suspicious of it.  I tried making a similar smoothy one more time to verify my hypothesis--this time I carefully spread the smoothy-consumption out over the whole day--and sure enough, I had some of the same symptoms, though they were less severe and didn't last as long.  Who knew smoothies would be the bane of my carrot existence? 

Third, it's really hard to eat a whole carrot cake in one night.  It's also hard to eat a whole loaf of carrot bread in a day.  I tried the cake once and the bread twice, and though they were delicious (except the second loaf, which I screwed up),  it was really, really hard to get it all down in a single evening (so much so that I gave away the last fourth or so of the cake and ate some more carrots to make up the difference).  And that was after substantially reduced the quantities of the non-carrot ingredients in both the cake and the bread - before the reduction, the cake would have had somewhere in the neighborhood of 3000 calories; my changes likely chopped off over 1000 of those.

Fourth, the easiest and most enjoyable way to eat carrots that I tried was the All Carrot No Potato version of this recipe, using Lipton soup and oil.  Those were some tantalizing carrots! (see below)  

Eventually I quit trying so many recipes and settled on just sticks.  After all, this project was supposed to make me more healthy, right?  Cake and dessert bread don't usually do that.  And while I was trying to use the new recipes to calm my stomach, all it really needed was no more smoothies!    


Other tidbits you can take or leave:  

During the second half of my experiment, I divided the carrots into AM and PM carrots, trying to eat the AM bag before lunch, and the PM's after.  Spreading them out helped my GI tract, not to mention my sanity. 

I made a habit of drinking water coolers (zero-calorie drinks that taste kinda like diet Sprite) with my carrots almost every day to make eating them more fun, though I discontinued this practice during the the stomach-craze of weeks one and two.  

As Thomas Culwell recommended, I reported a subjective "healthiness level" each day, on a scale of 1-10.  The results were pretty unremarkable - they dipped after each smoothy, but otherwise seemed to depend mostly on how much sleep I'd gotten.

I tracked the research in my notebook, checking off carrots and recording observations.  There's a picture of these pages att the bottom, but I warn you it's not for the faint of heart - a couple parts have what for many people would be Too Much Information.  One day early on I wrote, "[I] feel like a carrot".  Another day much later I wrote, "Getting really tired of carrots now for some reason."  Go figure. 

I've decided that eating a pound-a-day for 30 days isn't the most effective way to turn orange--it might take more than 30 days for the color change to really take effect, and you probably don't need a whole pound each day for it to happen.  I postulate that half-a-pound every day for 60 days would be more effective.

Turns out, there are a lot of carrot recipes out there.  


Conclusions:

• Eating a pound of carrots every day, like crocheting and garbage-collecting, is harder than it sounds. 
• Carrot smoothies are dangerous, and sometime in the future they may be used for biological warfare.
• I may be less prone to turning orange than your average Joe Shmoe.     
• Eat fewer carrots for a longer period of time if you really want to turn orange. 
• I will never eat another carrot.   At least not on purpose.  At least not very soon.  

Carrots in pictures:

 the carrot research journal (repeat warning: TMI):