Antioxidants: Food or Supplement?

I read an article from my nutrition textbook entitled "Antioxidants: Food or Supplements?" I found this nutrition debate to be quite interesting. When I hear the term "antioxidants", I immediately think of the health benefits like reducing heart disease. It never occurred to me that antioxidants can be potentially harmful. After reading the article, I was intrigued to know what other current sources thought about whether antioxidants help or harm. From an informative writing piece on ScientificAmerican.com, I learned a bit more in depth about the functions of antioxidants. Oxidation in the body is a process that can increase cholesterol to stick in the arteries which will increase risk in heart blockage and other problems. Antioxidants theoretically aid in keeping oxidation in check by slowing down the reaction.
But the fact remains, there have been several experiments where antioxidants have done more damage than healing. According to the textbook and website article, the problem lies within supplements not natural food sources high in antioxidants. Both articles indicate a few explanations. Perhaps the supplements are being taken in higher doses than recommended. Also typically, when health conscious people eat foods that naturally contain antioxidants, those same people eat other health foods and are active participants in exercise. Another possible explanation is that many different types of oxidation stress exists and supplements only associates with some of those stresses.
We learned in my nutrition class, moderation is one of the key terms for nutrition. Antioxidants are a great example. Any type of food can be too much of a "good thing". I believe like everything else, antioxidants should be consumed in reasonable amounts, nobody should gorge themselves with pomegranates to obtain lots of antioxidants. But I'm sure antioxidants are beneficial to some extent. I'm anxious to hear from medical resources in the future for conclusive statements about the antioxidant controversy.

Fat or Fabulous?

This week I chose to read Social Lubricant: How a Marketing Campaign Became the Catalyst for a Societal Debate by Rob Walker. He discusses how the Dove campaign for representing "real women" versus showing a stereotypical supermodel has caused a debate about beauty in society. In the magazine column, Walker writes from the perspective of an observer to how people react to Dove's statement, rather than acting as a participant on one side of the argument. If anything, Walker seems to think Dove stand for body image is unoriginal and lacking creative thought.
I find Walker's writing to descriptive and interesting at times. Especially at the beginning, when he describes a picture of the Dove's model. His style is clear and straightforward that appeals to the general audience, subscribers flipping through a magazine skimming pictures and words, not wanting anything too deep or difficult to read. As a female reader, it was refreshing to read a guy's column about the standards of beauty movement. And in certain respects, I liked how short the article was. It was succinct and kept my interest until the end.
On the other hand, because the length was short, no strong conclusions were made or conveyed. Walker's topic and perspective had potential to be a truly intriguing article but the efforts fell short, probably due to length  and time restrictions. And I couldn't detect Walker's voice in this piece. In fact, he seemed uninterested in the discussion, conveying instead an attitude of writing out of duty for doing's sake. A suggestion I would make to Rob Walker is to include visuals in his column. Since Dove ads are mostly a visual appeal, it could be more effective if the picture that Walker was describing in his opening paragraph was shown.

Turning Goys into Girls

Finally! An article I am excited to discuss for my text blog this week, “Turning Goys into Girls” by Michelle Cottle (pages 260-263). First of all, the topic is current and fascinating about how body obsessed our society is and how the consumer world is now focusing on exploiting men as well as women. Her main examples of body conscious dudes comes from material in Men's Health and other magazines geared toward the male population. I am surprised this magazine essay was published in 1998 because over ten years later, the issue is still relevant. In fact, I wonder if even more men feel the pressure of gaining perfection over their body today than in the late 90's.

Right from the beginning, Cottle begins the article by inadvertently stating her ethos, explaining the love she has for reading Men's Health. My assumption from the first paragraph was the author is a frequent reader of the magazine or perhaps even a subscription. Since her credibility on the subject had been well established, I was eager to continue learning about what she had to say. But she did not use observations from reading manly magazines alone as supporting evidence. She also included different statistics to back up her argument. It was apparent to me Cottle had done extensive research prior to writing the essay.

I especially loved the tone Cottle used in this writing piece, the perfect mixture of sarcasm and creative honesty. The polished style is definitely note-worthy too; how she used colorful examples, analogies and descriptions to prove her point. As an audience member, it kept me engaged and focused. Her audience awareness was very keen as the topic encompasses both men and women. There was excellence in cohesion without being redundant. Case in point, the second paragraph compares “super shaper briefs” for men to bras for women. Then the last few sentences, she refers back to that comparison , tying the article into a nice, neat package for the reader.

Michelle Cottle's writing is exactly what I find enjoyable to analyze. Her wit and clear, accessible language inspires me to become a better writer. She kind of became my “writing role model”. The only part I didn't really understand was the title. I googled the word “goys” and all I found was that it is a term the Jewish culture refers to Gentiles (people who are not Jewish). Urbandictionary.com says the meaning is a group of white boys trying to be gangster. Neither definitions pertain to the article, so even though the title is catchy, I think it should be changed to fit the rest of the essay.  

Fructose+a lot=Obesity?

I choose yet again another nutrition article from my nutrition textbook, Nutrition: An Applied Approach for my free choice blog post. The article is entitled "Is High-Fructose Corn Syrup the Cause of the Obesity Epidemic?"

To me, this article contains information that is common sense. I mean, there is a reason why the original food pyramid included hardly any sugars and why the current MyPlate eradicated sugars from the diet altogether. I remember learning about the hazards of a sugary diet as a young child. What I did not know previously was how big a role fountain drinks contribute to obesity and how the intake increased by 100% since the 1970's.

I do not think all the blame should fall entirely on to the fault of soda, however. As the article lists; “genetic influences, lack of adequate physical activity and excessive consumption of energy (calories)” are also responsible for overweight kids. It seems that obesity is a combination of all these factors. SweetSurprise.com's facts about high-fructose corn syrup states it is actually alright in moderation. Though fructose should not be promoted nor consumed in massive quantities, foods saturated in fat and regular sugar are equally unhealthy.

Nevertheless, fructose corn syrup should be limited in the daily diet. Not only is it a link to obesity but causes a host of other health problems. Tooth decay, cavities, diabetes type two, risk of heart disease are just a few issues that be caused by sugary substances. Jennifer Nelson, a registered and licensed dietician, wrote on MayoClinic.com a few suggestions to prevent high-fructose corn syrup from dominating your life such as drinking primarily water, choosing breakfast cereals carefully, eating fewer packaged and processed food and finding alternatives of low fat dairy food products rather than gouging on cookies, candy and such.  

The End of Consumer Culture?

I read “The End of Consumer Culture” by Hugh Graham on pages 256-259. Although I found the topic to be inventive and interesting, the article itself was lacking in several areas. As a reader, the thesis was not concise and very general. Graham is trying to make a strong statement about consumerism but instead of narrowing his focus to make a compelling argument, he writes about a lot of different angles in consumer marketing. His writing seemed too sporadic and though there was organization present, it was difficult to follow at times. How can an audience be convinced of Graham's views of consumerism, when key elements of organization, cohesion and editing are missing?

A few props can be said about Graham's writing. The format was readable and accessible for his targeted website audience. The use of visuals were well placed: the font choice, paragraph length and diagram picture. This made the article more approachable when glancing through it. And after checking the website where this essay was originally posted, I realized the extent of Graham's ethos. The whole website, hughgrahamcreative.com, is dedicated entirely to helping businesses with their marketing strategies. Since he does marketing research for a living, he obviously knows more about the subject than I do.

With that being said, what is lacking outweighs the positive qualities, in my opinion. There was something totally conflicting about the tone of this article. At first, I appreciated the casualty in Graham's voice. Further down the essay however, I am not following the concepts being stated. Especially when “aspirational consumer culture” is mentioned in various places which makes me question if his website is geared to only corporations and businesses, not the average person like myself. Also, I appreciate headings in any forms of writing but these subtitles were awful. I thought the first one was placed in the wrong place, breaking off a cohesive thought Graham had started. The second heading “It's the Economy, Stupid”, confused me to no end. Who's stupid? The USA government? Is he talking to himself? The reader? If he referring to his audience, name calling can backfire, offending the reader is never a wise idea.

There was just so much in here that puzzles me, I don't even know where I stand on American consumerism. It took all my mental capabilities just to follow his thoughts. It would be rewarding to read a revision of this argument essay, refining the potential that is already present.

Nutrigenomics

For my free choice blog post, I chose to read "Nutrigenomics: Personalized Nutrition or Pie in the Sky" by Janice Thompson and Melinda Manore. These authors describe the term nutrigenomics as a scientific discipline studying the interactions between the genes, the environment and nutrition. The article explains the theory believes that DNA can be altered through our diets. Experiments have been performed on lab rats to confirm researchers' hypothesis of the nutrigenomics validity. The debate continues with writing about the evidence and indications for nutrigenomics in humans. It finally concludes with the future promise of nutrigenomics and possible challenges.

I found the topic of Nutrigenomics to be extremely interesting. While Nutrigenomics promotes obvious benefits, there appear to be some very dangerous, undiscovered drawbacks. This is the case with most cutting edge discoveries in the medical field. Although I find Nutrigenomics to be fascinating, I'm afraid my skepticism outweighs my trust.

Imagine planet earth's inhabitants being able to be free of disease simply by changing the food they eat. Nutrigenomics claims to prevent heart disease, certain cancers and diabetes type 2. Is Nutrigenomics the answer? Too good to be true is what pops into my mind when I think about this scenario. Even though the concept of Nutrigenomics is favorable, the research is still lacking in many areas. For example, Nutrigenomics has yet to be tested with humans. According to a review by dietspotlight.com, Nutrigenomics has only been tested with animals (mostly mice and lab rats), not humans due to ethical reasons. It is common knowledge that people and rodents are composed differently. What might be medically helpful to a rat could be severally harmful to a human. Further experimentation must be conducted before any conclusive predictions of how Nutrigenomics could be any sort of asset.

The other critical drawback is how costly Nutrigenomics would be if it became available to the public. The debate article states that genetic make-up of a person is individualistic and most likely Nutrigenomics would require a personalized assessment in order to work. This is possible for people with abundant resources but a challenge for those on the low-income spectrum. On Nutritional Genomics website, it gives the statistic that 80% of all deaths due to cardiovascular disease happened in lower income countries. Thus, even if Nutrigenomics became a success, could the majority of the people who need it be helped?

The dreamer/optimistic side of myself wants to believe that Nutrigenomics could be a viable cure for major medical problems. But it could take many, many years for scientists to discover the proper use of Nutrigenomics. I think it is spectacular that nutrition specialists are continuing to do groundbreaking research on improving the quality of human lives. I just believe Nutrigenomics shouldn't be regarded as truth quite yet.

What's the powerPOINT?

For my first blog assignment, I decided to read the newspaper editorial "PowerPoint: Killer App?" by Ruth Marcus (pg 274-275). This article opened my eyes in a way I was not expecting. I didn't realize the topic of PowerPoints could arise dispassionate feelings; clearly I was wrong. I have never felt one way or the other about PowerPoints. They were just kind of...existed. To Ruth Marcus, however, PowerPoint presentations should be judged with disgust. Undignified, boring and pathetic are words she would probably choose to describe PowerPoints. My question is: WHY IS RUTH MARCUS SUCH A HATER?!!
I don't understand her extreme repulsion for the innocent and harmless PP program. I can understand how PowerPoint is not appropriate for every presentation situation. But it is hardly the bane of human existence as Marcus implies with her complaining. I find Powerpoints to be more engaging versus reading a speech or rattling off statistics orally. She is troubled that PowerPoint is being taught at early ages in the academic setting. As a student, I think PowerPoints to be clear, organized and sometimes enjoyable. PowerPoint is also flexible, useful for the sole source in presentation or simply an asset. Perhaps the author isn't a visual learner, therefore finds an interactive screen distracting. But nowhere in the article does she list "better" alternatives to a PowerPoint. If you're going to be criticize a standard method of presenting material, the least you can do is contribute ideas to fix the problem. It's a waste of time for readers who want to be informed by the newspaper. Whining is not professional, bring your talents into writing something useful, Ms. Marcus.
In a strange roundabout way, Ruth Marcus may have achieved her goal: for the reader to think critically about PowerPointing. Her presentation was hardly persuasive though. In fact, I found her writing style to somewhat of a turn-off. Maybe she would of been more successful if she had used a PowerPoint.