WRIT1152 Course Blog

While the need for geoengineering is still far off, we need to do all the research we can. The idea that humans are thinking about purposefully changing Earth’s climate is scary. While, according to this article, humans are the cause of most climate change in the first place, that was inadvertent and not done with the intent to change the climate. The climate is a very complex thing that has not been the topic of very much research. Going into a geoengineering project blind, so to speak, is not very bright. Laws need to be put in place regulating the private sector to only research and not actual deployment and the international community needs to come together to work on this issue since it is an international problem.
While I fully support the research needed for geoengineering, I think it should be used only as a very last resort. Humans trying to fix a human-made problem by constructing a human-made solution seems to me like the phrase two wrongs don’t make a right. However, having a last resort would make many of us feel more secure and would give us time to come up with other solutions. Research on geoengineering should absolutely not take the place of research and funds being used to reduce emissions. Reducing a problem we created is definitely the better of the two options, even if it hasn’t been all that successful.

Posted by Deirdra V. at 1:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

I was not convinced at geoengineering being the solution of the problem. It may be that I don't believe in global warming because I wanted to hear more about the issues of global warming and evidence. I believe that he put too much information and went from one point to another. I don't agree with international laws governing this. Although I do what I can to help the environment, I don't think there is a problem with global warming. I know this may anger many people, but even looking at it from a the global warming perspective geoengineering does not sound like it would help. I just think that the earth is changing in certain areas. Some are beginning get colder and some warmer. I just have not been convinced and believe that some people are just feeding into it. But, like I said I do my part just in case.

Posted by Tanna C at 1:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

This is a short article that explains a lot about the field of geoengineering. It introduces the reader to a subject they likely haven’t heard of before, and explains some pressing issues surrounding this technology. Overall, the article conveys its ideas well with the help of good organization and strong transitions.
The topic heading used in this article aren’t very specific (“Lone Rangers”) but they do inform the reader where one point of discussion ends and another one begins. “Albedo Enhancers” is about the advantages and disadvantages to one geoengineering approach, “Lone Rangers” describes the harm that just one country could cause with a geoengineering venture, and “From Science Fiction to Facts” emphasizes the need for scientific and international consensus on geoengineering matters. Tying these sections together are strong transitions that serve to orient the reader. These transitions help speed up the pace, when it is easy get caught in technical details.
One particularly strong transition appears at the very end of “Albedo Enhancers”: the author writes about potential disadvantages and disasters caused by artificially raising albedo. He (or she) then mentions that the massive consequences of geoengineering projects mean that international responsibility is needed, before moving on to “Lone Rangers” and the risks of unilateralism.

Posted by Eli W at 8:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

calamitous(adjective): being, causing, or accompanied by calamity
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/calamitous)

"Chances are that if countries begin deploying geoengineering systems, it will be because calamitous climate change is near at hand" ("A Last Resort Against Global Warming?" 4)

My grandma's hair feel out because it was calamitous to her chemotherapy treatment.

Posted by Lana H at 2:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The reading about geoengineering was not what I expected. I thought it was going to be another good example of how to formulate an argument. Surprisingly, it was terribly constructed and did NOT convince me that geoengineering would be an effective method for preventing our climate from warming. Throughout the argument he jumped from one idea to the next. I think he mentioned the idea of establishing international laws for geoengineering numerous time throughout his paper. He did not have organization and it was extremely hard to follow his logic. He also concentrated on too many negative aspects of genoengineering to even convince me that it would be beneficial. Admitting that there is not a lot of research being conducted about geoengineering is not a good argument supporting your idea. Maybe I completely missed the mark on this article, but I thought it was poorly written.

Posted by Lana H at 1:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Obviously this proposal did not get passed, but I thought it was pretty amazing that it was even considered.

HOUSE BILL NO. 282
AN ACT TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS FROM SERVING 1 FOOD TO ANY PERSON WHO IS OBESE, BASED ON CRITERIA PRESCRIBED BY 2 THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH; TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO 3 PREPARE WRITTEN MATERIALS THAT DESCRIBE AND EXPLAIN THE CRITERIA 4 FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PERSON IS OBESE AND TO PROVIDE THOSE 5 MATERIALS TO THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS; TO DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT TO 6 MONITOR THE FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS 7 OF THIS ACT; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES. 8 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI:
1. (1) The provisions of this section shall apply 10 to any food establishment that is required to obtain a permit from 11 the State Department of Health under Section 41-3-15(4)(f), that 12 operates primarily in an enclosed facility and that has five (5) 13 or more seats for customers. 14 (2) Any food establishment to which this section applies 15 shall not be allowed to serve food to any person who is obese, 16 based on criteria prescribed by the State Department of Health 17 after consultation with the Mississippi Council on Obesity 18 Prevention and Management established under Section 41-101-1 or 19 its successor. The State Department of Health shall prepare 20 written materials that describe and explain the criteria for 21 determining whether a person is obese, and shall provide those 22 materials to all food establishments to which this section 23 applies. A food establishment shall be entitled to rely on the 24 criteria for obesity in those written materials when determining 25 whether or not it is allowed to serve food to any person. 26
(3) The State Department of Health shall monitor the food 27 establishments to which this section applies for compliance with 28 the provisions of this section, and may revoke the permit of any 29 H. B. No. 282 *HR03/R51* 08/HR03/R51 PAGE 2 (RF\LH) ST: Food establishments; prohibit from serving food to any person who is obese.
food establishment that repeatedly violates the provisions of this 30 section. 31 SECTION 2. This act shall take effect and be in force from 32 and after July 1, 2008.

Posted by Liz K. at 4:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Aetiology

OED: 1. The assignment of a cause, the rendering of a reason; also, the reason annexed, the wherefore of a command or utterance.
2. The science or philosophy of causation; that part of philosophy which treats of the demonstration of causes; the part of any special science which speculates on the causes of its phenomena.
3. That branch of medical science which investigates the causes and origin of diseases; the scientific exposition of the origin of any disease.
(OED, 2nd Ed, accessed through U of MN Libraries)

Taubes’ “Response”: “Significant fat loss on carbohydrate-restricted diets, unrestricted in calories, is the kind of paradoxical observation that might actually inform our understanding of the true aetiology of the disorder itself.”

Sentence: The scientist conducted interviews to learn more about the aetiology of the epidemic.

Posted by Eli W at 12:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Following up to Lana's post: Here's video of Taubes presenting at the Stevens Institute of Technology.

Posted by Greg S at 5:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoQGRJqGQTs

Posted by Lana H at 1:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

anecdotal (adjective): based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anecdotal)

"His evidence that you can lose weight without reducing calories is 'anecdotal'" (Bray 259).

During high school my research papers contained anecdotal evidence because I didn’t have high-quality research methods.

Posted by Lana H at 12:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm really convinced now. Maybe it's really the overeating of carbs that does people in, not fat. Tubs has more references in one paragraph of his book than I've had in every paper I've ever written. How can I now argue with this? It makes too much sense. Study after study after study keeps consistently showing that more fat and less carbs curbs your hunger and loses the weight. And that's one thing that so many food studies are missing: consistency. We hear so often about a control diet study and the results are insane and totally not what the testers were expecting. We blow these off though because we've grown so used it and have eventually resorted to "well I guess we'll never really have a standard for a healthy diet." Maybe now we do.

Looking back in a summer of 06 when I gained some weight and couldn't understand why. I was eating less than normal and I was eating what I deemed healthy food (I was having 2-3 PB&J sandwhiches everyday). I figured peanut butter was good for you, then I realized it had a ton of fat in it. I figured "Oh man that's why I gained weight! All that fat!" Now I'm thinking maybe it wasn't all the fat, but all the bread. I was putting the PB&J on bagels! 3 bagels a day! That's it. I'm doing an experiment of my own involving eggs, bacon, and peanut butter. Tubs has done a good job with this book. I'm slightly excited to see what the critique is going to be that we will read.

It's a picture of Tubs! http://www.diseaseproof.com/GTaubes%20-%20Doughy(1).jpg

Posted by Luis C at 10:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Here's an article on "curing" diabetes. It's notable for its emphasis on "willpower" and this line:

"There is no special diet. You've got to eat fewer calories than your body burns," said Dr. Robert Rizza, a Mayo Clinic endocrinologist and former president of the American Diabetes Association.

Obviously something changes for these people: they lose weight, they exercise, they change their diet, and their diabetes goes away. Doesn't it seem odd, however, that the things that Taubes discusses don't even come up here? No mention of eating sugar and refined grains, no mention of a possible metabolic problem, and no mention of the role of insulin. It's articles like these that make me want an actual scientific description of why diabetes occurs. I see that they challenge Taubes's hypothesis, but they do so with arguments that Taubes, I think, demonstrates as facile and trite. I want and expect more.

Posted by Greg S at 11:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I think chapter 20, Unconventional Diets has been the most convincing chapter yet. The result form studies on different diets were shocking to me. I was really surprised that people lost much more weight eating 3000 calories a day of meat, vegetables, and very little carbohydrates than people who were eating a well-balanced calorie restricted diet. I was also surprised that people who were on the starvation diets did not feel hungry when they broke the diet by eating protein or fat, but suffered the symptoms of food deprivation if they broke the diet by eating carbohydrates. If anybody does not believe that the kind of calories a person eats matters, I do not know how they would argue against it after reading this chapter. I used to think that people on the Atkins diet or other low carb. diets were just falling into a fad diet because I always learned in nutrition classes that diets which restricted certain food groups were ineffective. I always thought that a well-balanced diet was always the best way to maintain one’s weight. However, after reading this chapter I do not believe that. I also found it very convincing that people who ate mainly fat and protein were able to stick to the diet because they felt satisfied and were not constantly aware that they were hungry, but people who ate 10,000 calories a day in carbohydrates were still unsatisfied. However when I thought about my eating habits, it made sense. When I eat something like a doughnut for breakfast, I am hungry an hour later. So far this has been the most interesting and convincing chapter to me.

Posted by Liz K. at 4:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Aleatory

OED: Adjective. Dependent on the throw of a die; hence, dependent on uncertain contingencies. (OED, 2nd Ed, accessed through U of MN Libraries)

Barzun: “Since much punctuation in printed matter today comes from the copy editor rather than the author, these shades of thought should perhaps be classed as ‘aleatory art’” (239).

Sentence: They were instructed to use an aleatory process to obtain the set of random numbers.

Posted by Eli W at 12:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

While I was checking my fantasy basketball team on Yahoo I came across an interesting article that deals with healthy and unhealthy foods. Although the article talks briefly about refined flour, once again the concept of calories making a food unhealthy dominates the list of foods to stay away from. If you have time check out the top 5 list...

http://http://food.yahoo.com/blog/yahoofreshpicks/7939/surprise-nutritionist-no-nos/

Posted by Sam K at 12:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

In chapter 17, Taubes brought up a very interesting point about how our behavior is in response to our physiological needs. He gives the example of how depressed patients are totally inactive, which is their body’s effort to conserve enough energy to maintain a constant internal balance. This made me think about how people react to stress. People’s weight tends to fluctuate when they are really stressed. Some people have no appetite when they are stressed, and as a result they lose weight. Other people eat excessively as a response to stress and gain weight. I wonder what causes these different responses to the same emotion. I would think that the overeating would be a response to needing more energy to maintain a constant internal balance. As a result people have food cravings. Possibly for people who lose weight, it could be a flight-or-fight response, making food unappealing to them.

Posted by Liz K. at 12:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Hi everyone. I was just talking to this one girl about the "Freshman 15." She claimed to me that she would go drinking a few times a week and then eat a lot of food afterwards. She claimed that alcohol had no calories and it was just the food that had calories. I know we are learning that calories aren't the weight controllers we used to think they were, but this is just plain interesting I think. I know all of the guys in the class secretly want to know how many calories that are in their Appletini's so here is a litte site that has a calculator that shows how many calories, on average, are in some different drinks.

http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/CollegeStudents/calculator/alcoholcalc.aspx

Posted by Tyler S at 10:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I feel that after reading chapter 17 I am slightly upset at this whole process of losing weight. I am someone who believed that to lose weight you need to eat less calories than what your body needs to function. While I know this is not how it always works for obese people, I still felt that this is the general guideline to follow when trying to lose weight. After reading Taube’s explanation for why this isn’t the case, I began to wonder, what is the way to lose weight. I am having trouble comprehending another way to lose weight because the idea of eating less seams to make the most sense. I am also disheartened by what Taubes says about exercise. If I am not going to lose weight by going to the gym to exercise, then I don’t see the reason to go to the gym in the first place. I hope that later in the book Taubes mentions some good reasons to exercise like long-term health benefits, because otherwise I might not go to the gym again. I am also really hoping that at some point in this book Taubes tells us what the key is to losing weight because I will be very upset if we read this book and he doesn’t give us a solution.
So I wrought this before class but was unable to post it do to the fire alarm going off in the computer lab. After our discussion in class I feel much better about this chapter, more specifically the exercise part. I have a much easier time understanding Taubes when Greg explains it.

Posted by Kathryn N at 3:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Gary has done a heck of a job selling my his arguments so far in his book. His research continues to surpass the expectations that I have and he continues to support his argument very well. After reading this chapter, I again agree with him concerning metabolic rates and genetic predisposition concerning body mass. He explains the hypotheses very well in this chapter (as usual), especially concerning the body's conservation of energy to sustain its relative body mass and size. It is interesting to read this hypothesis as someone who has not thought of weight gain and retention in this way, and it makes sense that the body regulates its on metabolism to maintain its fat stores. It is also interesting to to me the way he discredits the thermodynamic "calories in, calories out" hypothesis, or rather, shows that it has been falsely represented and has less to do with weight gain than each body's metabolism.

As much as I agree with Taubes on many things, the one thing in this chapter that I cannot ascribe to is the thought that exercise has little to do with overall health. Taubes makes the argument that low metabolic rates cause a lack of desire for exercise, not the traditional thought that lack of exercise causes low metabolic rates. While this may be true, I think it does a disservice to people trying to lose weight to tell them that exercise won't help your overall health, but rather that it's not their fault if they don't feel a desire to exercise. Of course, for some people exercise will have little to do with their weight, but I believe that for the majority of others, exercise plays a very important role in the weight loss process and is a means to discover one's inner health.

Posted by Drew P at 1:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I definitely can see where Taubes is saying that reducing calories or burning them off isn't really the key to losing weight. One prime example I have is from when I played high school football. A large portion of the team, mainly the lineman, were all very overweight and had been known to struggle losing weight throughout their lives. I don't know how many people in his class have participated in a grueling football practice, but at least for the first month of the season, it is complete hell. Running exercises after running exercises, temperatures in the high 80's, tackling drills with up to 30 lbs of pads on, agility exercises, catching drills, scrimmaging, and even just running plays with no oppostion breaks down your body. Now imagine how many calories are burned in a 4 hour practice like that. Imagine 300-lb 20 year-olds working out until they virtually pass out. I have never done the figuring, but I am guessing its quite a bit of calories.

Now my point lies in what I have to say next. Towards the middle and end of the season, some of the linemen started weighing in even heavier than they came in at. Even with all of that calorie burining, they couldn't manage to lose any weight. I think this demonstrates Taubes point that humans are not machines where you can just punch in a number of caloies to lose and your weight will act accordingly. Diet is still the key here; not the exercise.

Posted by Tyler S at 10:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)

In chapter 17, Taubes brings up an interesting point in the Luxuskonsumption hypothesis. It states that overeating gives someone the desire to exercise because they have more energy to expend. On the other hand, when someone doesn’t eat they become tired, decreasing their yearning to exercise. An important aspect that Taubes could have expanded on is the type of foods you eat. In my own experience, overeating sugary foods like candy, pop, chips, and cookies turns me into a couch potato. I don’t have the desire or right kind of energy to motivate me to exercise. However, when I eat foods that keep my blood sugars at a more constant level I have the tendency to want to work out. Maybe this is just me, but I am a firm believer that your physical active level depends heavily on the foods you chose to eat. In high school my track coach always enforced to stay away from pop, candy, and chips before a meet. Foods that cause a sudden increase in blood glucose levels will have a nasty outcome. Over indulging is not always a good thing, but maybe when it’s the right kind of food it will have benefits??!

Posted by Lana H at 12:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Taubes' once again challenges society's common views on weight gain and health. He attacks the traditional view that obesity is due to the lack of exercise and the over consumption of calories. In addition, he introduces the thought that the problem with obesity may come from a much more cellular level then once imagined, and not necessarily the laziness of an individual. I finished chapter seventeen with a nagging desire to know what Taubes' believes is the answer to the problem of calories. If our bodies have evolved to maintain a constant amount of energy and will take the necessary steps to do so, is there any hope in losing weight? Ironically, Taubes has to remind this technology crazed generation that we're not machines, and thus we cannot hope to solve any problems by approaching questions in this manner. By classifying our problems to that of machines, we will always miss the solution, we're much more complex then that. Taubes' continuous challenges and incessant destruction of common solutions to beliefs, has raised the standard for what people view as the solution to certain problems, and has opened up my critical eye.

Posted by Sam K at 6:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

In my high school biology class, my teacher talked about diets. After discussing the Atkins and other diets, the message he passed on to us was this: if you take in fewer calories than your body needs to sustain its weight, you’ll lose weight.
Reading chapter 17 reminded me of this statement. Taubes goes against this traditional belief and makes a case that the body’s metabolism is designed to resist changes in energy reserves, and that the body will vary its activity level so it can keep fat deposits constant. I understand Taubes’ point about how eating less can make you feel tired and lethargic. I experience this when I oversleep and have to skip breakfast to get to my classes on time. But Taubes’ Luxuskonsumption hypothesis suggests that I should be more physically active after I’ve overeaten, and I’m not. I feel lethargic when I eat too much (as I do on Thanksgiving, Easter, and lots of other days throughout the year). It’s common for people to eat a big meal and then take a nap. Napping burns calories more slowly than regular activities; a lot of animals hibernate to slow down their metabolism so they can survive without food. This contradicts Luxuskonsumption, because a human napping after eating a huge meal is not burning the extra calories. Maybe I’m going to be gaining weight, because I don’t seem to be more active after I overeat.
On the other hand, maybe Luxuskonsumption is applicable to humans, just more long-term. That could be why athletes carbo-load the night before their events. The excess energy from pasta is stored in the muscles, not fat, and encourages physical activity the next day.

Posted by Eli W at 6:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Even though I have found this book rather dull, being a fat person myself I actually appreciated this chapter. I don’t consider myself especially lazy, (a procrastinator yes, but not lazy) I believe that I overeat, and I do visit the rec center twice a week. At one point in my life I was on traveling basketball team and we practiced hard 3 times a week and then had tournaments almost every weekend but I was still heavier than all my friends. While it’s true that without all that intense exercise I’ve put on more weight, even when I had the same intense exercise and eating habits as my skinny friends I was still fat. For all those who think that all fat people are just lazy bums please think again. While it’s true that I could exercise more and curb my diet even more, I’m not fat because I’m a couch potato gorging myself on Little Debbies, most definitely not. After living with that being other people’s view of me, it’s really disheartening. This chapter was telling all that there are some complicated and underlying problems to being fat that aren’t necessarily the individual’s fault. So even though I really don’t like your book, thank you Taubes for that.

Posted by Deirdra V. at 4:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Taubes quotes John Taggart on the “first law of thermodynamics,” on page 293, which states “a calorie is a calorie and calories in equals calories out.” I believe that Taubes covers this argument fairly well but I don’t think he covers how a calorie is packaged enough. A calorie is a unit of energy and what some foods are made of make a calorie harder to release. The most usable form of energy in the human body is glucose, which is a simple carbohydrate. It is relatively easy to convert from a more complex carbohydrate down to glucose whereas trying to convert a protein into glucose is much harder. Also, some foods contain a lot of fibers that the body cannot break down causing the body to work extremely hard to extract calories but doesn’t get a lot in return. An example of that is celery. So, while it's true that “a calorie is a calorie” it's an over simplification. Our bodies are complex chemistry sets that can perform many amazing functions but some functions are done better than others. That is why our bodies first break down carbs first and then other molecules for energy after the carbs are used up. I’m not sure why he doesn’t get into this argument very much because it supports his argument but I wish he would have.

Posted by Deirdra V. at 4:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

A priori
OED: Adverb and adjective phrase.
1. A phrase used to characterize reasoning or arguing from causes to effects, from abstract notions to their conditions or consequences, from propositions or assumed axioms (and not from experience); deductive; deductively.
2. Hence loosely: Previous to any special examination, presumptively, in accordance with one's previous knowledge or prepossessions.
3. By some metaphysicians used for: Prior to experience; innate in the mind.
(OED, 2nd Ed, accessed through U of MN Libraries)

Taubes: “The second was that ‘there is no a priori reason why this balance should be maintained by control of appetite alone, since it depends as much on calorie expenditure as on calorie intake’” (298).

Sentence: A priori knowledge for the physics problem included the fact that all matter has mass.

Posted by Eli W at 3:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Perspicacity
OED: Noun.
1. Clearness of understanding or insight; great mental penetration; discernment.
2. Keenness of sight.
(OED, 2nd Ed, accessed through U of MN Libraries)

Taubes: “Less easy to imagine, though, is how anyone avoids this fate, particularly if we believe that the balancing of intake and expenditure is maintained not by some finely tuned regulatory system… but, rather, by our conscious behavior and our perspicacity at judging the caloric value of the foods we eat” (298).

Sentence: The mathematician’s great perspicacity allowed him to understand and solve the famous problem.

Posted by Eli W at 3:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

To me, one of the most interesting parts of chapter 17-Conservation of Energy-was a look at peoples’ ability and willingness to oversimplify what one would think would be a very complicated process. It begs the question: Why are we so willing to believe that something as complex as the human body can be reduced to a simple machine that merely takes in energy and expends it? With all that people go through in attempts to lose weight, how could it not be a more complicated process?! The discussion of this oversimplified understanding of weight gain and obesity also raises questions as to the effect such an assumption has had on our society. The obese are looked at as fat, lazy people who would lose weight if only they would take a walk once in a while and laid-off the Twinkies! This assumption is not only wrong, according to Taubes, but it can also be very damaging to a portion of our society that has a legitimate disability or ailment.
Taubes leaves us with the idea that obesity may be the cause of malfunctioning cells or processes in our body; this seems to sets the reader up for the question: What can be done about it?

Posted by Bess R. at 11:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

This article in the New York Times is very short, but since I have a son I like to hear what is being said about children. I grew up in AZ, far from lakes. My husband grew up here. He is a much better swimmer than I am and I took swimming lessons. He lived right next to the Mississippi and later right next to a lake. So, we went on the lake for a tubing adventure. My first:) It was horrible, I was so scared and my husband was basically calling me a chicken without directly saying it. But, being my son was there, I had to show that I can be a Man too! Afterward, I told my husband how I felt and I did not ever want to do it again. He said there was no reason to be scared and I had a life vest and nothing happened. I had to explain that I grew up in AZ and was used to dirt. I was no where near a lake to be so used to swimming in one. Anyway, my son started taking swimming lessons because everytime we are on a lake he gets super tense and when we tried teaching him he doesn't have too much confidence with us around. So, we figured if he worked with someone he didn't know that he would be more likely to take a chance and want to swim. He is six and this article by Eric Nagourney says, "swimming lessons to children ages 1 to 4 makes them less likely to drown." Is my son still at the age to be less likely to drown, I believe so. I don't want to criticize this article too much, but I would like to see the studies on older children taken swimming lessons and their likelyness of drowning. How is that even reported? Is that by number of drownings occuring in the U.S., by their age? I believe that my son has a better advantage being introduced to swimming earlier than I was. Also, we are far from AZ and there is the increased chance that he will enjoy the water more than I do now. I would also like to see studies on people's swimming that compares lake swimmers and desert swimmers who just used pools. I think there would be a significant difference in that.

Children: Early Swim Lessons May Reduce Drowning

Posted by Tanna C at 1:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

This article in the New York Times was very interesting since we are on the topic of diet and health. What caught my eye was when offspring were mentioned. I have one offspring and like to better my daily living so he will grow into a smart and healthy young man. When I found out I was pregant, I turn a huge turn in my diet and started eating more nutritious foods and increased my variety of foods. I think is was a very wise decision and I am greatful that I made it because now I can model good eating habits. One thing that I do regret is while I was a few months along, I had an intense craving(the only craving for soda that I ever had) for a cherry vanilla Dr. Pepper and went to Sonic's fast food and bought a- I think it's called a Sonic Size cup. Anyway, It was the best tasting soda I drank in my life because I had the craving and filled it to the max. Unfortunately, I felt so guilty that I quit the stuff(soda) for about 2 and a half years. I haven't had a craving since then and my son won't drink anything with caffiene. I am doing great in my efforts to set a good example and this article made me think of this point in my life where I wanted to change my diet for the best in me and my son. Gina Kolata states, "conditions during pregnancy, including the mother’s diet, may determine how fat the offspring are as adults. Human studies have shown that women who eat little in pregnancy, surprisingly, more often have children who grow into fat adults. More than a dozen studies have found that children are more likely to be fat if their mothers smoke during pregnancy." Although this is all the article states about pregnancy and "fat" offspring, it interested me. I would like to see these studies and read what actually took place because even the title says, "Bad Advise by the Spoonful." I wonder what else I could do to help my son be healthy and am I doing the best I can right now. My son seems very healthy, not counting the colds he gets from the all the carriers on the playgroud and spreads to me. That seems unavoidable and my son had learned that hand washing helps to decrease getting sick and sneezing or coughing into your elbow. He even reminds me on that. It is hard for me to remember that. Maybe one day I will be as good as him.

For the Overweight, Bad Advice by the Spoonful

Posted by Tanna C at 12:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Impecunious
OED: Adjective. Having no money, penniless; in want of money. (OED, 2nd Ed, accessed through U of MN Libraries)

Taubes: “So why were they fat? ‘It is difficult to explain the high frequency of obesity seen in a relatively impecunious society such as exists in the West Indies, when compared to the standard of living enjoyed in the more developed countries…’” (242).

Sentence: The impecunious college students searched for low-cost food.

Posted by Eli W at 8:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Facile
OED: Adjective.
1. That can be accomplished with little effort. Now with somewhat disparaging sense. Formerly used as predicate with inf. phrase as subject, and in phrase facile and easy.
2. A. Of a course of action, a method: Presenting few difficulties. B. Easy to understand or to make use of.
3. Moving without effort, unconstrained; flowing, running, or working freely; fluent, ready.
4. Of persons, dispositions, speech, etc. A. Easy of access or converse, affable, courteous. B. Characterized by ease of behaviour. C. Not harsh or severe, gentle, lenient, mild.
5. Easily led or wrought upon; flexible, pliant; compliant, yielding.
6. A. quasi-adv. Easily; without difficulty. B. in Scots Law. ‘Possessing that softness of disposition that he is liable to be easily wrought upon by others C. Of things: Easily moved, yielding, ‘easily surmountable; easily conquerable.
(OED, 2nd Ed, accessed through U of MN Libraries)

Taubes: “…an explanation for leanness that the British metabolism researchers Nancy Rothwell and Michael Stock described in 1981 as ‘facile and unlikely,’ a kind way of putting it” (248).

Sentence: The mayor claimed that all the city’s crime was caused by criminals, a conclusion that critics derided as being facile.

Posted by Eli W at 8:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Concomitant
OED: Adjective. Going together, accompanying, concurrent, attendant.
Noun. 1. An attendant state, quality, circumstance, or thing; an accompaniment.
2. A person that accompanies; a companion.
(OED, 2nd Ed, accessed through U of MN Libraries)

Taubes: “Once Hirsch’s obese subjects took to restricting their calories, however, they experienced what he called ‘all the physiological and psychological concomitants of starvation’” (256).

Sentence: Confusion was concomitant with filing the complicated tax return.

Posted by Eli W at 8:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I found the studies on American Indians in chapter 5 very interesting. How when populations were exposed to “American diets" of sugar, white flour and white rice, diseases appeared. Prior to this diet, Indians did not have cancer or it was incredibly rare. I would think that Native Americans would have had higher rates or cancer because of other lifestyle factors such as smoking tobacco or exposure to the sun. Even cooking and smoking foods can causes cancer. This evidence could support the hypothesis that refined carbohydrates, starches and sugars are bad for your health, or could it just be that the doctors did not have adequate tools to identify cancer? Even if they did not have adequate equipment to identify cancer, the rate of other diseases greatly increased. For me, this evidence was very strong in convincing me to eat sugars, refined carbohydrates, and starches sparingly.

Posted by Liz K. at 11:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

When I read Chapter 4, the part that struck me the most was how he approached Fat and Cancer. I thought, through most of my life, that fat was bad and it was the cause of most unhealthy living and even caused some diseases. The evidence that he "reveals" seems to be the first I have heard of. I have never really looked at my diet except to include more fruits and vegetables. I didn't look at fat content or salt or anything else. So, it was very interesting how he incorporates the studies on fat in his reading. It helped me to see another side of fat in our diets. Why don't we hear more about the evident truth from the studies that Taubes mentions? A better question might be why don't I hear it? His reading has got me to think that we can't always trust what we hear or read. We do have to research what is being said. This is making me think about multivitamins and all the supplements sold at our local supermarkets. Which vitamins or supplements would be beneficial for a healthy lifestyle. Which supplements would increase some of the physical needs we are trying to improve? It would be very interesting to hear Taubes view on this.

Posted by Tanna C at 9:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Of all the forces of evil that exists in the world, Apple Inc. is the most evil. This great evil emanates from the chairman and CEO of Apple Steve Jobs. Apple's tight control over The hardware and software allowed to run on their computers makes them as evil as Microsoft. And it's well known how evil the chair-throwing Microsoft Chairman is. Apple is so evil that they sell barely functioning computers with an inferior operating system. Apple computers ship with less powerful processors and less RAM than equivalent commodity PCs. In addition to this, MacOS X is a combination of three different operating systems that clearly don't get along well. All Apple products are designed only to look pretty for all the crazy Mac heads who line up when there's a new product for sale. It's a well-known fact that if Steve Jobs packaged unnamed bodily fluids, then he could use his own evil powers to sell it. Apple Inc. exists only to recruit unwitting consumers into a massive worldwide cult. The Apple cult is growing in membership every day and becoming more evil as it spreads through our society.

Posted by Chad L at 10:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

It amazes me how much the government affects our nation’s views of dieting, especially since only an adequate amount of information is needed before most people simply follow what the government says to do. In the beginning of chapter four, Taubes points out that the controversy over dietary fat has ceased ever since the government took control of providing information to the public. This simply proves that the nation tends to follow the government’s control. Does this mean everything they say is 100% true? Most certainly not. When research is done on a group of subjects, many factors contribute to a person’s overall health, such as their heredity, method of exercise (if any), viewpoint on eating healthy or not, past relationships with food (psychological), and way more than I could fit in this blog. For example, I’m comparing myself with a 300 lb person. Who would be more apt to significantly reduce their cholesterol? The percentage of body fat would be a huge factor in deciding this answer. The subject with less body fat will be able to adjust their body with every refinement in their diet, whereas a person with a higher percent of body fat will need to make a very significant change in their diet in order to attain some type of change. With so many factors, the government should address this information to a wider audience, which would make their information seem more legit than simply stating, “Reduce your fat intake.” Taubes includes that many citizens are not buying the governments facts until further research is done to further prove their information. I agree, and until then, I won’t change my diet until extensive research has been done. Relying on the government may not always be the best choice, but most still think they are right every time.

Posted by Allison L. at 10:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

In the theory of the paragraph there are five general laws that include unity, selection, proportion, sequence, and variety. These are all extremely important in order to construct a solid paragraph. Being able to write a good paragraph is the foundation for writing a sound paper. In Gary Taube’s book, “Good Calories, Bad Calories,” he presents his reader with numerous paragraphs that clearly have the five general laws intertwined into them. Taubes does an excellent job on page 67 paragraph number two in presenting unity throughout. He starts his paragraph by stating, “And thus the dilemma: ‘People will not be motivated to any great extent to take our advice because there is little in it for each of them, particularly in the short and medium term’” (Taubes 67). The following sentences then go on to suggest solutions to fix this problem. The sentences all relate to his topic sentence making the paragraph easy to understand and link its significance to the surrounding paragraphs.

Posted by Lana H at 9:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/science/07tier.html

I read this in the New York Times and double-checked to make sure it wasn’t written by Taubes. If you replace “salt” in this article with “fat,” and “blood pressure” with “cholesterol,” you’ll have Taubes’ argument through Chapter 4.

The article also discusses the role of government in public health. I think that government must draft guidelines regarding nutrition and health, as long as the recommendations are based on sound science. Americans want to stay healthy, and it’s unlikely that they can get unbiased information from agribusiness and other industries with a product to sell. However, scientific consensus is absent in both the cholesterol and hypertension debates, so government should not make it appear as if one exists.

At no point should government force consumers’ decisions about what to eat, because everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion about which foods are healthy or desirable. NYC shouldn’t mandate salt reductions, but they should educate consumers and promote healthy eating.

Posted by Eli W at 8:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The health concept on page 66 states entire populations and not just individuals should be treated for a disease. That concept tied a lot of ideas from the book together for me. From the beginning of the book I have been wondering why the nutritionists and doctors have been trying to achieve the goal of a uniform diet that is able to reduce heart disease. I was thinking why not use a different approach, a case by case review because everybody reacts differently to diets. Because everyone is different, how could a uniform diet be found that works? From all the studies in the book I came away with the belief that an individual should find out what works for them and not rely on a blanket program that does not and cannot take into account the vast array of differences that exist in our nation. After reading about the concept on page 66 I understand now the course that was taken to reduce heart disease. I am still not convinced that trying to cure everybody with one treatment or set of guide lines is the best course of action when it comes to diets.

Posted by NatC at 8:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Strangely, the more I read Taube's book, Good Calories, Bad Calories the more I feel like as if I were lost in time or disconnected with the rest of the world especially, while reading chapter four. I don't know about any other of Taube’s readers but it is odd too me how Taube’s can provide so much evidence to support his claim but make them seem like as if they were a huge issue or controversy going on at that time that nobody could have missed such debates occurring over the years. When Taubes mentions arguments such as, the less fat women reported eating the more susceptible they were to cancer or the controversy over an appropriate cholesterol level, all I could think about was, “where was I when most of this was going on?” Granted, I wasn't even born or old enough to comprehend the situations for some of the debates. But, that is beside the point. It just seems as though most of this information was kept from the public and people were never really given a chance to evaluate the information for themselves. Nor were they notified about the level of uncertainty in the situations with evidence that was being presented to those in the medical professions. It is apparent to me that although controversial evidence was being published such as in the case of NCI’s study involving the correlation between fat and breast cancer, it went unnoticed not because people did not want “to hear the message of that a promising avenue of research was turning was turning into a blind alley,” but because of the biases in which Taubes mentioned in chapter three (Taubes 74). It is possible that although these cases were published, they were not fully published or made available to the public. Evidently, the information was probably only published and made accessible to professionals and not to the general public. Instead, the information appeared to be limited to the general public rather than the public being ignorant or irresponsible in evaluating new information that was supposedly given to them.

Posted by Kisha D. at 8:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The most striking part of chapter four to me was the presentation of the study on life expectancy and dieting. I think Taubes did a very good job of making a mockery of the low-fat diet supporter’s claim that lower cholesterol leads to increased life expectancy. While it was proven to be true, the actual data showed the benefits of strict lifetime dieting lead to miniscule results. The example Taubes used showed that a decrease in cholesterol from 250 down to 220 their chance of dying from a heart attack would only decrease from “.8 percent (eight in a thousand) to .6 percent (six in a thousand).” This is very similar across all levels of cholesterol. The only point where it shows actual danger is 250 or above, which seems logical as too much of anything can eventually be bad for you. The way Taubes talked about this study seemed almost comical. His tone made him seem like he was almost making fun of the claims that were being made by the anti-saturated fat researchers. This section of the chapter (being that it was at the beginning) really helped to draw me in, and I felt it was a sort of fun way to present some of his findings.

Posted by Devon C at 8:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

The road to a better, healthier life style has been marked, not by hard found facts, but rather on the guidelines set by popular beliefs and the initial, long lasting views on health. People's reluctance in accepting any new evidences that disrupt the flow of society's and expert's beliefs on health, signifies how deeply people tend to grasp unto common thought over proven facts. The significant amount of studies done on the issue of fats, cholesterol, and health, has not brought any closure to the issue of what is healthy, but rather more questions and conflict between opposing views. Yet, Taubes has brought into light the evidences that go against society's most popular beliefs in regards to health, through scientific studies, and challenges the authority of experts such as Keys: "...is the evidence invoked to support the established wisdom the product of sound scientific thinking and reasonably unambiguous..." (76)? The "challenges" issued by Taubes and friends, against the deception of health by many experts, through persuasive data and arguments, allows the reader to dive into the rest of the book with a much more open-minded attitude toward health. The breakdown of popular belief by Taubes helps the reader to question whether long held beliefs are legitimate and true or based on popular thought, and thus possibly manipulated.

Posted by Sam K at 4:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Variety is one of the general laws in the theory of a paragraph, and is definitely an important aspect in paragraph structure. From early on in high school I was always taught that no two sentences in the same paragraph should start with the same word. I know it is hard to do this some of the time, especially when you are writing a paper in first person when it is so easy to start a paragraph with "I", but for me, I always try to follow this rule when writing papers. Just doing this alone with give paragraphs a lot of variety. Also the other point on variety that I wanted to cover was the diversity of sentence length throughout the paragraph. Simple sentences get a bit dry and boring to read when there is one after another throughout a paragraph, so it is good to break them up with complex sentences, filled with punctuation and connectors. This not only gives the paragraph a bit more life, it also allows the writer to convey their thoughts and ideas sequentially, without having it broken up by periods. Overall, variety is a key component to good paragraph structure, so if good variety is used, it will make writing stronger and make for a better reading experience.

Posted by Tyler E at 1:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Chapter 4 in Good Calories, Bad Calories helps to clear up skepticism by the reader about Taubes’ argument by showing examples that support his claim and by demonstrating the importance of listening to your body. In this chapter, it is suggested by several researchers that humans are genetically adapted to eat diets higher in fat because Paleolithic diets consisted of about 28-58% fat (Eaton, Speth and Cordain). This could be why humans have a taste for foods higher in fat, such as fatty meats and cheese. Also why people feel tired and weak when they consume low fat diets. This is the same as how you feel thirsty when your body needs water. A low fat diet could do more harm than good which is your body‘s way of showing that it is not right. Low fat diets correlated with more tumors and high fat diets correlated with less cancer, strokes, and have no change in heart disease rates (Taubes). This evidence shows the importance of the kind of calories that a person puts into their body, which helps to prove the argument that Taubes it making in this book. As a skeptical reader, I believe in Taubes’s argument the more I hear examples, studies and evidence that support his claim.

Posted by Liz K. at 11:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

This book keeps on adding to my understanding about why I believe what I believe about food. Honestly, I first started reading it apprehensively (I still kind of am). Some people had to decide at some point that fats cause heart attacks and heart disease, but we don't think that. We think that this is just knowledge and that it's always been a given that diets high in fat and cholesterol cause clogged arteries. This book is starting to make me understand that everything i believe about what's healthy and what is not is based off another person's, or group of people's, opinion. It's not just solid, alpha and omega knowledge.

Chapter 3 seemed to show the merge of ethics and our opinions on Diet. It now move from "You're unhealthy if you eat this way" to "You're a bad person if you eat this way." As Taubes stated on page 43 about Lappe's book, "This argument transformed meat-eating into a social issue as well as a moral one." First ethics, then politics. Learning who funds what studies and expects what outcomes was a bit of a shock to me, while at the same time not being too much of a shock to me. Frito-Lay, Nabisco, and other big name companies funding studies that while invariably affect how people buy food should have come as a big DUH to me. It's amazing how corrupted you can be and still think you're doing the right, unbiased thing. It's a business.

Posted by Luis C at 1:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I really liked the information in part one of chapter 3, about how twenty million tons of soy and vegetable protein are needed to produce 2 million tons of beef. I never though of what is considered nutritional based on values instead of science and I found this very interesting. This could be the reason why organic and all natural foods are becoming so popular for their health benefits. With the green movement people are trying to be more conscious of the environment, therefore not wanting to put pesticides and other chemicals into the environment. Companies such as 7 Up are advertising their foods as “all natural” to appeal to consumers. It appeals to customers because they think it is healthier, yet the term “all natural” in foods is meaningless. Scientists are not even sure if pesticides are harmful to people, yet organic food and co-ops continue to become more and more popular. This makes me very skeptical of other things that are promoted for their health benefits. Pomegranate and acai are also really popular right now because they are full of antioxidants. However do antioxidants even really have any health benefits, or is it just a good way to promote the fruits to make money?

Posted by Liz K. at 3:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Gary Taubes is obviously a very thorough researcher. However, during this chapter I often found myself very bored reading through all of the different studies that were done. Taubes analyzes the biases in the studies very well, and once finished reading through the explanation of what had transpired in the studies it was nice to have a recap of the conclusions and the assumptions made by the researchers.

It's very interesting to observe the type of bias that the study directors and the media that portray these types of studies have against certain diets. I believe, as was stated in class on Monday, that because some researchers, namely Keys, had and continue to have such time and effort invested in their research regarding health that they are polarized in their direction and refuse to consider the fact that their hypothesis and findings may be incorrect. The disturbing fact is that the media that continues to promote these types of dietary habits also refuses to heed the warnings of others as well. The American Heart Association is treated like an omnipotent being by the media and they blindly follow their words like scripture. Yet another reason to distrust the media and do your own research. Taubes does a good job exposing the fallacies that exist in this line of work, but I'm sure he would be an advocate of self-research, rather than just trusting everything he has written.

Posted by Drew P at 1:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)