Peer Response

I currently read Mari's blog on two opposing articles about second hand smoke and its relationship to cardiovascular disease. The first article explained how there is really not enough toxins in second hand smoke to cause cardiovascular disease. On the contrary, the second article states how even though second hand smoke is not the worst, it does have bad toxins that can cause diseases such as cardiovascular disease.
I think the articles she found were very interesting. I completely agree with her opinion that the second article was more convincing. Even though there is just a little amount of toxins they can still do damage to the human body. Also I feel that the second article had more research to back up its claim that second hand smoke can affect the human body. I feel that she could have added a little more information from the articles to her argument. More facts and research info could have helped. But altogether both articles focused on a serious issue that should be addressed and I support her claim.

Blog Post: Comparing 2 online articles

I found two articles on the controversial topic on whether the drinking age should be lowered to 18. One article said the drinking age should not be lowered and the other said it should be lowered. The first article totally supported the drinking age being 21. It summarized how making the drinking age be 21 has lowered the alcohol consumption by teens. It also said that the age restrictions being put on alcohol have decreased the number of drunk driving accidents and deaths which are a major issue in the United States. It explains how if the government did lower the drinking age younger kids would be able to get their hands on alcohol at a earlier age compared to being 21. Altogether the drinking age should be kept at 21 to reduce harm to society. In contrast, the second article stated that the drinking age should be lowered. It stated how more teens already drink and it's a social norm. If the drinking age was lowered less kids would rebel and more would follow the law. Because research states when a kid is told he/she cannot do something they usually do it anyways. If kids are allowed to drink at 18, they may not want to drink all the time because they can whenever they would like, thus decreasing the number of drunk-driving deaths/accidents. The article says how more drunk driving accidents are occurring so change needs to take place and the answer should be changing the drinking age to 18.
I think the second article is more convincing. I am a kid and relate to it more. Drinking is a social norm in college and most kids do drink. I know when my parents told me I couldn't drink I always did, so by lowering the age to 18 kids may not rebel as much. The second article also has more interesting facts that make it convincing.
My opinion hasn't changed after reading the two articles. I believe the drinking age should be lowered to 18. I believe that if at 18 you are considered an adult, you should be able to drink. At 18 I can buy cigarettes, join the army, yet I can't drink? ... That doesn't make sense. The drinking age should be lowered!

Peer Response 3

I recently read Jake's blog on Tigerade. He explained in his blog how Tiger Woods use to endorse for Gatorade. He agreed that Tiger was a good endorsement for the product. Tiger Woods has proven to be a dominant athlete at golf. Everybody knows of Tiger Woods and his greatness at golf. He is a great athlete who will represent Gatorade well. He also explains how Gatorade cancelled their endorsement with Tiger and goes on to explain how it was a wrong move. Gatorade/Pepsi should have waited until the Masters to see if Tiger Woods will be back to himself again. I agree completely with Jake on all his points. First, I agree that Tiger is a dominant, successful player that deserves to be an endorser for Gatorade. Secondly, I agree that even though Tiger has gotten into some trouble lately, it shouldn't change the fact that he is a great golfer. I believe that Gatorade should not have cut the deal with Tiger. Everybody makes mistakes, and just because Tiger is a successful man, all his problems are on the news, which is wrong and unfair. There are many great people out their in the world that are not famous, but make stupid mistakes, but do you see their stories publicized?? I believe with Jake that Gatorade should have kept the deal because Tiger is the right man for the job. Also Tiger had a great fourth place finish at the Open, proving to people that he is going to make a great come back. Lastly, Jake makes a link to an article that explains Gatorade dropping their deal with Tiger. The article explains that after Tiger's Masters appearance, they might go back with Tiger. Altogether Tiger is a great athlete and if Gatorade doesn't want him then they are just STUPID!!

Prepare a Meal (blog 4)

Just this week my friend Mike and I prepared dinner for the two of us. There were many stages that went into making this the best cooked meal ever! First we planned what we wanted to eat. We determined what we wanted to eat based on how long the food would take to cook and the price of the food. We both decided on cooking chicken breast with seasoning, tortellini and a salad. After we decided, we walked over to the Fresh Market. We bought a package of chicken breast from the meat department and frozen tortellini. We also bough pre-made salad, because it would have taken too much time to cut up vegetables. Once we got back to the dorms, we went to the front desk to reserve the kitchen and check out cooking supplies. Mike was in charge of boiling the water and cooking the frozen tortellini. I was in charge of seasoning the chicken and cooking it. The process of making everything took about 25 minutes. While we waited for the chicken to get done, we prepared the table and cleaned up our mess. As we were eating, we were both so happy because it was the best food we had eaten in a while. We felt very proud and accomplished of ourselves for taking the time to cook a delicious, healthy meal. Each step helped make the overall experience better!
After reading IN Defense of Food, I agree with the claims Pollan made. I agree that Americans have accepted "a flood of damaging innovation..such as low fat processed food." We look too hard at labels and the nutrients. We eat processed foods because they claim to be healthy for consumers. Americans base what they eat on nutrients, which consumers cannot even taste in the food. Americans need to eat what they enjoy and stop concerning over what nutrients foods contain. The meal that I created did not affect my opinion. I chose it because it was cheap and easy to cook. I found a news article on the New York Times website that supports Pollan's ideas. This article relates greatly because it talks about how often we eat processed foods because they claim to have many nutrients that are good for the human body. It also goes on to state that humans need to stop looking at the labels and start eating fresh whole foods. I completely agree with Pollan and the article!

Demonstration Speech Review

After reviewing my demonstration speech I noticed a lot of things. I have many weaknesses and strengths. Altogether I was happy with my speech and how everything went.

When I watched my speech on how to make silly puddy, I was pleased with some parts of my introduction. I thought I explained my topic well. I also felt I gave great reasons on the relevance of silly puddy and what it has done for health professions in hand therapy. When watching the speech, during my introduction I moved around a lot and swayed from side to side. This really irritated me and I felt I must have looked stupid moving around so much.

When I reviewed the speech I thought I maintained great eye contact with the audience. I felt I didn't look down too much only when I was in the process of making silly puddy. I felt I had great energy in the beginning and ending of the speech, but in the middle I felt that my enthusiasm level dropped, which probably made the speech boring. My body language was really bad. I could have used more hand expressions and not moved as much. Lastly, I felt my tone and volume was solid. I felt I talked loud and clear to my audience.

I used many visual aids for my speech. From watching the video, I think I used to many visual aid, which made my speech a little sloppy. I had too many things to show the class while demonstrating the process of making the puddy. However, my visual aids caught the audience's attention and got them interested in my topic.

Altogether my speech was good! If I had to do this speech again I wouldn't choose the same topic. I wanted to do water sports, but it is too hard to demonstrate that in a class room. Silly puddy isn't that important in my life, so I should have chosen something with a little more relevance. If I had the chance to do the speech over I would talk slower and not move around too much. Also I would add more fun facts in the speech to grab the audience's attention!

Peer Comment

I just finished reading Kirby's blog on the comparison of two online articles about vitamins. I learned a lot from this blog about vitamins. Her blog talks about the two opposing views on taking vitamins. One article says that vitamins should be made into a daily routine and they play a great factor in a person's health. It goes on to explain how more people eat fast foods and do not get the essential vitamins and nutrients their bodies need and that's where vitamins come in. Vitamins make up for the loss and help with sickness and keeping the body healthy! In contrast, the other online article states that humans don't really need to take a nutritional supplement. It says that always taking vitamins on a daily basis may not be beneficial. Too much of vitamins can have a bad effect on the body. I agree with her and the authors that there are two strong sides to this topic. I also agree with her that taking too many vitamins can be bad. I remember when I was little and was sick I took too many vitamins to feel better and I got even more sick. Too much of anything is bad, even if it's good for you. Altogether I completely agree with her that both articles are convincing. I would recommend taking vitamins sparingly

Blog Three: Real Food vs. Fake Food

Pollan warns us of "fake" foods, and says that we can improve our health by eating "real" foods. I find myself and my family eating more fake food with our hectic life styles. When I was a kid I use to eat real hamburgers and fries, but now I eat these foods from fast food places. The fake food version of hamburgers and fries doesn't smell at all like real grilled cheeseburgers and homemade fries. It has no smell and the burger tastes almost like rubber with a lot of grease and fat on it. The real homemade food is grilled, tasty and would melt in my mouth when I ate it. The real food also has more texture than the fake food.
The fake food provides me with little or no essential vitamins/nutrients. It is nutritionally worse than what it's trying to imitate. The burger and fries from fast food places are loaded with grease and de-fried. Sometimes fast food places will make the claim that their burgers are low in fat and carbs, but that is not at all true. I switched to the fake food version of hamburger and fries because I went to college and had fewer resources to actually grill my burger and make the homemade french fries. Also I have less time during school to make a good meal. During the summer I will return to eat the real food again because that is the time my family always grills out. It is hard to cook in college because I have little money and no cooking utensils. Dr. Leslie Van Romer supports my idea that people have less time, so they turn to fake food for the answer. She says fake food is not good for the body and it has a lot of chemicals that one does not want entering his/her body. For now, I will continue to eat my hamburger and fries at McDonalds, but sparingly. Summertime is when I will return to eating the delicious "real" food I love!

Peer Response

I currently read Erin's blog post to In Defense of Food. I completely agree with her and Micheal Pollan on what was said. Micheal Pollan talks about the Western Diet and how it is making us humans unhealthy. We now have developed a new language, which is nutrients. Whenever people grab for an item at the grocery store the first thing read is the nutrition label. We rely on too much of a foods individual components rather the food as whole. Many foods have faulty health claims. I agree with Erin's statement that people are attracted to bad foods with a health claim than to healthy food without one. More people are going to buy foods that claim to be fat free, high in fiber, no trans fat, etc. This is due to the fact that people like to read nutritional labels and if something has many healthy claims they just assume it has to be good for you.The healthy, whole foods do not contain health claims, and this causes consumers to look past these foods.
In Erin's Blog, she drew upon the fact that almost any unhealthy food can find something good about it and stick it on a label to have people assuming its healthy. She provides a link to a candy company who did just that. It was funny that a candy company would do false labeling, obviously they had to know they would have got caught! With technology and money, bad foods can try to find to something good about what they contain and spin it onto a label to attract consumers.
Altogether I completely agree with Erin's Blog. Her opinions and ideas are strong and support everything I believe. Humans need to stop looking at health claims and nutrition facts!

Post 2: Celebrity Endorsement

Pretty sure everyone loves a pair of durable jeans that lasts them for ever. Wrangler jeans do just that, and supporting Wrangler is the man, Brett Favre. My favorite football player, Brett Favre endorses Wrangler Jeans. Wrangler jeans are made for an American man who works hard. The core values of Wrangler jeans are durability, toughness and dependability. Brett Favre does many commercials supporting wrangler jeans. He started his endorsement deal in 2007 with Wrangler. The two most famous commercials are when he makes his teammates wear Wrangler jeans at football practice before the big playoff game. The second commercial is when Brett is at home, driving his lawn mower wearing Wrangler. I believe that Brett Favre is the perfect man to endorse Wrangler. He exhibits all the core values of Wrangler. He is physically and mentally tough. To be a 40-year old man and take as many hits as he does and still play through it all, he definitely fits the quality of tough and durable. Also Brett Favre stated when he took this deal that "Wrangler Jeans are a perfect fit for my lifestyle. I've always loved the brand and what it stands for, and now I am honored to be part of wrangler jeans." Wrangler jeans are fit for an American man, and Brett Favre truly represents that image. He's a typical guy that loves to be outside hunting, mowing the grass and on the field. I couldn't picture a better fit for Wrangler Jeans.
With Brett Favre as their endorser, Wrangler jeans have said their sales have climbed. They especially said that since Brett Favre had an amazing year, sales increased. They aired many commercials during his playoff run. I think as long at Brett Favre continues to play football, wrangler jean commercials will be a success. But if wrangler chooses Aaron Rodgers as their endorser, I expect them to go bankrupt. Director of marketing for Wrangler, Craig Errington said all good things about Brett. He talked about how Brett is one of the best quarterbacks to play the game and exhibits all the values Wrangler Jeans have supported throughout the years. "He is the perfect ideal spokesperson for Wrangler and we look forward to cheering him on during his season." Brett is the best person to support Wrangler Jeans and I wish him the best of luck!

Post 1: In Defense of Food

Michael Pollan starts off chapter one saying food is disappearing from store shelves. I did not grasp this concept right away, but when I finished reading I did. One of Pollan's main arguments is how nutrients are taking over food. Nutrients are the new language for food. I completely agree with this point. When consumers go shopping, most are not looking at the food, but rather what nutrients the food contains. Guarantee most people read the label first and that determines if one will buy the food. Similarly, Colleen Trombllye, a journalist agrees in her article The human being diet vs. reading nutrition labels, that people make food choices based on the components in the food. So far, our nation's choices has leaded us to failing health. As a culture we are beginning to define healthy food by what is in it, Pollan states. For example, he says most consumers do not look at food as a whole but rather its individual components. It is not the orange that is healthy, rather the Vitamin C in the orange, that makes it healthy.

Another main argument Pollan states is the more Americans worry about nutrition the less healthy we are becoming as a country. Some processed foods may be healthier than whole foods if one just looks at the nutrition label. So in reality, we are eating worse, but think we are all eating healthier. I disagree with this argument he is making. I know the difference between real and fake food and I don't depend on labels to tell me. He also says our new language of reading labels is destroying health. More than ever health claims are on boxes compared to healthy foods. Most think that if a food has a good health claim then it's better than whole foods without labels. Altogether, Americans are depending way to heavily on nutrition labels.