Overall
1. I thought the topic was the best part of the paper.
2. Regarding your concerns with the essay, a couple paragraphs contradict each other. The flow of the essay makes for poor reading. The information is very good, but the structure of the essay makes it hard to understand where you are going. Try writing the information in the order of your thesis, and do not change topics until you have exhausted that topic. That is the beauty of rough drafts you can edit our mistakes.
Thesis
3. The author does express her opinion clearly in the thesis. The thesis argues that fluoridated water is beneficial to the bones in our body and that it helps to prevent dental caries.
4. It is unclear what group agrees with the author; it is also unclear what group disagrees with the author. Dental experts could both agree and disagree with the information in the essay.
5. Yes, the thesis does include an Although and Because statement.
Content
6. I think the topic is about an 8 on the interesting scale, but the paper is about a 3.
7. In paragraph two, the author could have elaborated a little more on the plan of the U.S Department of Health and Human Services; also, the author could have explained what the symptoms of fluorosis.
8. Objects that someone could address about the essay it that, fluoride is not good for you and that it can damage the body.
9. The author could have addressed the concerns about the damage that fluoride can cause to the body.
10. The thesis reads, Although there are legitimate concerns regarding fluoridated water, it should not be over looked as a benefit because our bodies our bodies need this natural mineral, it benefits bones, and prevents dental carries. The first paragraph, explains what fluoride is but it could use a little more explanation. The fourth paragraph with the example involving Fredrick Mckay, the author could give more examples of the different affects of to much fluoride or the lack of fluoride.
Style
11. The transitions from paragraph to paragraph need work. The author should work related paragraphs together.
12. The author should have opened the essay with stronger information. The author could use the example of the Lemabari Village of India that was used in the body of the essay. That statement would have a much stronger effect on the reader than a personal experience.
13. The conclusion does fit with the thesis.
Research
14. There are two sources cited.
15. There are only two sources cited.
16. The author does not have many quotes.
17. The author uses stats from a report by the U.S Department of Health and Human Services, which is not on the works cited list. The author also uses a fact from the Understanding Nutrition, Tenth Edition, that is not listed in the works cited.
18. That is a hard question to answer because I have not read all the works cited.
19. Again I don’t really understand that question.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Mandatory Organ Donation
The solution to the shortage of organ donors is to create a mandatory organ donation system. It seems that if a person is a organ donor and dies the family can object to the organs being donated. Potentially killing someone that was waiting for a organ transplant. With a mandatory organ donation system there would be a influx of organs and recipients would not have to wait years before receiving an organ. The solution to the problem is very persuasive, Spital and Taylor argue that the government can select men to serve in the military go off to war and die for their country; so why not make people that pass way donate their organs to someone that needs it. That particular organ could save a life. The audience could be people in the organ transplant industry, members of the medical society and even members of the government hoping to sway their thoughts about a mandatory organ donation system. I think some of the audience will respond just has Nancy Scheper-Hughes responded, stating that some member of our society does not have medical insurance to help pay for their illnesses, but make it mandatory for those same citizens to give up their organs with out their consent. Where is the justice in that? Others that are awaiting an organ may endorse the idea of mandatory organ donation. I think the audience will be split.
A modest Proposal
I am trying to place myself in the authors position when writing this response. I am not sure how to answer this. The effectiveness of the solution can be viewed in many ways; first, the way that he describes the uselessness of the thousands of beggars and the bourdon that they pose on themselves the kingdom; the solution seems very effective. Swift suggested eliminating the number of beggars while increasing the bond between husband and wife is an admirable thought. Swift is very persuasive with his proposal, uses detail and many examples when describing the current situation and his solution to the problem for his kingdom. Swift is trying to reach the wealth gentleman that is feed up with the every growing numbers of beggars in their town. Swift is also trying to reach the baggers that have not other choice, the beggars that have no food, no shelter, no cloths and too many children to fend for; the beggars that will do anything to survive. Some of the audience both the wealthy and beggars alike will be appalled by this proposal stating that Swift is a heatless mad man. Some both wealth and beggars will applaud Swift and say that he is brilliant. If his audience has children their response will greatly be affected. I would think people with children, especially women would not agree with the proposal at all.
Research Rough Draft - Bottled water or Tap water
Bottled Water Vs Tap Water
“Miracle in a bottle or just another tonic?” The debate over whether bottled or tap water is better has been the question on the minds of many consumers for sometime now. Bottled water has all but replaced the consumption of tap water. Consumers justify the consumption of bottled water with the rising concern for the quality of municipal (tap) water and the convenience of bottled water. With bottled water, a person never has to refill; they can just discard the empty bottle and open a new cold one. With tap water, a person must first find a suitable container then fill it up; all the while hoping that the water reaches that perfect temperature eliminating the need to locate ice.
The convenience of bottled water is not the question. What is the price of convenience to the consumer and the environment? Bottled water is becoming the next new age consumer product, one which consumers cannot do without. Bottled water has also become the second largest beverage consumed next to carbonated drinks. The bottled water industry has become a 15 billion dollar a year industry and is expected to grow. With this growth, concerns arise about the true benefit of bottled water. Although bottled water presents the illusion of a high quality healthy product, the benefit and production process has generated great concern because of the quality differences between bottled water and tap water, the production costs of bottled water compared to tap water, and damage to the environment. One of the major differences between bottled water and tap water is that the consumer can see where the bottled water comes from or the treatment technique used. With tap water, there are no such comforting words.
The quality of both tap water and bottled water are the concerns of two organizations: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for tap water and the Food and Drug Administration for bottled water. The quality of particular water is complex than any label or lack of labeling could tell a consumer. Contaminants are present in all water sources around the world, but it is up to EPA and the FDA to determine what levels are safe for consumption. According to the EPA, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was passed in 1974 to “protect public health by regulating the nations public drinking water supply.” The SDWA has been amended twice since the original was written in 1974, once in 1986 and again in 1996. The SDWA authorizes the EPA to set quality standards for all public drinking water, these standards include: “assessing and protecting drinking water sources; protecting wells and collection systems; making sure water is treaded by qualified operators; ensuring the integrity of distribution systems; and making information available to the public on the quality of their drinking water.” (EPA) The EPA does not work alone in setting and regulating these standards; “states, tribes, drinking water utilities, communities and citizens all help to ensure that their tap water is of a safe for consumption.” (EPA) The EPA has two regulations governing drinking water: the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation, which is legally enforceable, and the National Secondary Drinking Water Regulation, which is non-enforceable. The primary standard regulates the levels of contaminants that are harmful to the public if consumed. Arsenic and Radon are just two of the many contaminants that naturally and unnaturally contaminate public water supplies. The EPA gives the states authority to impose the secondary regulation. This regulation deals with contaminants that effect a person cosmetically or the taste, odor, or color of the water. The primary and secondary standards apply to all public water systems. The quality control of both tap water and bottled water are similar in that both have to abide by strict regulations. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates bottled water as a food. The FDA utilizes the Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR) to regulate the different aspects of bottled water. 21 CFR – 165.110[a] defines different types of bottled water, such as spring water and mineral water. 21 CFR – 165.110[b] establishes allowable levels for contaminants (chemical, physical, microbial and radiological) in bottled water. 21 CFR defines the some of the types of bottled waters as follows: Artesian water – water from a well tapping a confined aquifer in which the water levels stand at some height near the top of the aquifer. Mineral water – Water containing not less than 250 ppm total dissolved solids that originate from a geologically and physically protected underground water source. Purified water – Water that is produced by distillation, deionization, reverse osmosis or other suitable processes. Sparkling bottled water – water that, after treatment and possible replacement of carbon dioxide, contains the same amount of carbon dioxide that it had at emergence from the source. Spring water – water derived from an underground formation from which water flows naturally to the surface of the earth at an identified location. 21 CF – 165.110[b] regulates more than 70 different chemical contaminants. These standards include but are not limited to microbiological standards (coliform levels), physical standards (turbidity) and radiological standards (radium-226 and radium-228) (FDA). According to the FDA, if a water bottling company is in good standing with the FDA’s regulations, then inspections are not as frequent. The EPA regulates that municipal water sources must be checked on a annual basis. The standards for tap water and bottled water are meticulously regulated and thoroughly checked.
The cost of tap water can vary depending on the location and the type of water source available. The average household will pay about $.002 per gallon of tap water compared to between $1.00 and $4.00 per gallon for bottled water, the cost is more for imported water. The cost that a consumer pays for bottled water is not for the water alone, the price includes labeling costs, production cost and transportation cost; all of which makes bottled water very expensive. The cost of consuming bottled water is a choice that the consumer makes. The cost that the environment pays due to the production of bottled water is much steeper.
With the increasing concern over Global Warming, the production of bottled water is one area that could use some improvement. The environmental impact of producing bottled water greatly overshadows that of tap water. Other than the maintenance of the water treatment facilities, tap water has little impact on the environment. The bottled water industry produces billions of bottles of water a year and from the start of production until the end, the environment is paying a price. Fossil fuels are used not only for producing the plastic bottles, but also for the transportation of the product around the world; releasing greenhouse gases and polluting the air. Millions of tons of plastic are used to produce billions of plastic water bottles. Americans consume more then 30 billion bottles of water every year and according to the Container Recycling Institute 86% of empty plastic water bottles are not recycled Milne-Tyte). That is 25.8 billion empty plastic water bottles taking up landfill space and biodegrading for the next 1,000 years. With that amount of empty bottles, the toxic material polyethylene terephthalate (PET) used to produce the plastic bottles will affect future water supplies. The water industry is very aware of the environmental concerns with the production of the plastic used for their product.
In an article in USA Today, the CEO of Nestle Waters North America branch said “Our new Eco-Shape bottle uses the least plastic of any half-liter bottle on store shelves. We make 98% of our single-serve bottles, eliminating the need to truck 160,000 loads of empty bottles into our plants and saving 6.6million gallons of fuel per year”(EBSCO).
It seems that at least one company is trying to change the process and help the environment while helping themselves.
The debate over which is better tap water or bottled water can go on forever. The facts tell us that both bottled water and tap water are regulated to remove contaminants and both are safe for consumption. The facts tell us that some municipal water supplies in rural areas should only be used for non-domestic purposes. The cost we pay for bottled water is more than 100 times that of tap water. But as consumers, do we put a price on our health? We as consumers are given a choice between what seems to be a better product on the outside and what we know very little about. Thoughts of beautiful mountain water falls and crystal clear streams look and feel better than thoughts of underground mazes of pipes used for tap water. The environmental impact is the deciding factor in this debate. On one hand, you have tap water with no or little environmental impact and on the other hand, you have bottled water which effects the environment is many ways. Should the environmental responsibility be placed solely on the bottled water industry? With more than 86% of water bottles not being recycled who is to blame, the industry for trying to create environmentally safe bottles, or the consumer that does not recycle?
Works Cited
Breslau, Karen. "A Good Drink at The Sink." Newsweek 150.2 (02 July 2007): 14. Middle Search Plus. EBSCO. [Library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. 7 November 2007. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mih&AN=25541563&site=src-live>.
Milne-Tyte, Ashley. “Environmental cost to bottled water.” Container Recycling Institute. 20 April 2006. 23 Oct. 2007 <http://container-recycling.org/mediafold/newsarticles/plastic/2006/4-20-Marketplace-EnviroCosts.htm>.
"Success of bottled water can spill into recycling efforts." USA Today (n.d.). Middle Search Plus. EBSCO. [Library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. 7 November 2007. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mih&AN=J0E416740087007&site=src-live>.
EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. “Setting Standards for Safe Drinking Water.” 28 November 2006. 23 Oct.2007 <http://www.epa.gov/safewater/standards.html>.
FDA. Food and Drug Administration. “Bottled Water Regulation and the FDA.” August/September 2002. 23 Oct.2007 <http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/botwatr.html>.
“Miracle in a bottle or just another tonic?” The debate over whether bottled or tap water is better has been the question on the minds of many consumers for sometime now. Bottled water has all but replaced the consumption of tap water. Consumers justify the consumption of bottled water with the rising concern for the quality of municipal (tap) water and the convenience of bottled water. With bottled water, a person never has to refill; they can just discard the empty bottle and open a new cold one. With tap water, a person must first find a suitable container then fill it up; all the while hoping that the water reaches that perfect temperature eliminating the need to locate ice.
The convenience of bottled water is not the question. What is the price of convenience to the consumer and the environment? Bottled water is becoming the next new age consumer product, one which consumers cannot do without. Bottled water has also become the second largest beverage consumed next to carbonated drinks. The bottled water industry has become a 15 billion dollar a year industry and is expected to grow. With this growth, concerns arise about the true benefit of bottled water. Although bottled water presents the illusion of a high quality healthy product, the benefit and production process has generated great concern because of the quality differences between bottled water and tap water, the production costs of bottled water compared to tap water, and damage to the environment. One of the major differences between bottled water and tap water is that the consumer can see where the bottled water comes from or the treatment technique used. With tap water, there are no such comforting words.
The quality of both tap water and bottled water are the concerns of two organizations: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for tap water and the Food and Drug Administration for bottled water. The quality of particular water is complex than any label or lack of labeling could tell a consumer. Contaminants are present in all water sources around the world, but it is up to EPA and the FDA to determine what levels are safe for consumption. According to the EPA, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was passed in 1974 to “protect public health by regulating the nations public drinking water supply.” The SDWA has been amended twice since the original was written in 1974, once in 1986 and again in 1996. The SDWA authorizes the EPA to set quality standards for all public drinking water, these standards include: “assessing and protecting drinking water sources; protecting wells and collection systems; making sure water is treaded by qualified operators; ensuring the integrity of distribution systems; and making information available to the public on the quality of their drinking water.” (EPA) The EPA does not work alone in setting and regulating these standards; “states, tribes, drinking water utilities, communities and citizens all help to ensure that their tap water is of a safe for consumption.” (EPA) The EPA has two regulations governing drinking water: the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation, which is legally enforceable, and the National Secondary Drinking Water Regulation, which is non-enforceable. The primary standard regulates the levels of contaminants that are harmful to the public if consumed. Arsenic and Radon are just two of the many contaminants that naturally and unnaturally contaminate public water supplies. The EPA gives the states authority to impose the secondary regulation. This regulation deals with contaminants that effect a person cosmetically or the taste, odor, or color of the water. The primary and secondary standards apply to all public water systems. The quality control of both tap water and bottled water are similar in that both have to abide by strict regulations. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates bottled water as a food. The FDA utilizes the Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR) to regulate the different aspects of bottled water. 21 CFR – 165.110[a] defines different types of bottled water, such as spring water and mineral water. 21 CFR – 165.110[b] establishes allowable levels for contaminants (chemical, physical, microbial and radiological) in bottled water. 21 CFR defines the some of the types of bottled waters as follows: Artesian water – water from a well tapping a confined aquifer in which the water levels stand at some height near the top of the aquifer. Mineral water – Water containing not less than 250 ppm total dissolved solids that originate from a geologically and physically protected underground water source. Purified water – Water that is produced by distillation, deionization, reverse osmosis or other suitable processes. Sparkling bottled water – water that, after treatment and possible replacement of carbon dioxide, contains the same amount of carbon dioxide that it had at emergence from the source. Spring water – water derived from an underground formation from which water flows naturally to the surface of the earth at an identified location. 21 CF – 165.110[b] regulates more than 70 different chemical contaminants. These standards include but are not limited to microbiological standards (coliform levels), physical standards (turbidity) and radiological standards (radium-226 and radium-228) (FDA). According to the FDA, if a water bottling company is in good standing with the FDA’s regulations, then inspections are not as frequent. The EPA regulates that municipal water sources must be checked on a annual basis. The standards for tap water and bottled water are meticulously regulated and thoroughly checked.
The cost of tap water can vary depending on the location and the type of water source available. The average household will pay about $.002 per gallon of tap water compared to between $1.00 and $4.00 per gallon for bottled water, the cost is more for imported water. The cost that a consumer pays for bottled water is not for the water alone, the price includes labeling costs, production cost and transportation cost; all of which makes bottled water very expensive. The cost of consuming bottled water is a choice that the consumer makes. The cost that the environment pays due to the production of bottled water is much steeper.
With the increasing concern over Global Warming, the production of bottled water is one area that could use some improvement. The environmental impact of producing bottled water greatly overshadows that of tap water. Other than the maintenance of the water treatment facilities, tap water has little impact on the environment. The bottled water industry produces billions of bottles of water a year and from the start of production until the end, the environment is paying a price. Fossil fuels are used not only for producing the plastic bottles, but also for the transportation of the product around the world; releasing greenhouse gases and polluting the air. Millions of tons of plastic are used to produce billions of plastic water bottles. Americans consume more then 30 billion bottles of water every year and according to the Container Recycling Institute 86% of empty plastic water bottles are not recycled Milne-Tyte). That is 25.8 billion empty plastic water bottles taking up landfill space and biodegrading for the next 1,000 years. With that amount of empty bottles, the toxic material polyethylene terephthalate (PET) used to produce the plastic bottles will affect future water supplies. The water industry is very aware of the environmental concerns with the production of the plastic used for their product.
In an article in USA Today, the CEO of Nestle Waters North America branch said “Our new Eco-Shape bottle uses the least plastic of any half-liter bottle on store shelves. We make 98% of our single-serve bottles, eliminating the need to truck 160,000 loads of empty bottles into our plants and saving 6.6million gallons of fuel per year”(EBSCO).
It seems that at least one company is trying to change the process and help the environment while helping themselves.
The debate over which is better tap water or bottled water can go on forever. The facts tell us that both bottled water and tap water are regulated to remove contaminants and both are safe for consumption. The facts tell us that some municipal water supplies in rural areas should only be used for non-domestic purposes. The cost we pay for bottled water is more than 100 times that of tap water. But as consumers, do we put a price on our health? We as consumers are given a choice between what seems to be a better product on the outside and what we know very little about. Thoughts of beautiful mountain water falls and crystal clear streams look and feel better than thoughts of underground mazes of pipes used for tap water. The environmental impact is the deciding factor in this debate. On one hand, you have tap water with no or little environmental impact and on the other hand, you have bottled water which effects the environment is many ways. Should the environmental responsibility be placed solely on the bottled water industry? With more than 86% of water bottles not being recycled who is to blame, the industry for trying to create environmentally safe bottles, or the consumer that does not recycle?
Works Cited
Breslau, Karen. "A Good Drink at The Sink." Newsweek 150.2 (02 July 2007): 14. Middle Search Plus. EBSCO. [Library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. 7 November 2007. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mih&AN=25541563&site=src-live>.
Milne-Tyte, Ashley. “Environmental cost to bottled water.” Container Recycling Institute. 20 April 2006. 23 Oct. 2007 <http://container-recycling.org/mediafold/newsarticles/plastic/2006/4-20-Marketplace-EnviroCosts.htm>.
"Success of bottled water can spill into recycling efforts." USA Today (n.d.). Middle Search Plus. EBSCO. [Library name], [City], [State abbreviation]. 7 November 2007. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mih&AN=J0E416740087007&site=src-live>.
EPA. Environmental Protection Agency. “Setting Standards for Safe Drinking Water.” 28 November 2006. 23 Oct.2007 <http://www.epa.gov/safewater/standards.html>.
FDA. Food and Drug Administration. “Bottled Water Regulation and the FDA.” August/September 2002. 23 Oct.2007 <http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/botwatr.html>.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Grammar Girl # 49
Again, I am tasked with writing about my weakest subject in the academic world, grammar. I envy the writers that can sit at a computer and create a beautiful passage without the red and green squiggles of stupidity. Well, that is how I feel sometime. Nothing stops my creative juices from flowing than a squiggle red or green. I feel great before I sit down to write, then as my thought flow faster than my finger can type they happen. Squiggle after squiggle, slowly changing my creative juices into paranoia and self-doubt. Last weeks Grammar Girl discussed comma splicing which was very painful. This week however, my confidence is back. I can truly say that I have a handle on run-on sentences. I have not received the crushing news that I have committed the writing sin of run-on sentences. My sins are that of comma usage or the lack there of, grammar sins such as using then instead of than (I am good at that one). However, my all time favorite has to be the lack of proof reading. I fear not for I know that writing is a work in progress and I am working to progress.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Grammar Girl
I must admit. I am not very good at punctuation. Especially commas and semicolons, when and where to use them confuses me. I think I have the basic usage of those particular punctuations down. It never falls that when I am writing something I misuse a comma. After listen to Grammar Girl, I have a better understanding of comma splices and semicolons usage; At least one of the uses. I know that practice makes for better results, so I am practicing right know. In this short passage I am trying not to comma splice has I type my response to the Grammar Girl lesson. I will not know how I am doing until I receive my instructor’s response. I hope that I have accomplished my goal of not utilizing comma splices in my writing.
Here is an example of a comma splice
Brian ran up the hill, holding his dog named Punisher.
I hope that is correct or I will have to go back to the drawing board.
Here is an example of a comma splice
Brian ran up the hill, holding his dog named Punisher.
I hope that is correct or I will have to go back to the drawing board.
Cause and Effect - Final draft
The numbers do not lie, according to the National Institute of Diabetes 68% of America is either overweight or obese. By definition, a person is obese when their body has enormous proportions of fat, concentrated mainly around the abdomen. Obesity has continued to plaque the United States year after year. Obesity increases a person’s risk for diabetes, high blood pressure, stroke and cardiovascular diseases. Obesity has no preference when it comes to color or gender. Age is not a factor either, because of technology and other outside factors, child obesity has increased at alarming rates. Although the United States has the largest obese population in the world, the daily convenience of the American lifestyle causes this condition because of the affect that fast food has on the body, the lack of physical activity and the lack of knowledge concerning a healthy way of life. When it comes to food, convenience is not always a benefit but a hindrance to your body.
As children, we were taught the four basic food groups: fruit, Legumes, whole grains, and vegetables. The United States Department of Agriculture has implemented a food pyramid. The new food groups are grains, vegetables, fruits, oils, milk and meat & beans. It is recommended to consume these foods in certain portions but with the fast pace life that most of America leads, eating according the food pyramid is easier said than done. With the high pace lives that Americans lead, cooking duties have been relinquish to line cooks at restaurants like McDonalds, Hardees, and Carl’s Jr. All of which offer a large variety of foods, from cheeseburgers to salads. The daily recommend caloric intake for an adult is about 1940 calories for a women and 2550 calories for a man (plus or minus 200 depending on activity level) depending on your resource. The process of burning these calories is very complicated. To sum the process up, the body only needs the recommend amount of calories, the excess is stored as fat, which can lead to obesity. If a person were to have a cheeseburger meal at Hardees for lunch, which includes a cheeseburger, large fries and a large Coke-a-cola the amount of calories consumed would total 1350 calories. For women, that is more than ¾ their caloric intake for the day and for a man it is more than ½ their caloric intake. That does not include breakfast, dinner or any snacking that has been done. Children fare no better than their parents do when it comes to fast food. For children ages 4 to 6, their daily caloric intake is 1800 calories. Feed a child a cheeseburger Happy meal from McDonalds and they have consumed 710 calories in one meal, that is nearly ½ their daily intake. Remember the body processes what it needs, the rest is stored as fat. The nutritional value of fast food may contribute to obesity, but a person’s activity level plays just as big a role in this epidemic.
Technology has changed the way the world operates. With the invention of the Internet, anything a person desires is just a click away. From grocery shopping to writing letters, if a person has a computer it can be done. Television, video games and other electronic devices have replaced imagination and outside activity for both adults and children. Child obesity rates have increased year after year because children no longer go outside to play after school, instead they stay inside and play Xbox or Play Station for hours or they sit and watch television shows such as Sponge Bob. Technology has affected adult activity levels as well. Social chat rooms, online gaming and surfing the internet has taken the places of interaction with their children. Families no longer go to parks and play; they stay inside and remain inactive. Doctors recommend that a person take part in at least 30 minutes of physical activity every day to remain healthy. This activity can include walking, running, jumping; anything that increases your heart rate. Physical activity can reduce excess body fat caused by overeating, reducing the chances of obesity. The reduction of excess body fat increases the chance of a longer healthier life. Technology not only hinders body fats lose, but technology can also help attain the recommend amount of physical activity by using exercise DVDs. Not only can physical activity help to decrease the number of obese Americans, the basic knowledge about a healthy lifestyle is just as beneficial.
Although there are hundreds maybe even thousands of informative books, magazines and web sites about healthy eating and exercise, most people find them intimidating. The pictures of the perfectly shaped models, the complicated formulas used and the acrobatic exercise moves needed to stay healthy can leave a person feeling less then capable of what they read. The intimidation factor can also increase a person chance of becoming obese because the person may give up and not try. Some may argue that if a person does not have a genetic disposition for obesity then there is no reason for being obese. The information that is available on healthy lifestyles is complicated and plentiful but is necessary to maintain a healthy life and reduce obesity in America.
The lifestyles of Americans have contributed to the alarming numbers of obese people in the Unites States. The want for convenience has caused a decline in the activity levels of parents and children alike. The lack of knowledge pertaining to the affects of fast food consumed, the specifics of physical activity and an overall knowledge of a healthy lifestyle all contribute the obesity epidemic. If Americans do not find a way to control their lifestyles, their lives will end prematurely.
As children, we were taught the four basic food groups: fruit, Legumes, whole grains, and vegetables. The United States Department of Agriculture has implemented a food pyramid. The new food groups are grains, vegetables, fruits, oils, milk and meat & beans. It is recommended to consume these foods in certain portions but with the fast pace life that most of America leads, eating according the food pyramid is easier said than done. With the high pace lives that Americans lead, cooking duties have been relinquish to line cooks at restaurants like McDonalds, Hardees, and Carl’s Jr. All of which offer a large variety of foods, from cheeseburgers to salads. The daily recommend caloric intake for an adult is about 1940 calories for a women and 2550 calories for a man (plus or minus 200 depending on activity level) depending on your resource. The process of burning these calories is very complicated. To sum the process up, the body only needs the recommend amount of calories, the excess is stored as fat, which can lead to obesity. If a person were to have a cheeseburger meal at Hardees for lunch, which includes a cheeseburger, large fries and a large Coke-a-cola the amount of calories consumed would total 1350 calories. For women, that is more than ¾ their caloric intake for the day and for a man it is more than ½ their caloric intake. That does not include breakfast, dinner or any snacking that has been done. Children fare no better than their parents do when it comes to fast food. For children ages 4 to 6, their daily caloric intake is 1800 calories. Feed a child a cheeseburger Happy meal from McDonalds and they have consumed 710 calories in one meal, that is nearly ½ their daily intake. Remember the body processes what it needs, the rest is stored as fat. The nutritional value of fast food may contribute to obesity, but a person’s activity level plays just as big a role in this epidemic.
Technology has changed the way the world operates. With the invention of the Internet, anything a person desires is just a click away. From grocery shopping to writing letters, if a person has a computer it can be done. Television, video games and other electronic devices have replaced imagination and outside activity for both adults and children. Child obesity rates have increased year after year because children no longer go outside to play after school, instead they stay inside and play Xbox or Play Station for hours or they sit and watch television shows such as Sponge Bob. Technology has affected adult activity levels as well. Social chat rooms, online gaming and surfing the internet has taken the places of interaction with their children. Families no longer go to parks and play; they stay inside and remain inactive. Doctors recommend that a person take part in at least 30 minutes of physical activity every day to remain healthy. This activity can include walking, running, jumping; anything that increases your heart rate. Physical activity can reduce excess body fat caused by overeating, reducing the chances of obesity. The reduction of excess body fat increases the chance of a longer healthier life. Technology not only hinders body fats lose, but technology can also help attain the recommend amount of physical activity by using exercise DVDs. Not only can physical activity help to decrease the number of obese Americans, the basic knowledge about a healthy lifestyle is just as beneficial.
Although there are hundreds maybe even thousands of informative books, magazines and web sites about healthy eating and exercise, most people find them intimidating. The pictures of the perfectly shaped models, the complicated formulas used and the acrobatic exercise moves needed to stay healthy can leave a person feeling less then capable of what they read. The intimidation factor can also increase a person chance of becoming obese because the person may give up and not try. Some may argue that if a person does not have a genetic disposition for obesity then there is no reason for being obese. The information that is available on healthy lifestyles is complicated and plentiful but is necessary to maintain a healthy life and reduce obesity in America.
The lifestyles of Americans have contributed to the alarming numbers of obese people in the Unites States. The want for convenience has caused a decline in the activity levels of parents and children alike. The lack of knowledge pertaining to the affects of fast food consumed, the specifics of physical activity and an overall knowledge of a healthy lifestyle all contribute the obesity epidemic. If Americans do not find a way to control their lifestyles, their lives will end prematurely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)