Media's Magic Pill

The American media has distorted our perception of health. We have been force fed images of thin, idealized bodies, yet live in a society where food is literally within reach at all times. We are criticized for becoming a society of overweight individuals, and then foolishly sold the empty promises of diet trends.  Clearly, there is no reason to wonder why uttering the word “FAT” is practically taboo.

The message that the media is sending to the American public is ubiquitous, inescapably ever-present in our society.  Just pick up any magazine and skim through the images within. It is nearly impossibly to find a picture of a person with even the slightest amount of extra meat. Turn on the television or go to the movies and the same slender depictions abound. We, in turn, are trained to worship an impossible body frame that may actually be more unhealthy than healthy. Furthermore, we have no choice but to believe that a thin appearance is the answer to wellbeing when, in actuality, there isn’t much correlation at all.  According to health specialist and author of Fear of Fat, Laura Fraser, an hour of exercise three times a week and a healthy diet mean more than a couple ounces of fat.  Fraser insists a little extra skin does not equate to poor health, and “weight obsession is a fate far worse than love handles.” (Read more about this topic on CommuniKATE)

Simultaneously, America is experiencing a health crisis that our media incessantly blasts loud and clear. Public health authorities assert, “no less than four of every five Americans maintain a medically dangerous body mass, [with] nearly two-thirds of us…said to be overweight, [and] almost half of the rest of the nation…categorized as too thin” (Campos).  According to a report released in April 2010 by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, forty five percent of all adults had at least one of three chronic conditions: diabetes, hypertension, or hypercholesterolemia, related to poor diet and exercise habits (Tuttle).  Not to mention, our hard earned tax dollars go towards the aid of such domestic health issues. As Newsweek recently reported, “[o]besity accounts for nearly 10 percent of what the U.S. spends annually on health care and is linked to about one third of the increase in domestic health spending since the mid-1980s” (“We have the power…”).  Meaning, even if you aren’t obese, you’re paying for everyone else that is.

Honestly though, how are we to blame for an obesity epidemic when food is readily available at all times? Even gas stations sell something to satisfy the stomach.  What is more, unhealthy food is the most affordable. Not to mention, “everything in America is set up to eat more and move less’” (Miller). Portion sizes have grown while technological devices now enabled us to do anything we could ever want with the touch of a button.  Why chase a soccer ball when you can do so virtually on your laptop?  The media doesn’t make avoiding such temptations any easier, plastering food advertisements on billboard left and right and airing McDonalds radio commercials every five minutes.  I will be the first to say, it is hard to think of anything BUT food.

This sense of disarray has left American’s desperate for a solution and in turn, transformed the diet industry into a billion dollar business. Companies sell everything and anything, from pills to books, promising to whittle down the waistline. Yet media promotions of such short cuts to weight loss give society nothing but false hope. In fact, on October 23, 2010, latimes.com announced that the FDA rejected a newly proposed weight loss drug, Lorcaserin, intended to “work on the brain to alter metabolism and appetite.” Apparently, when further tested, Lorcaserin raised concerns regarding “marginal effectiveness” and increased chances of cancerous growth. According the Times report, the FDA, more often than not, shuts down diet drugs for similar reasons of false promises and health risks.  However, even if such drugs were indeed effective, studies have shown that, “95% of dieters who take off the weight pack it back on after five years or less” (Miller). To date there proves to be no easy way out of proper nutrition, modest caloric intake, and good old fashion exercise.  Sadly, the media is selling us a solution that’s only further fueling the issue and encouraging society to take shortcuts when addressing personal wellbeing.

Unfortunately, America’s solution won’t come in the shape of a pill. Its answer lies in our ability to create an environment that fosters good health habits. Simultaneously, it is the media’s responsibility to promote such changes.  It is time to do away with unrealistically thin images and weight loss drug advertisements.

(Haven’t tobacco ads been outlawed for similar health risk reasons?) Pills and diet “secrets” are nothing but empty promises.  The answer to weight loss remains a balance between exercise and healthy food consumption. We must make a concerted effort to eat more vegetables and find a form of exercise we actually enjoy doing. We need to embrace the “journey” of a healthy lifestyle, instead of focusing on an easy way out.

Campos, Paul. "Why America's Obsession with Weight is Hazardous to Your Health."

Not Alone. 2004. Web. 30 Oct 2010. <http://www.enotalone.com/article/6358.html>.

"FDA shoots down another weight loss drug." Los Angeles Times 23 OCT 2010: n.

pag. Web. 30 Oct 2010. <http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/23/nation/la-na-weight-loss-lorcaserin-20101024>.

Fraser, Laura. "Fear of Fat." Fair (1997): n. pag. Web. 30 Oct 2010.

<http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1388>.

Miller, Martin. "Feeding our diet obsession." Los Angeles Times 05 MAY 2003: n.

pag. Web. 30 Oct 2010. <http://articles.latimes.com/2003/may/05/health/he-diet5>.

Tuttle, Steve. "I Was a Male Weight Watcher." Newsweek 30 APR 2010: n. pag. Web.

30 Oct 2010. <http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/30/i-was-a-male-weight-watcher.html>.

"We Have the Power to Change Our Weight." Newsweek 10 SEP 2009: n. pag. Web.

30 Oct 2010. <http://www.newsweek.com/2009/09/09/we-have-the-power-to-change-our-weight.html>.

laugh, look the other way, or shrug it off...

Recently, the media has been going crazy over a publicity mishap with GQ magazine and the cast members of popular Fox tv series, Glee. For those not familiar, the show is a fictional depiction of a High School Glee club composed of some incredibly talented young adults. The show is corky, witty, and anything but PG13, which is exactly what makes this controversy so very interesting.

Apparently, photos released from the upcoming GQ issue depict scantly clad female leads Leah Michelle and Dianna Argon posing seductively in what appears to be the halls of a High School. The suggestive attire and overall image messages have left quite a buzz trail. They’ve been criticized by the likes of The Parents Television Council, gossip king Perez Hilton, and even news anchor Katie Curic, all of which have claimed to be incredibly disappointed. In fact, The Parents Television Council declared the shots to be borderline “Pedophilia,” further stating, “the creators of the program have established their intentions on the show's direction, and it isn't good for families." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/20/parents-group-calls-glee-_n_770295.html)

In reply, both GQ and actress Dianna Argon defended their actions with public statements and blog posts. GQ protested that the show is racy in and of itself and these actresses are indeed grown adults, not the high schoolers they play on TV. As for Dianna, she apologized for anyone that misinterpreted her intentions. She also admitted that she didn’t personally like the idea to begin with, but then reminded herself that she’s just playing a character and doing a job she’s so very blessed to do. Neither source fully admitted to be in the wrong. Dianna even questioned wittingly, “if your eight-year-old has a copy of our GQ cover in hand, again I am sorry. But I would have to ask, how on earth did it get there?”

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/21/glee-star-dianna-agron-ad_n_771495.html).

The truth of the matter is entertainment and entertainers love to push the limits. It’s part of what makes them so darn entertaining. They thrive on these sorts of media explosions simply because of their ability to cultivate more fans, more viewers, and ultimately, more money. Ever heard the saying there’s no such thing as bad publicity? I can’t pronounce I entirely agree with this statement, but I do agree with the fact that pushing the envelope a little gets people to stand up and take notice.

 I will assert, however, that publicity should never intentionally hurt another individual or go against mainstream society’s ethical code. In my eyes, the GQ shots do neither. Yes, these images are pretty darn sexy, but so were those of Marilyn Monroe in her flowing white dress. If you are a parent and unhappy with the message media is sending, tell you children you don’t like what you see. Be a good role model yourself. I can almost guarantee that children will emulate their parents and people they actually know, more so than a celebrity, but ONLY if they have a solid role model in front of them leading the way.

To be blunt, entertainers aren’t going to stop pushing buttons anytime soon. It’s the nature of the beast. (Read more about this  topic). Getting stirred up over a racy photos, and publishing a press release, is exactly the reaction publication is going for and really not going to make worried viewers any better off. So laugh, look the other way, or shrug it off. It was only meant to arouse a little hype anyway and it will all be forgotten by tomorrow.

            

Magazines Will Live

The “death of print” is a concept of recurring speculation. However, at present, it is just that, mere speculation. Magazines, paperback books and newspapers are still very much alive. Society has indeed become fully engrossed in the digital age and soon today’s youth, known as the “Digital Generation,” will be tomorrow’s leaders. This Digital Generation has grown up with far less print on paper and far more web surfing, text messaging, and emailing. In their eyes, everything readable can be found online. Digital is a way of life and is thus, changing the life of the print industry. For this reason, various newspapers and books have sought to represent themselves on the web as well as in print. This gradual transition has even furthered the assumption of print’s demise. Magazines, however, have yet to convert their monthly publications into a virtual experience. Their demise seems far less likely, possibly because the passion behind this medium is a force to be reckoned with. Though the magazine industry needs to change, it will not die.

History is evidence that magazines have no reason to cease existence, as their downfall has been questioned before. Approximately 30 years ago, society was considered to be in the Golden Age of Magazines. The industry itself was launching close to 150 to 200 new publications per year (Husni). This period is also considered a rebirth of sorts after the threat of television in the 1960s, which was predicted to wipe out print altogether. No such death occurred. The 1980’s were also a time of technological advancements that questioned the survival of print, alluding to talk of magazines on CD-ROM, videocassettes and DVDs. Yet, no change arose. Even with the inception of the Internet, magazines have pursued. In fact, “for every magazine that shut its doors in 2008, at least 20 new magazines were born” (Husni). However, now more than ever, innovations of 2010 appear to be giving the industry a real run for its money.

Indeed, technological advancements practically demand change. iPads, iPhones, reading tablets, and the like, beckon the transformation of material represented in print to be represented digitally as well. These devices enable immediacy and the “anytime, anywhere” ideology of wireless Internet. Moreover, such inventions have opened up alternative avenues for advertisers. As ads generate the majority of magazine revenue, this has begun to cause real problems within the industry. Less cash flow translates to job cuts and, at times, the termination of entire publications. Furthermore, the cost to advertize digitally is far less than that necessary in print. Rachel Wimberly, author of “Magazines aren’t dead yet: print products,” stated that “if a print ad costs a dollar, chances are the same ad online will go for 25 cents”. However, advertizing agencies have not pulled away from print entirely. Rather, they have begun to spread their coverage upon multiple mediums like digital and face-to-face advertizing. As Don Pazour, Access CEO and President stated, “’there are still profitable magazines, and magazines provide excellent databases of readers that relate to magazine brands’” (Wimberly). Nevertheless, as technology expands and advertisers invest less and less in print, the industry will indeed need to begin to seek revenue elsewhere.

The previous publishing model which relied mainly on ad sales and very little on reader’s purchasing power for revenue will not subsist in this day in age. Thus, it is the publishing model that is dying, not magazines themselves. “Success needs to be measured by finding customers who count and charging them for the content of the publication” (Husni). With this change, the focus should shift from quantity of ads sold to quality of material generated. In turn, this will inspire superior journalism and higher excellence from issue to issue, sans the distractions of numerous make up ads ads and scantily clad denim models. One need only analyze the types of magazines which have already closed to see that chasing advertisers and going after quantity instead of quality, is not the answer.  According to a list compiled by Advertising Age, by and large the most recently deceased publications were either created solely for market-share or advertising purposes. Author Gabriel Sherman from Big Money.com points out that when the housing market inflated, many “shelter” titled magazines were born and when the “financial bubble peaked in 2007…Conde Nast launched Portfolio, its business [titled publication].” In addition, many companies in search of further avenues for ad sales began spinoffs of popular magazines like Conde Nast’s Men’s Vogue and Heart’s Cosmo Girl, both of which have come to a close. Hence, the answer is to focus on the delivery of quality material from publications readers have grown to love, trust, and rely upon.  This model has been tested and proves to be successful with the likes of Cook’s Illustrated, Highlights for Children, and Consumer Reports, each of which do not accept a single ad and yet, circulate up to one million or more copies. Of course, advertizing for additional revenue will not disappear entirely, but the portion from which magazines rely on such sales needs to shift in order to continue to survive.

Additionally, the impact magazines have made upon our culture is yet another reason their fatality seems highly unlikely. They symbolize so much more than bound and printed matter. Magazines mean photo shoots, interviews, runway shows, journalists, celebrities, publicity events, and all sorts of glitz and glamour that society has grown to obsess over. For many involved or those aspiring to get involved, the industry is a way of life.  For example, take a look at such popular films as The Devil Wear Prada or the real-life documentary of Vogue editor, Anna Wintour, titled, The September Issue. These two films, amongst countless other books and TV shows, captivate audiences with tales of “the magazine life”. For women in particular, magazines have become more of an accessory, like a purse or a scarf, than a disposable wad of paper. Very seldom does one read and then immediately dispose of a magazine. There is an undeniable connection between readers and this material object.  A good issue is a keepsake, like a photo album interspersed with advice and interesting stories pertinent to today’s pop culture.  As journalist Gabriel Sherman put it, “Magazines are emotional products. They are objects of aspiration, passion, and desire... [which] still offer an unsurpassed ability to marry literary ambition with deep reporting, photography, and visual design. ” Devout readers feel a bond with their favorite titles. “In this new media age, people talk about the importance of transforming readers into ‘communities’“ as social networking sites like Facebook have done (Sherman). This cultivation of community is something that magazines do best and thus gives magazines ever more of a fighting chance.

Furthermore, the proud and passionate leaders within the magazine industry have chosen to stand up against any preconceived notions of termination.  In March of 2010, five premier companies (Townsend, Conde Nast, Hearst, Time Inc, and Wenner Media) began a campaign called “Magazines, The Power of Print” endorsing the lasting strength of magazines, as well as consumer devotion to the medium. In addition, the campaign has a dense web database composed of up-to-date industry statistics and reports, all of which are intended as ammunition against naysayers. Statements like ‘ during the 12-year life of Google, magazine readership increased 11%’ appear as PR pages for the campaign. A favorite ad, featuring a picture of Olympian Michael Phelps, reads  “we surf the internet [and] we swim in magazines…[but] people aren’t giving up swimming, just because they also enjoy surfing.”  Such ads have run in nearly 100 magazines, and reached nearly 112 million viewers each month. Clearly, this industry and its leaders aren’t going anywhere without a fight (http://powerofmagazines.com/).

Yet, even devoted magazine advocates agree that avoiding digital media entirely would be a mistake. According to Gordon Huges, CEO and president of American Business Media, in May of 2008, “‘Digital [was] a $4.5 billion industry, and…is growing at 20 percent [a year]’” (Wimberly). At this rate, digital has the chance of exceeding print by 2011, indicating it is clearly a force to be reckoned with. Consequently, the most beneficial thing magazines can do is view change as an opportunity. The truth is, at present, online representation is expected.  They should consider blending digital media with their print. For example, a current event, which would take at least three weeks to come out in magazine, can be represented online the very day it occurs. “As a result, [the monthly] print version will focus on feature stories and provide more in-depth problem-solving solutions” to the most important online content (Mayer). Big name publications like Cosmopolitan have already adopted a model that intertwines online and offline media quite successfully. Articles from previous issues, daily horoscopes, food recipes, and various other topics of interest are archived on the site. Nothing online repeats what follows in print, but rather, the two complement each other. The web depiction only enhances the Cosmopolitan image and provides further entertainment to diehard fans.

 Moreover, editors should continue to entertain the idea of digital publications, which can be sold like music, books, movies, and television on sites like iTunes and Amazon.com. In the near future, these digital publications may be just as successful as their print counterparts. Their creative possibilities are endless, as they can be enhanced with video footage, sound, and even link to additional sites with further information on presented topics.  And quite frankly, if the industry does not develop such electronic interpretations themselves, an outsider who does not lawfully have the right to do so, will. The last thing the industry needs is an illegal downloading nightmare like that of Napster and mp3 music files. As the saying goes, if you can’t beat them, join them.

The only, undeniable flaw in print is its environmentally wasteful nature. “According to the PAPER Project, the magazine industry consumes approximately 35 million trees each year” (“print is dead. Long Live Print”). It also takes a great deal of energy to then transport magazines to each and every subscriber, newsstand, grocery store, and the like. PC Magazine stated in 2009 that 2.9 billion of the 4.7 billion magazines printed and delivered to retailers are never even read. Furthermore, another issue, more relevant issue will be out the next month, making last months print seemingly disposable. Thus, it stands to reason that “[g]oing digital is going green” (“Print is dead. Long Live Print”). Perhaps, the industry should scale back the amount of issues produced or consider giving back to the environment. Donating revenue to plant a few more trees wouldn’t hurt anyone.

Regardless of what does occur, there will be no drastic, sudden change. At present, alternative technologies are far too expensive for the average citizen. A specialist on the subject, informed journalist Barbara Quint that “[p]articular household [facilities can] accommodate reading print publications while the same facility would not so easily accommodate a laptop computer” (Quint).  Most people can afford a $3.50 magazine, but not everyone can toss out $600 plus dollars for a new iPad. Author, blogger, and expert in the field of publication, Steve Laube, uses the introduction of the electronic reader to point out that since its inception, the volume of books sold digitally is still less than 1% of all editions sold. He further asserts that even if “e-books have 100% growth in the next year…they would still comprise [only] 2% of all sales” (Laube). As previously mentioned, there’s no need for immediate alarm.

The statement “Print is dead” is shocking at the very least. To those involved in the magazine industry, this bold statement fosters panic and fear. It leads to the loss of jobs, the mortality of life long ambitions, and the death of an industry that once made so many, so very happy. Though change is unavoidable, panic is pointless. The industry is indeed going to change, as is every industry. Society changes, times change, and so will the facilities that cater to our inhabitants. Such is the cycle of life. But, no entity that has had as big an impact on human existence as the magazine industry, should simply die, disintegrate, and disappear forever more.  Magazines will only die if let them. As ASBPE’s past president Roy Harrris stated, “When travelers are told to turn off all electronic devices on the plane, they can turn on the magazine” (Husni).

Bibliography

Anonymous, FEEDBACK. (2010, April). Adweek, 51(14), 48.  Retrieved October

11, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 2018766491).

Batista, Elisa. (2003). Paper trail not dead yet. Wired,

Retrieved from Konrath, J.A. (2010, May 21). Is print dead? [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ja-konrath/is-print-dead_b_583959.html

Ben Bagdikian.  (2004, March). PRINT WILL SURVIVE. Editor &

Publisher, 137(3), 70.  Retrieved October 11, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 575970021).

Husni, Samir. (2009). It's the publishing model-non-print-

that's dead. Publishing Exec, 1. Retrieved from

http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.libproxy.usc.edu/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e8aff0fe8a48e18e4df67c2cab028e2e20e8f685eae534547600fc216dbf23cee&fmt

Harbison, Niall. (2010, January 19). Why traditional media

and print industry are dying and 5 things that could save them. Traditional Media, Retrieved from http://www.simplyzesty.com/traditional-media/traditional-media-print-industry-dying-5-save/

Konrath, J.A. (2010, May 21). Is print dead? [Web log

message]. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ja-konrath/is-print-dead_b_583959.html

Laube, Steve. (2010, January 21). Is print dead?.

Retrieved from http://www.stevelaube.com/is-print-dead/

Magazines, the power of print campaign [Web log

message]. (2010, September 23). Retrieved from http://www.workbook.com/blog/1618

Mark Fitzgerald, & Jennifer Saba. (2007, August). WHO SAID PRINT IS

DEAD? Editor & Publisher, 140(8), 18-20,22-24.  Retrieved October 11, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1319508801).

O'Rourke, P.. (2010, June). Not Dead Yet. The Weekly Standard, 15(36), 10,12-

13.  Retrieved October 12, 2010, from Social Science Module. (Document ID: 2059364421).

Print Is Dead. Long Live Print :Print businesses aren't dead, but they do need to

change. Printing should be reserved for archival information you'll hold onto for years instead of days.. (2009, January). PC Magazine, 28(1), Retrieved October 11, 2010, from Research Library Core. (Document ID: 1650440681).

Quint, B.. (2008, January). Why Isn't Print Dead ... Yet? Information

Today, 25(1), 7-8.  Retrieved October 11, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global.

(Document ID: 1410305511).

Sherman, Net to newspaper: drop dead. (2005, July 4). 

Business Week, Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_27/b3941024.htm

The future of print. (2000, December). American Printer,1  226(3), 11.

Retrieved October 12, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 66599816).

Twenty truths about magazines. (2009, October 14).

Retrieved from http://www.magazine.org/research/twenty-tweetable-truths.aspx

Vic Nathan Barkin.  (2006, December). The Future of Print. In - Plant

Graphics, 56(12), 10-12,18,20.  Retrieved October 11, 2010, from Arts Module. (Document ID: 1182471731).

Wimberly, Rachel. (2008). Magazines aren't dead yet: print

products. Buisness and Company Resource Center, Retrieved from http://ZB5LH7ED7A.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/summon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Magazines+Aren%27t+Dead+Yet&rft.jtitle=Tradeshow+Week&rft.au=Rachel+Wimberly&rft.date=2008--0-5-&rft.issn=0733-0170&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=18&rft.spage=4&rft.externalDBID=TRDW&rft.externalDocID=1484708831

SAFE SEX IS OUR STANDARD

Yesterday, while browsing the health section of the New York Times, I came across an article titled, “Condom Use Is Highest for Young, Study Finds.” The headline alone reeled me in to read and review. Never once would I have guessed that my generation would be the leading demographic participating in safe sex.

            According to Roni Rabin’s article, condom use has become the “norm for sexually active” teens of today. 75 percent of the 14-17 year-olds surveyed reported using condoms as compared to the 25 percent for all men involved in the analysis. On the contrary, well under half of the adults who participated in this survey stated that they used this contraceptive. Rabin quotes pediatrics professor Dr. J Fortenbeerry as stating that condoms have become an expected ingredient in the start of sexual activity among our youth. The act is likened to wearing a seatbelt when learning to drive a car--something considered mere protocol.

A follow up article was posted today, October 4^th further illustrating the study taken. Today’s article was titled, “Researchers unveil biggest survey on sex in US since 1994” and penned by David Crary. Today’s article provided further statics regarding the survey used in Rabin’s write-up.

According to Crary, the sample of 57 teens used was strikingly lesser than the sample of thousands who participated in the “latest federal Youth Risk Behavior Survey last year, which calculated condom use among sexually active high school students at 61 percent.” Even though some may argue that the overall percentage in smaller, it is still shockingly evident that today’s youth takes safe sex more seriously. Researchers have grown distraught over evidence that the lowest condom usage rates were found in men above 50. Though these males are more likely to be married, 50+ men are revealed to be the most open to multiple sexual partners. Such statistics postulate an ultimate increase in disease rates. Furthermore, the study also showed that black and Hispanic men used condoms more than white men. Analysts claim this suggests that HIV-AIDS programs have been successfully infiltrated into “those communities, which have relatively high rates of the disease.”

I immediately began to rationalize these statistics. Perhaps the adults partaking in casual intercourse obtain birth control or utilize an alternative form of contraceptive? This idea was not made clear in either of the Times articles. I further postulated that “sexually active” adults might not view unplanned pregnancy as seriously detrimental to their lifestyle as a teen would. However, in hindsight, I think this hypothesis is a far cry from the truth. After all, a baby isn’t like a pet you can just get rid of when it becomes a chore.

It is my belief, that today’s teens are growing up in a more complicated society than their forefathers and not necessarily by choice. This pressure may stem from the state of college acceptance or, for that matter, what it takes to succeed nowadays. Teens are forced to take life seriously very early on. High school is no longer the last stop before adulthood. High School is now a time to look towards college, graduate school, and then opportunity to earn a living. Thus, it would stand to reason that youth take their personal sexual safety equally as serious. Per an article found on MSNBC.com, I discovered the federal government has recently voted to fund sex education programs which aren’t based solely on abstinence. Apparently, a “$375 million grant is being divided among 28 [previously successful] programs, … many [of which] distribute condoms, but about half also aim to boost teens' academics, get them involved in extracurricular activities and even improve their parents' job status.” Thank god we’ve finally acknowledged that today’s youth is sexually active and abstinence-only discussion is a waste of breath. How can you honestly tell young adults to stay away from sex when the media practically shoves it down our throats? It’s comforting to know that safe sex contraceptives will be the lesson of choice and it’s even better to know that our teens are listening. Perhaps this generation is not as ignorant and clueless as it is made out to seem.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/health/04sex.html

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-social-networks-health-20100913,0,7197587.story

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39457080/ns/health-sexual_health/

The Raw Foods Diet

This past summer, my mother and I studied with a personal trainer whom, despite the excellent ability to push her students, appeared to lack the ability to push herself. Her ill-toned appearance made me question her credibility and health aptitude.  However, as my mother and I got to know our trainer, she eventually “out-ed” that she personally struggled with weight loss. Her days as an effortlessly slender ballerina with an incredibly fast metabolism were long gone. She informed us that, among other issues, she possessed a troublesome “thyroid” thereby making it quite challenging to lose weight.  She believed she had a solution, which had worked wonders in the past. Her answer was an extreme manner of eating known as “the Raw Foods Diet.”

I found her take on the diet to be rather fascinating and, after sampling my very own $30 jar of raw, organic almond butter a couple of weeks ago, I decided to do some research of my own.

A food is pronounced “raw” if it is three things: organic, unprocessed, and uncooked. An organic food is one left untouched by pesticides, preservatives, irradiation and GMOs. An unprocessed food is served in its most natural state state possible, i.e. a carrot plucked straight from the ground or an apple picked directly from the tree and then purchased at a grocery store of course (get the idea?).  An uncooked food is anything that has not been heated above 116 degrees Farenheit. At least 75% of foods within the Raw Foods lifestyle fit the aforementioned criteria. Thus, the diet is primarily composed of fresh fruits and vegetables, grains, legumes,  nuts, seeds, beans, and sprouts. 

The idea behind the diet is as follows:

Cooking food above 116 degrees Farenheit is said to kill enzymes. Enzymes help us digest food. It is true that the body can create its own enzymes to help break down what we intake, but the amount of which it can produce is limited. Furthermore, the enzymes that the body makes are weaker than those within living foods and in turn, food is not broken down and digested as well when cooked. The ultimate worst thing this can lead to is a build up of rotting foods in your intestines or worse, parasites living in the decaying build up in your gut.

In addition, cooking food past the raw foods temperature is said to obliterate most natural minerals and vitamins, essentially destroying the nutritional value at its finest.  Not to mention, the PH level of the food is changed when heated and made to be more “acidic” as opposed to  “alkaline.” The long story short repercussion of which is that an individual with a heavily weighted “acidic” diet is more prone to disease and the like. Raw Foodies also drink water that has been alkalinized.  The scientific details of this process are rather difficult to explain but one can simply purchase an alkalizing device that will change regular water into ok filtered and favored beverage.

Last but not least, heating food is believed to destroy the “life” within. A cooked food is considered a “dead” food. Raw foodies assert that anything worth ingesting will be completely and utterly exterminated once heated at high temperatures. Living, raw foods supposedly give off energy that will in turn, provide the body with the most invigorating source of liveliness possible. Energized food is the fuel behind an energized consumer. This extreme style of consumption can even stimulate symptoms common to a “detoxification” cleanse such as cravings, nausea, and mild headaches. Thankfully though, these negative experiences usually only last for the first several days of the diet.

So why make the leap of food faith? The Best of Raw Foods.com sites energy, weight loss, skin clarity, memory enhancement, improved fertility, prevention or reverse severity of diabetes, and a more stabilized immune system as just a few of the diets benefits.  (http://www.thebestofrawfood.com/raw-food-diet.html).

The meals of a Raw Foodie are essentially those of a vegan; no animals or animal products are consumed. Furthermore, common grocery store foods, filled with preservatives and the like are excluded as well. Besides the aforesaid, fruits, veggies, nuts, seeds, beans, grains, and legumes, the diet also incorporates hearty servings of seaweed and alkaline water. However, not every food within the diet is eaten “straight off the vine” so to speak. There are additional methods of preparation that are indeed acceptable in creating a raw foods dish. Such methods involve, dehydrating, blending, juicing, sprouting, and soaking the specific food groups. A typical meal is usually something along the lines of a fresh salad or blended juice. (And in case you were wondering, yes there is such a thing as raw chocolate cake.-see recipe below).

In fact, the diet includes a lot of favorite family dishes, it is merely the manner in which these dishes are prepared that deems them to be within diet guidelines.  For example, one can purchase “sprouted” Ezenkiel bread at health-food-focused grocery stores. Raw Food products for purchase are becoming more and more commonplace, though not without costing a pretty penny.

How does a raw cashew nut butter, fresh banana and Ezenkiel bread sandwich sound right about now?

Apparently, the Raw Foods diet isn’t recommended for everyone.  In fact, About.com author, Cathy Wong, reports that “children, pregnant or nursing women, people with anemia, [and those at risk] for osteoporosis” should steer clear of the Raw Foods pledge.  Wong also informs those interested that the diet may cause “certain nutritional deficiencies…including: Calcium, iron, B12, protein,” and overall caloric intake. (http://altmedicine.about.com/od/popularhealthdiets/a/Raw_Food.html) Not to mention the diet takes a lot of time, effort, and patience. Furthermore, dieters must have access to a health-food-oriented grocery store, as many of the necessary ingredients are hard to come by.

Naysayers point out that the human body has adapted over time and no longer suits the Raw Foods diet. Jaws and teeth have grown smaller, stomachs have decreased in size and our digestive intestines have grown longer, thereby augmenting the digestive surface area necessary for present day meals.  In addition, cooking can also make phytochemicals within foods easier for the body to soak up, which is directly opposite the purpose of taking on Raw Foods.

To me, the diet sounds refreshing and unique, but altogether too limiting. I am left wondering how full one can feel after drinking a glass or two of carrot juice? I mean really, how many different ways can you mash up a banana until it just gets old? Food is supposed to be a pleasure in life. The preparation of food has become an art.  Furthermore, there is so much culture, tradition, and happiness wrapped into the different genres of food that are simply throw away upon taking the Raw Foods pledge. In my eyes, a plain old carrot is more lifeless than a cooked carrot for that matter. There are an awful lot of perfectly healthy people that don’t eat according to Raw Foodies. I personally don’t have the time, energy or the resources to devote myself to the Raw Foods way of life. I guess the only way I would ever commit to such a diet would be if I struggled with some sort of illness or organ malfunction. But then again, ok health and happiness come hand in hand? A happy mind is a happy body, right?

Who knows, maybe someday I will give Raw Foods a shot- just to see if I feel any real difference in my overall “being”. Until then, I’ll be eating my almond butter “un-sprouted” and twenty dollars cheaper.

Raw Chocolate Cake

From: http://www.thebestofrawfood.com/raw-food-diet-recipe.html

Serves 10

Ingredients

1/2 cup cocoa powder


1/2 cup carob 


1/2 cup finely ground almonds


1/3 cup agave syrup


1/4 cup coconut or cacao butter


Pinch of sea salt


For the chocolate filling:

2 cups cocoa powder


1.5 cups agave syrup


1 cup coconut or cacao butter


1 tablespoon Vanilla extract (optional)


1 tablespoon Lucuma Powder (optional)


1 teaspoon Maca Powder (optional)


For garnishing: Strawberries, raspberries, or oranges for garnishing.

Crust

Combine and mix all ingredients. You can best do this by hand or standing mixer). It should have a dough-like consistency. Press the dough evenly into a 7 inch tart pan. (A removable bottom, a plastic cling wrap lining or one of these new flexible silicon pans are easiest.) Chill in the fridge for at least an hour if you have time.

Filling

Blend all the ingredients in a blender until very smooth. Poor into the cake crust. Put the cake back in the fridge and chill for at least another hour.Before serving, decorate the cake with the berries, orange or other nice looking fruit. Enjoy, this is the best raw food desert ever!

Sanjay Goupta: Public Intellectual, indeed

The idea that America is built on “headstrong individualism and the myth of self-reliance” indeed implies that this is a nation of “anti-intellectuals”. Yet, public intellectual Sanjay Guopta’s influence seems to elude otherwise.  There is no question as to Goupta’s ability to influence society. Besides being a full time CNN staff member, journalist and “blogger,” both of his books, Chasing Life (2007) and Cheating Death (2009), have become best sellers and documentaries on CNN. His avid fan-base has earned Sanjay a successful Twitter account in which followers can receive updates and advice per Guopta practically 24/7. The American public is not resisting Goupta’s intellectual advice, but rather thirsting for more.

Moreover, any individual concerned with a decline in “class” or quality of public intellectuals of our time, need not point fingers at Goupta. Sanjay has the credentials and experience to back up his commentary. In addition to his position at CNN, Gupta is a staff member at the Emory University School of Medicine, associate chief of neurosurgery at Grady Memorial Hospital and serves as an ambassador on the American Board of Neurosurgery. Atop this, “in 1997, he was selected as a White House Fellow, serving as a special advisor to First Lady Hillary Clinton.” (To read more about Goupta’s highly admirable credentials see http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/gupta.sanjay.html.)

Regardless of Gupta’s educational background, image obsessed naysayers should place their focus not on credentials and credibility of the source, but rather the “function” of the source, as stated by Professor Mack in, “The ‘Decline’ of Public Intellectuals.” Is Sanjay dealing with topics worthy of public attention and discourse? Does he attempt to puncture the “myth-makers” of today? Noted academican, Elshtain acknowledged that it is of utmost importance public intellectuals, like Sanjay, act as “critics.”  Sanjay’s individual CNN site exposes weekly topics he has discussed both on camera and off. http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/sanjay.gupta.md/. Recent reports include headlines like, “How medical fraud works,” “Keeping your home safe from chemicals,” and “America’s obesity epidemic,” all of which are indeed worthy of a little “prodding, poking, pestering” and investigating. Via the web, Sanjay also asks viewers to send in their own stories, comments and burning questions so that Sanjay may continue questioning and challenging the “powerful institutions that …shape” America. This active public participation is something Professor Mack points to as the “obligation of every citizen in a democracy.”

However, intertwined with the aforementioned significant social material, are reports on, “What makes men tick?,” the “extremes” of Nascar driving, and Angelina Jolie’s visit to Pakistani aid camps. These newscasts may conger the notion that Sanjay’s credibility has been “cheapened” or “adulterated.”  In addition, they may spark the assumption that his use of “celebritism,” with the likes of Angelina Jolie, has weakened Sanjay’s reliability simply because Angelina is a performer and not a scholar. According to Posner, reports dealing with the “arts and humanities” should be left out of the public intellectualdom entirely. Yet Sanjay’s work beckons the contrary outlook, that such discussion topics, in fact, “uncover implicit orientation and worldviews that, in turn, affect public decisions and actions.” http://www.stephenmack.com/blog/archives/2010/08/the_decline_of_3.html#more. If Angelina’s appearance leads to further debate on the subject and increased aid in Pakistan, than these “shoddy” reports are truly worthy of broadcast.

Furthermore, Sanjay takes his public intelligence past the point of mere discourse. He “practices what he preaches,” so to speak, as his roles as journalist and physician have, at times, overlapped. During the Iraq invasion in 2003, Sanjay not only reported on site, but also “performed brain surgery five times, the first of which was on a 2-year-old Iraqi boy.” http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/gupta.sanjay.html   Most recently, Sanjay traveled to a medical clinic in Haiti to report  on the current situation and ended up being one of the only physicians who stayed on site to make certain that wounded patients  survived throughout the night. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/19/sanjay-gupta-shocked-when_n_428337.html. Guopta’s heroic merit has even warranted Obama’s request to fill the position of Surgeon General. Clearly, Sanjay Guopta’s credibility as a true public intellectual is not damaged.

 To question Guopta’s influence, his authority as an intellect, and his passion to discuss apt subject matter would not only be pointless, it would be an act of civic stupidity. In short, when it comes to public intellectuals, at present, there appears to be no need to fret---Sanjay Guopta is pulling his weight, and he’s doing so quite gracefully. 

My Labor Day Weekend Splurge