The Enigma: What Causes Obesity?

Thanks to public media, many Americans are under the assumption that the obese third of the population have fallen into the depths of their own gluttony. The blame has been put on the accessibility of food and the resulting lack of exercise in this industrial luxurious economy. This correlation has become the icon of the dilemma in many Americans’ eyes because it provides a sense of assurance that obesity can be so simply explained. In order for any progress to truly be made in this battle against American obesity, an understanding must be made that obesity is the result of many different factors. Rather than just being the immediate consequences of lifestyle choices, a person’s body shape and weight are the complex results caused by contributors such as malnutrition, heredity, thyroid productivity, and human evolution.

As counterintuitive as it may seem, malnutrition is a huge factor of obesity in the United States. Typical Americans associate the availability of cheaply priced foods as the result of obesity simply because there is so much of it. However, there are a ton of complex issues at hand lurking behind this rouse. Not all Americans can afford the luxury of nutrient foods that have been deemed healthy and wholesome. Instead, due to the economical constraints placed upon them, they resort to the food that is available. “A newly appreciated paradox has been described that links poverty, food insecurity, and malnutrition to obesity, or the state of overnutrition.” (Tanumihardjo) Malnutrition caused by “overnutrition” occurs because the food that is so available to Americans is very high in calories, yet deficient in essential body nutrients. Furthermore, the deprivation of essential diverse nutrients causes people to be hungry more often. This is the human body’s chemical reaction to being starved, although the outward appearance may falsely show that the person could benefit from eating less or working out. A long period of this deprived state could render a person unable to exercise due to a feeling of lethargy. This too is one of the body’s defense mechanisms against starvation so that it may retain energy for survival purposes. Since the body retains energy by creating fat cells, a person will gain weight from this condition. The inability to afford wholesome foods results in hunger and malnutrition. This is why a study of the American Dietetic Association has concluded that, “households characterized as food insecure also have the highest body mass index and prevalence of obesity.” (Tanumihardjo) This survival reaction has been imprinted in our genetic blueprint passed down over innumerous generations through the slow powerful process of evolution.

Humanity has adapted many species and individual survival methods that involve storing fat. Throughout the history of mankind, different populations have survived in the hottest of deserts to the sheerest chills of the subarctic climate. To do so, they had to develop adaptations on a cultural and genetic level. Women have particularly developed skills, genetically, to ensure the survivability of the species. Female buffering is the reason why in a similar environment, a sister of the same age as her brother will tend to be taller, have more fat, and consequently weigh more. This essential ability of the female anatomy is regarded as a nuisance today since it makes it so difficult for women to lose weight. In the event that a woman tries to diet and exercise her way to lose weight, she may encounter extreme difficulty due to the effects of female buffering, which works on the very same hormones that makes a human develop into a female. Estrogen has been proven to have fat-retaining properties, causing it to be stored generally around the hips and thigh area to form a pear shaped body. However, the amount of fat stored and locations of its deposits are genetically inherited.

Heredity is a more direct genetic role in the shaping of a person’s body. While it is true that family values and diets are often a heavy influence on those of a child, parental genetic makeup also plays a crucial role. “Twin and population studies have revealed that both body mass index (BMI) and waist/hip ratio (WHR) are heritable traits, with genetics accounting for 25–70% of the observed variability.” (Gesta) Different genes determine how a person will process energy. For this reason, two people following the same diet and exercise routine may find contrasting results in their bodily reactions. This is because our genes instruct the body how it should spend energy, where it should store energy, how many fat cells to store, and even how quickly the body should resort to using stored energy. Obesity can be passed down via genetic inheritance just like the many diseases that exist today like Alzheimer’s disease and Huntington’s disease. The genes causing someone to have more weight than what is deemed average may code for inadequate or insufficient regulation of bodily chemicals designed to maintain balance. A great example of such imbalance is type 1 diabetes, an inherited disease that can cause people to lose weight because their bodies cannot breakdown glucose. However, genetics play much more of a role in the shaping of the body, even without causing a diseased state. The complexities of the effects genes have on our weight are still elusive to scientists today, but progress is being made toward associating certain gene types with the production of adipose tissue.

The body’s metabolism, heavily affected by the production of thyroid, plays a crucial role in a person’s weight, fat, and energy. The importance of the thyroid gland and hormone become very apparent when people suffer from hypothyroidism, the term used to describe the condition when the body manufactures inadequate amounts of thyroid hormones. “Symptoms of hypothyroidism include lack of energy, depression, constipation, weight gain, hair loss, dry skin, dry coarse hair…” (PubMed Health) A low metabolism can account for a person feeling too tired to carry out normal tasks because food energy is not being burned at an efficient rate. Studies have shown that variations in the productivity of the thyroid gland are linked with the occurrence of obesity. A study conducted by the Endocrine Society concluded, “Thyroid function (also within the normal range) could be one of several factors acting in concert to determine body weight in a population. Even slightly elevated serum TSH levels are associated with an increase in the occurrence of obesity.” (Knudsen)

Obesity and the spectrum of BMI that we have in America are the results of many contributing factors that point out lifestyle choices cannot be the direct causes of such an onslaught. Indeed, many people are born predisposed to becoming obese in their lifetime. Although it may be uncomforting, we may never find out all of the chemical intricacies that play a role in the body’s production of excess fat. Knowing that obesity is not a choice, but a disease, the FDA should consider passing a safe drug to aid obese people who have been struggling with their weight and appetite for so long.

Works Cited

Gesta, Stephane, Matthias Blüher, Yuji Yamamoto, Andrew W. Norris, Janin Berndt, Susan Kralisch, Jeremie Boucher, Choy Lewis, and C. R. Kahn. “Evidence for a Role of Developmental Genes in the Origin of Obesity and Body Fat Distribution.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 9 Mar. 2006. Web. 12 Apr. 2012.

Knudsen, Nils, Peter Laurberg, Lone B. Rasmussen, Inge Inge Bülow, Hans Perrild, Lars Ovesen, and Torben Jørgensen. “Small Differences in Thyroid Function May Be Important for Body Mass Index and the Occurrence of Obesity in the Population.” The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. July 2005. Web. 12 Apr. 2012.

Tanumihardjo, Sherry A., Cheryl Anderson, Martha Kaufer-Horwitz, Lars Bode, Nancy J. Emenaker, Andrea M. Haqq, Jessie A. Satia, Heidi J. Silver, and Diane D. Stadler. “Poverty, Obesity, and Malnutrition: An International Perspective Recognizing the Paradox” Journal of the American Dietetic Association. Web.

“Thyroid.” PubMed Health. U.S. National Library of Medicine, 18 Dec. -0001. Web. 12 Apr. 2012. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0000689/&gt;.

So, How Did Marijuana Get Placed Into Schedule One in the First Place?

Marijuana is a schedule one drug. A schedule one drug is described under the Controlled Substances Act as:

 “hav[ing] a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision”

How did marijuana get in a schedule with drugs like heroin, LSD, PCP and ecstasy?

Roger Egeberg from the Department of Health Education and Welfare wrote a letter to Congress when asked where they should put marijuana. The letter said:

“Since there is still a considerable void in our knowledge of the plant and effects of the active drug contained in it, our recommendation is that marihuana be retained in schedule I at least until the completion of certain studies now underway to resolve this issue. If those studies make it appropriate for the Attorney General to change the placement of marihuana to a different schedule, he may do so in accordance with the authority provided under section 201 of the bill.”

Marijuana got placed in schedule one simply because Congress didn’t know what to do with it since there was not substantial research. The problem with being in schedule one is, as the legislation states, “[schedule one] limits authorized activities.” Therefore that fact that marijuana is in schedule one makes it harder to research. If marijuana was taken out of schedule one, it could be researched, which would be beneficial.

Egeberg did state marijuana should be moved if the studies concluded so. The studies mentioned finished in 1972 and recommended marijuana be removed from any scheduling and personal use should be decriminalized. These studies were done by the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse. Raymond  Shafer, a chairman, recommended:

“Possession of marihuana for personal use would no longer be an offense, but marihuana possessed in public would remain contraband subject to summary seizure and forfeiture. Casual distribution of small amounts of marihuana for no remuneration, or insignificant remuneration not involving profit would no longer be an offense.”

Would this even work? Drugs were decriminalized in Portugal. It was very beneficial to the country. 10 percent of Portuguese people over 15 have used marijuana in their lives. This is the lowest percent in Europe and staggeringly low compared to America’s 39 percent of people over twelve.

So why didn’t we try this? In 1971, Nixon stated even if the studies recommended he decriminalize marijuana, he would not. He explained he had “strong views” on this subject and would follow those views. It is possible this was largely because of the upcoming 1972 election against George McGovern.

Works Cited:

“Busted: America’s War on Marijuana,” http://www.pbs.org

Controlled Substances Act TITLE 21 – FOOD AND DRUGS CHAPTER 13 – DRUG ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONTROL SUBCHAPTER I – CONTROL AND ENFORCEMENT FDA US Food and Drug Administration. 11 June, 2009. 12 April, 2012.

Historical Timeline- History of Marijuana as Medicine – 2900 BC to Present Procon.org. 3 June, 2012. 12 April, 2012.

Richard Nixon:“The President’s News Conference,” May 1, 1971.Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.

United States National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse. 1972. Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding. U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC

Every Villain Always Explains His Plan

When America’s own superheroes cannot even rescue their creators, the world may truly be at loss.  Marvel’s continuous and stringent efforts to thwart its artists from making a personal profit drawing the characters they were employed to illustrate in comic books grow ever intensely.  The Avengers used to battle on the Helicarrier of S.H.I.E.L.D. or in the streets of New York City in the shadows of Stark Industries Tower, and now fall as a part of a losing battle in a United States courtroom.  And yet, perhaps the real reason the heroes are losing this war is from hiding behind a shield and being too afraid to arm with a bow; artists have a weapon that would, and has, go(ne) unnoticed in court: Marvel has yet to state why it is they truly care about commissioned work.

Not to confuse, we know why Marvel is going to trial.  An artist draws a character for a fan at a convention, and the character happens to be published by Marvel; as such, MArvel owns the character and the copyright, and the artist is making personal profit on a copyrighted character.  Prior to this, that was in fact the main focus: is this really a set-in-stone law?  Parody and Fair Use clauses in the United States Copyright Office, which permit usage of copyrighted characters  and brands to a degree, could very well be used to fight the charges.

Now, on the other hand, this is a matter of morals and intent.  Yes, at some level the artist broke the law.  But what they did was draw a very quick sketch (usually without any ink added) of a Marvel character, not something slanderous.  If Gabriel Hardman drew Hawkeye flipping off Captain America, then yes, Marvel’s character has been used in a manner harmful to the brand.  But sketching a commission for a little child at his first convention and then facing a Marvel lawsuit is something Marvel will have to explain.  There-in lies the problem: Marvel has not explained anything.  The main correlations with a lawsuit under a copyright claim is that something harmful or slanderous has to been to a brand, hence the suit.  Yet, as stated, so far all of the trials have been grounded from events not hurtful to Marvel at all.

The most recent case of Marvel suing Gary Friedrich, creator of Ghost Rider (following Friedrich suing Marvel) was inspired by his selling Ghost Rider merchandise, art, and book collections, most products with his name printed on them by Marvel themselves at a convention.  Marvel made the executive decision that Friedrich was not authorized to sell the merchandise and thus had no purpose in profiting from them.  Both Marvel and the court decided that this small profit was enough of a concern, and that Freidrich would pay Marvel $17,000 and cease boasting himself as the creator of Ghost Rider.

But what the concern was, remains the question.  In cases like Friedrich’s there is always a victimized party, and Marvel seems to be taking that label quite willingly, while Friedrich is forced to pay money he does not have and was trying to earn in the first place.  Yet each time Marvel initiates one of these actions, no one asks what the harm exactly was.  If it sounds like I have restated just this point a few times now, it should; this is exactly what Marvel is doing: reusing the same thesis without explaining why.

The difference is that Marvel understands that they are not providing evidence, and no one in the courts has asked so it has not been an issue necessary to be brought up.  That is because, in realistic terms, no harm has come to Marvel.  Now, they absolutely have the right to sue based on copyright infringement; in fact, in all honesty, this is something I am fairly proud of.  Marvel knows its rights, knows what they own, knows when they are being bent or broken, and has the moxie to act on what is theirs.  In a twisted way, it is a degree of justice.  When it use these abilities to bully its own employees out of their passions and earnings, while keeping them employed, well then things are disgraceful to the entire medium.

The real harm from all the commotion is Marvel sullying their own good name; the majority of reactions has been negative in Marvel’s light, and with good reason.  Marvel has managed to succeed and prosper from the misfortune of artists and ignorance.  If the concept of a commissioned piece of artwork actual does have any lasting impact on anything related to Marvel in the slightest, then it is much more probable that it would be positive: a child is more likely to want to read more about the hero they just received a drawing of, and will one day become a fan and buyer of the Marvel brand.  Even adults who attend conventions provide positives: the fan is purchasing the art more-so because she is a fan of the artist and then after decides what character she wants, and will of course continue to purchase the latest issue of Avengers.

Marvel is not wrong in what it is doing, but the law is just not the case any longer.  Values that Marvel had prided itself on were family, teamwork, loyalty, and above all a positive outlook; while DC took the road of controversial storylines and a grittier sense of justice, Marvel maintained its bright colors and smiling faces with stories for everyone to enjoy.  Unfortunately, if Marvel continues down the bleak path that it has put itself on, the colors will fade and run quickly and it will not only push away the loyalty of its artists, but of the fans as well; commission work is not a source of harm to Marvel in the slightest.  The issue is morality, and Marvel has no excuse for its actions beyond the fact that  it has the ability to initiate a lawsuit.

Works Cited

“Copyright and Fair Use.” ASHE Higher Education Report 34.4 (2008): 31-52. Academic Search Premier. Web. 3 Apr. 2012.

Cieply, Michael.  “Court Ruling Says Marvel Holds Rights, Not an Artist.” New York Times.  Web.  28 July 2011.

O’Neal, Sean.  “Marvel Forces Ghost Rider Creator to Stop Saying he’s Ghost Rider’s Creator.”  The A.V. Club.  10 Feb.  2012.

“Worth A Thousand Words: The Images of Copyright.” Harvard Law Review 125.3 (2012): 684-759. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Mar. 2012.

Murphy, Sean Gordon. “No More Unauthorized Artwork.”  DeviantArt.  http://seangordonmurphy.deviantart.com/journal/No-More-Unauthorized-Artwork-285030622  14 Feb. 2012

Can Facebook Cost Us Our Jobs?

It is no secret that social networking websites have become forerunners in the world of communication between colleagues, friends, family, and acquaintances. Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, FourSquare, and other similar sites make it easy for us to communicate with each other quickly and constantly with the click of a button. They help us connect with new acquaintances and also reconnect with old ones. But while all of this appears to be a beneficial tool for our personal lives, it is becoming apparent that it can also be a danger to us in our professional lives. Since the explosion of new social networking sites began, employers have used information posted on people’s Facebook pages to either prescreen a potential employee or evaluate a current one, making hiring and termination decisions based on posts that they see. Not only is this practice a violation of employees’ rights to freedom of speech, but it also begs the question: can Facebook cause us to be unemployed?

The answer to that question appears to be yes. Numerous cases have been seen by the courts on both a state and federal level regarding the termination of an employee due to posts or comments on their Facebook pages that their employers happened to find. Most commonly it is schoolteachers that find themselves facing a lot of pressure to monitor their online activity on social networking sites. A teacher in Pennsylvania was suspended by her district for posts on her Facebook that referred to her students being “out of control” or “frightfully dim” (Pike). The teacher hadn’t named any students in specific in her post, nor had she named the school at which she taught. The post was also made outside of the workplace, on her own personal computer, using her own personal internet service.

Her suspension is questionably illegal; she worked for a government that has technically violated her right to the freedom of speech. But her suspension is also a result that is not uncommon for teachers all over the country. Another teacher from Paterson, New Jersey, Jennifer O’Brien, was suspended from her position after parents of her students saw an unfavorable comment she made saying that she was “the warden of future criminals,” in reference to their children on her Facebook page and reported her to administrators (Townes). The post was questionably racist – the school at which she worked is predominately African-American. But when appearing in court, she defended herself by saying that the students were constantly unruly and that one had even hit her. Her comment, therefore, could technically be considered one that was made more for the purpose of “discussing working conditions,” which is a union-related activity that cannot be denied to members of a working union (Pike).

Although that was not the case that O’Brien argued for herself in court, an EMT from Connecticut that was terminated from her job for remarks on her Facebook about her supervisor did use that defense. She had apparently made an “angry and mocking description of the dispute and her supervisor on her Facebook page,” which had then been commented on by fellow employees who also had snide remarks to add to the post (Pike). When it finally reached the eyes of her supervisor, she lost her job, but not without a fight; she filed a complaint to the National Labor Relations Board through her union, claiming that by terminating her for a comment made about her working conditions while outside of the workplace constituted violating her right to engage in “union-related activity” (Pike).

After settling the case outside of court, the company she worked for agreed to change their policy that they had initially said she violated which prohibited “making disparaging, discriminatory, or defamatory comments when discussing the Company, or the employee’s superiors, co-workers and/or competitors,” which broadly incorporated speaking about working conditions and was therefore illegal (Pike). Closely related to this case is one in which a bus company’s policy prohibited, “employees from using social media to ‘target, offend, disparage … customers, passengers or employees’,” which is illegal on the same grounds that speaking about working conditions was illegal for the Connecticut EMT (Pike). The NLRB has been forced to reconsider what is legal for a company to include in their social networking policies.

It is not just comments on Facebook that can get employees in trouble though. Pictures also have the power to cause a termination of a job if it is considered indecent by an employer. One such instance includes a nurse from Northampton General Hospital who was fired after a picture one of her coworkers posted on Facebook was seen by her boss. The picture was taken in the hospital ward and her bra was visible in the picture. Although her employer clearly had a right to deem her conduct while in the hospital inappropriate, another picture that had been uploaded showed her and her two colleagues fully dressed while working in the presence of a patient, and she was eventually reinstated (“Nurse Who Showed Bra On Facebook Reinstated”).

While it can’t be definitively stated that Facebook can cause us to become unemployed, it also can’t be said that it doesn’t. Although we may believe that our personal lives should be completely separated from our professional lives, it is not unfair to say that employers have the right to be in full knowledge of the true demeanor of the people that they trust to do good work for them and represent their company. As social networking sites become more intertwined with life in the workplace, company policies regarding their use and employee conduct on these sites will have to adjust to fit the era of mass social media connection that we are heading towards.

Works Cited

“Nurse Who Showed Bra On Facebook Reinstated.” Nursing Standard 23.5 (2008): 9. Academic Search Premier. Web. 24 Apr. 2012.

Pike, George H. “Fired Over Facebook.” Information Today 28.4 (2011): 26. Academic Search Premier. Web. 24 Apr. 2012.

Townes, Glenn. “Paterson schoolteacher under fire for racist comment on Facebook.” New York Amsterdam News 10 Nov. 2011: 4. Academic Search Premier. Web. 24 Apr. 2012.

Easier Said Than Done

Walking straight is easier said than done, when there are no visual clues that is. In various studies performed by the German scientist and researcher, Jan Souman, it was found that “the blindfolded subjects could not keep a straight line” (Krulwich). This is largely due to the fact that when we walk, we use a variety of visual clues, such as the sun or a tree, to keep us a straight path. It has been found that when we no longer are able to use these visual clues it becomes near impossible for us to not end up going in circles.

In an experiment I conducted myself, these results were confirmed when none of the participants were able to walk in a straight path. The average distance that the target area was missed by, to the right or left, was forty feet. However, I then had them make the same walk, but played a loud noise, which resembled the sound of a digital alarm clock, from the target area. All of the participants were then able to hit the target, although they all took a curved path in getting there.

This proved my original hypothesis, that an auditory clue could replace a visual clue in navigation, correct. However, I was not the first to test this hypothesis. In Helsinki, Finland a group of researchers also found that “in most cases the subjects found the target area” (Lokki, Grohn and Savioja). In this experiment “the test task was to find a sound source in a dynamic virtual environment” (Lokki, Grohn and Savioja). The only major difference between this study and my experiment is that this study was done in a virtual environment while mine was done outdoors.

After I found that someone would walk towards a noise when blindfolded, I decided to make a new hypothesis that someone could correct their mistakes on multiple trials with feedback. To test this I had the participants do the test multiple times, giving them feedback about what they did wrong each time. All but one time the participant was able to change their direction. However, all of them, except one, over corrected and ended up failing to the opposite side. Everyone who failed to the right ended up failing to left, and vies versa. With one person who failed to the left continually. This leads me to believe that there is a clear cause effect relationship between feedback and the correction of mistakes in walking. With the cause being the feedback, and the effect being that they corrected their mistakes.

There are also other minor factors that played a role and cannot be over-looked. These include imperfections in the ground that could have shifted someone’s weight or momentum just enough to change their direction a small amount. Also, wind speed could play a small factor since there were high wind speeds one of the days I preformed the experiment.

After, experimentation by many people it is clear that when there is a lack of a visual clue it is nearly impossible to walk in a straight line. However, someone can find a target area when there is a auditory clue in place of a visual one. Also, with feedback, someone can learn to correct their mistakes and, hypothetically, guide themselves to a target area.

Works Cited

Krulwich, Robert. A Mystery: Why Can’t we Walk Straight. 7 march 2012.

Lokki, Tapio, et al. A Case Study of Auditory Navigation in Virtual Acoustic Enviornments. 3 April 2012 <http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu&gt;.