The State of Celebrity Diet Crazes 2010

I was searching for more information on Obama's State of the Union address when I clicked on an article on news.yahoo.com. The title, "FACT CHECK: Obama and a toothless commission" was devoted to disproving claims by Obama or drawing attention to flaws or mistruths within them. The article seems silly to me as I doubt these reporters really know what they're talking about. It frustrated me to see Obama quotes and then rebuttals underneath titled The facts. The facts the article states seem less like facts and more like longwinded approacesh at twisting Obama's words. They make flimsy, weak statements such as "Any commission set up by Obama would lack authority to force its recommendations before Congress, and would stand almost no chance of success." Using the words would and almost in one sentence automatically limits the author's authority. I read to the bottom of the "dialogue," and frustrated, scrolled up slowly trying to dissect why I felt that these reporters were rather sleazy. On the side of the article were a variety of advertisements and sponsored links. There was an ad showing an annoyed woman, half naked, holding a pillow over her ears, called "How to Cure Snoring Once and for All." The naked picture attracts the readers attention, but its content was of little interest. A few ads down was one titled, "Hollywood's New Secret...How to Convince the Brain to Stop Over-Eating. Yikes a million. This ad draws the reader in way too easily. The words secret, and stop over-eating would probably attract many Americans looking for a new trick for weightloss. Before clicking on the website I thought about the statement "convince the brain," and how ridiculously silly it is.

While its silly, the articles title makes it sound as if knowing one little secret will allow for the brain to be convinced to do something extraordinary. I clicked on the article and a new title emerged - "Hollywood's New Diet Secret...Appetite Control." Appetite control? Haven't we all known that controlling our appetite, watching what we eat and eating healthy are ways to stay thin? I've been told a million times that eating breakfast allows your body to regulate its calorie needs for the day. The article's first paragraph accuses the press of putting pressure on stars to stay thin, establishing themselves as an honest "anti-tabloid" site looking to help people out. The article advertised "Sensa" a weightloss product, of "odorless and tasteless food crystals," that people are supposed to sprinkle on their food to change the way their body reacts to smells and tastes, and control appetite. The article then follows up with an extra plus to the product, besides for ultimate thinness, "Best of all, Sensa contains no stimulants or fat-blockers, so there are no unpleasant side-effects." No side effects? Putting chemicals on one's food leads to no side effects? What about the fact that you have to eat a weird textured crystal mixture on your food? Is tricking your brain into not craving certain foods really not a side-effect? That is absolutely not healthy. Also, there are many other ways to control one's appetite without foul chemicals. The article at the bottom stated that since the company knew people would be skeptical to use the product as so many weightloss products are useless, they are offering a free trial. Well that's super, but what if the product doesn't work with the free trial? What if it works for a month before your hair falls out and you get hospitalized for nutrient deficiencies? Our bodies' cravings and hunger signals mean something, and tampering with them with chemicals is silly. I understand the reasons behind gastric bypass surgery and weightloss programs that design meal plans such as Weight Watchers or Jenny Craig. These programs might not be healthy for everyone, but at least they put emphasis on portion control and eating healthy rather than eating fake chemicals.

The article boasted that the program allows one to eat whatever they want, that the chemical will control cravings and prevent a person from feeling starving. For how long will it work and how much of a person's cravings will it control? If it controls a person's cravings for chocolate but not for icecream, couldn't that person end up the same size after following the program? Also, when was the last time we Americans only ate when we were "starving," not only is that use of adjective in an advertisement shaky, as true starvation would not be reached if the person using the crystals would be able to eat as much as they want, but we eat when food is around, when we feel like it. Does the crystal chemical account for food cravings linked to depression or having a bad day? How does it prevent us from eating whenever, not just when we're hungry?How, in fact, does the chemical even work? The article gives no explanation and the program's website offers even less information. How do these companies expect us to trust this product? Are they relying on our constant fight for a new weight or body? Are they assuming that a desire for thinness will surpass our critical reasoning or basic investigative skills? As a final thought, what kind of a website is www.howlifeworks.com? This website acts as a cure-all, an all-knowing body there to guide us lost, confused little humans. Other titles of articles available on the site are, "Owning a Franchise is Easy." Is it really easy? Another is "How to get a Free Audiobook and Start Enjoying Great Literature Again? At what point did we become illiterate or unable to appreciate classics? The whole site is phony, yet they appear to actually have something to offer, as they toot partnerships with fancy scientists who study weight-loss. It's silly that there's one website like this out there but how many more are there? Most likely far too many!

The article is available at: http://www.howlifeworks.com/health_beauty/sensa_hollywood/?cid=8088pe_news_rm

The product's website is: http://start.trysensa.com/dms1420/