Response: Max Kotelnicki's To Bottle or Not to Bottle

Bottled water runs my life. Being a tennis player i go through nearly 6 bottles of water or Powerade every single day, whether it be during a match or practice. Although i should, i never really think about "being green", but i do occasionally refill my bottles with the water from the water fountain. (Even though it tastes like iron) In Max's post he discusses the very controversial topic of the use of bottled water. He found two articles; one in favor or bottled water, and one against it. The article for bottled water discusses how tap water doesn't taste as good as tap water and how tap water could be contaminated. Coming from the suburbs of Chicago, our city officials like to tell us that our tap water is pure enough to drink is among the best tap water in the country. I still don't buy it though. My family has an entire outside refrigerator designated to plastic bottled beverages.

His second article discusses how bottled water is of bad value, creates excess garbage, and is no healthier than tap water. All of these statements are clearly backed by facts, but for some reason this article does not make me want to cut bottled water out of my life. Max does a great job of offering an alternative however. The idea of the reusable water bottle should be more active in this debate. After looking deeper into this subject what was more amusing to me was how many bottled water companies are "Green Washing" their labels. I don't know who they are trying to fool; bottled water will never be good for the environment. ever.

Must Be 21 or Older.

As i walked through the backyards of Madison's very own Mifflin Block Party, I couldn't help but notice that every single person participating in these festivities had a drink in their hand. With this being said those who enter college are 18 years old, which technically means that they shouldn't be allowed to drink alcohol until their Junior year of school. This just doesn't seem right to me. In the article Why drinking age should be lowered the author discusses many reasons why the drinking age should be changed to 18 or 19 years old. Discussed in the article is the idea that having the drinking age at 21 makes for a "forbidden fruit" effect among teens. He uses research to describe how as the age of individuals increase the percent of binging decreases dramatically. While lowering the age of drinking at controlled places such as restaurants and taverns more sensible drinking behavior would be learned, so the need to binge would become less important. The article also discusses how although per captia consumption and motor vehicle crashes has decreased, there has been an increase in other problems associated with heavy, irresponsible drinking among college students. Such problems would include: vomiting after drinking, missing class because of hangover, and fighting because of drinking.
In the opposing article the author discusses how the increased drinking age to 21 has decreased alcohol and vehicle related deaths in the 16-20 year old age range. The article also discusses how there is an extreme increase in alcohol dependency in those who consume alcohol before the age of 15.

I think that the article in favor of lowering the drinking age was more convincing. Not only did it present multiple ideas about why it should be lowered but it took into account the other side of the argument. After reading these articles my opinion has not changed in regards to lowering the drinking age. I still believe that it should be lowered to 18 or 19. I mean, if you are allowed to lose your life for your country when you are 18, then why can't you drink? I think this idea should have been discussed in the article. I wish they would have also explain that when you turn 18 you are technically considered an adult, and are given every other privilege with being an adult other than drinking.

Response: Alex Santaga's Chicken vs Chicken Nuggets

In Alex's post she discusses the nutritional differences between real unprocessed chicken and chicken nuggets, much like those that you would find at McDonald's. There is an overwhelming difference nutritionally between these two subsets of chicken. Alex explains that unprocessed chicken "is a low calorie, low trans fat, and a good source of vitamin B6 and protein". Many of us don't usually associate McDonald's chicken nuggets with actually being real chicken, but as a good choice for a late night snack while under the influence. After reading her post it made me think twice about ever consuming this fake chicken ever again. I followed her blog to a link of what was titled "McDonald's Fail" which was footage of a fried chicken head that was supposedly found in a McDonald's restaurant. Although very humorous, it was quite disturbing at the same time. After reading her post i was very interested to find out exactly what is in a McNugget. Interestingly enough Michael Pollan discusses this very topic in his second book, "An Omnivores Dilemma."

“The ingredients listed in the flyer suggest a lot of thought goes into a nugget, that and a lot of corn. Of the thirty-eight ingredients it takes to make a McNugget, I counted thirteen that can be derived from corn: the corn-fed chicken itself; modified cornstarch (to bind the pulverized chicken meat); mono-, tri-, and diglycerides (emulsifiers, which keep the fats and water from separating); dextrose; lecithin (another emulsifier); chicken broth (to restore some of the flavor that processing leeches out); yellow corn flour and more modified cornstarch (for the batter); cornstarch (a filler); vegetable shortening; partially hydrogenated corn oil; and citric acid as a preservative. A couple of other plants take part in the nugget: There's some wheat in the batter, and on any given day the hydrogenated oil could come from soybeans, canola, or cotton rather than corn, depending on the market price and availability."

I was very surprised to read that these chicken nuggets were actually more corn than chicken. So a tip to the wise: do not consume Mcnuggets ever again in your brief existence.

A meal fit for a woman.

Being the house mother of our apartment i decided that i would make a feast for my roommate and I. I decided that i was going to make steak, mashed potatoes, and broccoli. I started off the meal by gathering all of the necessary ingredients at the very convenient Madison Fresh Market, located just beneath my apartment. I grabbed two very lean steaks, two stalks of broccoli, and a bag of Ore-Ida's Steam and Mash potatoes. It didn't take a great deal of time to plan out my all American meal, and luckily the store had all of my required ingredients. The steak took all of 12 minutes too cook after the oven was at the proper temperature, and the broccoli was done in about the same time. What was really interesting though, were the steam and mash potatoes. They were done in about 5 minutes and tasted like my mom's homemade mashed potatoes.

As we devoured our meals, it was disappointing to me to realize that it took us less time to eat the meal than it did to prepare it. I guess it makes sense though, considering we just got out of a three and a half hour practice. After eating, we quickly cleaned up our mess of pots and pans and placed them in the dishwasher. Being an athlete it is a rare occasion to prepare a meal for myself because of the time crunch. I felt quite satisfied with myself though, making a well balanced meal in my own apartment is a pretty big deal. I didn't even use low-fat processed foods in the process. I agree with Pollan with regards to these foods. Our society is so focused on quick meals that are "good for you". In actuality, the food that we are consuming isn't real food at all. In the article, "Processed foods, aren't real foods at all" the author discusses the science behind these processed foods, and the affects they have on our bodies. Luckily my meal didn't consist of any processed foods which in turn made my meal that much more enjoyable.

Response: Mike Sorenson's, Analysis of a celebrity endorsement"

Not only was this blog entertaining but it was controversial at the same time.I decided to respond to a post by Mike Sorenson discussing Tiger Woods' endorsement of Nike Golf. All of Tiger Wood's endorsers are put in a very interesting potion right now due to all of the controversy that is surrounding him. He is making headlines for himself for all of the wrong reasons which is putting his many endorsers in a very sticky situation. Do they keep Woods signed as being the face of their company? Or do they drop him? Does Nike really want to be perceived as accepting people who have affairs with multiple women?

After reading Mike's post i was found rather shocked. Although Tiger Woods is hands down the best golfer in the world, in no point in this post was his recent controversy brought up. Up until now Tiger had been a role model for almost any athlete. He seemed composed, professional, and determined which are all qualities that made him a perfect spokes person. Yes, Woods has made millions of dollars for a company such a Nike, but is this trend going to continue? Mike says, "Nike golf would be nothing without Tiger." I would have to disagree. Tiger has indeed made Nike Golf what it is today, but due to his mistakes i feel as though Tiger is actually hurting Nike Golf by representing their company. It is going to take a while to clear his reputation, but for now he is not someone that should be the face of a company.

Yes, his ads and commercials may be catchy but after all he has done i find it very hard to look at him the same way. I think it is foolish to say that Nike won't drop Tiger any time soon, because one of Tiger's other major endorsers, Gillette and Gatorade, dropped him immediately after the controversy. As Mike clearly focused on Wood's financial contributions to Nike, it would be interesting to see the numbers following the incident.

Let's Keep it Real

In Michael Pollan's, In Defense of Food, he discusses the importance of eating "real food." Today, the Western diet it filled with fortified, refined foods, which is taking the place of the food found naturally in our world. We are all victims of eating fake food at one time or another, and i feel though it is becoming especially worse now being a college student. Everyday i walk into Pops Club, the dining hall, and i look around and realize that nearly half of the items being served were frozen, processed, or fortified with nutrients in one way or another. With that being said, for some unknown reason i put these ungodly ingredients into my body without a care in the world.

Every summer my parents tend to overuse our grill outside of my house. Don't get my wrong, i love grilled meat and vegetables; but a girl needs some variety in her life. Corn on the cob is a staple for our family. We soak the corn in water for hours, and then finally grill it with the husk on. It is delicious to say the least. On the contrary, here at school i am stuck eating once scoop of previously canned "corn". I mean, it looks like corn and smells like corn, but the corn i find in my dish is no where near tasting like the corn straight off the cob. Anything that can sit on a shelf for years at a time really isn't something that we should be digesting.

Nutrient wise the corn on the cob is obviously the better choice. Although the caloric values are the same, the canned corn has a whopping 489mg a sodium per serving; whereas the corn on the cob has only 23mg. To add, the canned corn loses about a gram of dietary fiber. I can't wait until the summer, when i get to feast on corn straight off the cob each and every day.

In the article, Are You Filling Up On Real Food or Fake Food, by Dr. Leslie Can Romer she discusses what “fake” food really is and goes through all of the possible health problems that can be associated with consuming these foods. I completely agree with this article's argument against processed food and why organic food should be consumed instead. The only way to consume the vital nutrients you need is to eat food when as it is in it's natural state.

How to Hit a Forehand:Speech Evaluation

Let me just start off my saying that watching yourself on camera is one of the most awkward things in the world. I have become very accustomed to going over tapes of myself playing tennis; but watching myself give a speech is in a whole new ball game. As speech giving isn't necessarily my forte, i have obvious areas of improvement; but i have to say in general i wasn't half bad. The content of my speech was very informative and easy to follow. I clearly explained what the forehand is along with some very key concepts that one needs to know about the sport of tennis.

The physical presentation of the speech is where i need a little help. I tend to move around a lot; and my hands can't seem to stay still. The volume and enthusiasm of the speech was very good, considering i had lost my voice. I also seem to have a lot of energy when i am up there. (I don't know whether that is a good or bad thing) I could have looked up a little more, but in general i think i did a decent job of making eye contact with the audience. You could clearly tell i was nervous up there which is something i need to work on. Standing in one position the entire time and being confident is key. The speech picked up when i started to actually explain the steps to hit the forehand. I seemed more confident and used my visual aid (tennis racket) effectively. My racket did a great job of being my visual aid.

I would definitely choose to do a speech on my topic again. This would help me be a better coach for tennis when speaking in front of large groups, and there are many little things i could have added and changed to my speech. If i was to do it again i would go through common mistakes people tend to have while hitting the forehand. Also i would try and look more confident and relaxed while speaking. Wearing something more flattering might help too. Take a look and see for yourself.