Thoraiya DyerSelling the Free Air: The Commercialisation of Oxygen
April 15th 2008 03:31
Oxygen, the new buzz word. It is manipulated into the brand names of perfumes, beauty salons, shampoos, sports drinks, supplements and face masks (and I don’t mean the kind that connect a person to a respirator),
All meant to imply that we need extra oxygen, which we apparently can’t get just by breathing.
I’m fine with the implications, really I am. But the massive whoppers that are told to bamboozle the innocent make me really, really mad.
As a comparison between the Misleaders and the Liars, here is an example of a Mere Misleading Product Description.
The words on the box, right there for everyone to see, are,
“AVON ANEW, PURE O2, Oxygenating Cream and Sunscreen, 50g”.
Pure O2, hey?
If that’s gaseous oxygen in there, no way does it weigh 50g. And if it’s liquid oxygen, I am blown away by Avon’s advanced cryogenic packaging. Seeing as how liquid oxygen has a boiling point of –183 degrees C.
So…it must not actually be pure O2? Scandal!
When we check, we find these active ingredients:
Octyl Methoxycinnamate 7%
Oxybenzone 4%
Octyl Salicylate 3%
Avobenzone 2%
Double scandal!
But it’s just a brand name, right? I bet it feels nice and cool when it goes on, and everyone who uses it thinks to themselves, “Oh My God, I can feel the oxygen power at work!” According to Avon’s FAQ, the oxygenating cream contains the “Energie-Cell System…Avon's unique blend of technologies that have been combined to energize the cells, increased oxygen utilization by the cells and increase oxygen delivery to the skin cells.”
Hmmm. Energise the cells, hey?
If I check the fourth edition of Keeton and Gould’s chunkier-than-a-phonebook text “Biological Science”, I learn that cells get their energy by combining oxygen and glucose to produce energy, carbon dioxide and water. This occurs in little organelles (think of them as power stations fuelled by sugar) called mitochondria. Mitochindria store the energy they produce in a clever way - as molecules of adenosine triphosphate (that is, adenosine plus THREE phosphate groups).
See, if you start off with a compound called adenosine diphosphate (adenosine plus TWO phosphates), and then use energy to force a THIRD phosphate on top, then, later, when you need energy for other things, you can bust that third phosphate off to release the energy.
Genius, right?
As an aside, I’m afraid the claim of “increased oxygen utilization by the cells” comes apart right here. Cells aren’t stupid. The only thing that steps up energy utilization is increased energy requirement. And frankly, when it comes to skin cells, that’s pretty much out of your control. They do their own thing, under local and hormonal controls. If you want to increase the energy requirement of your muscle cells, you can exercise, but that trick won’t work for the skin. I guess if you damaged it, forcing the healing process to kickstart, that might increase their oxygen utilisation?
Back to trying to energise cells, if you want to give them more energy, you have to either deliver more oxygen, more sugar, or give them little gift-wrapped parcels of ATP.
If we check back a few paragraphs, we find that the product does indeed claim to increase oxygen delivery to the cells.
But if we check our scientific literature, we find that there is already a mechanism for delivering oxygen to cells. It’s called…wait for it… the bloodstream! All those little red blood cells are designed to do one thing, and one thing only: Pick up oxygen from your lungs and transport it to your cells. The poor suckers give up their autonomy to become mere clumps of haemoglobin, the amazing oxygen-carrying molecule that makes it possible for an animal to grow larger than a ping-pong ball, and what recognition do they get for their tireless efforts?
None!
We’re ungrateful! We go clogging our pores up with cream, when the small amount of cutaneous respiration that does occur in people occurs perfectly well by interaction with the atmosphere. (Lexikon: “Cutaneous respiration: ability of taking oxygen through the wet skin (fish, amphibians)”)
You know, the atmosphere? That airy, invisible type stuff that surrounds us and conveniently contains 20.8% oxygen? If you put your arm into a box, and measure the amount of oxygen it absorbs, you find that it’s about 85 cc in an hour (J Clin Invest. 1932 March; 11(2): 387–390). On the other hand (ha ha, geddit), in that same hour, you will have taken something like twelve breaths per minute = 720 breaths, exchanging about half a litre of gas each time = 360 000cc.
I wonder what figures Avon arrived at when it decided to make the claim that its cream increases oxygen delivery through the skin? There does not appear to be any scientific data available. Just a whole lot of marketing schlock.
But it sure made me laugh, and maybe that’s the secret. Laughing can increase your respiratory rate. Go on, have a chuckle! Increase oxygen delivery to your cells, today!
Phew. And that was just the misleading one!
The best example of Downright Lies I can find appears in all its horrific glory right here, in the “Oxygen facts” section:
http://www.oxygeninc.net/
Just a few of the lines I find absolutely outrageous:
1) “Diminishing amounts of atmospheric oxygen.”
Now, I’m not going to pretend I understand the evolution of atmospheric oxygen over millions and billions of years. However, to quote reputable scientific journal, “Nature”, from an article by Kump called “The Rise of Atmospheric Oxygen,” published online on 16/1/08: “Clues from ancient rocks are helping to produce a coherent picture of how Earth's atmosphere changed from one that was almost devoid of oxygen to one that is one-fifth oxygen.”
I’m guessing we have the evolution of plants to thank for that.
You can find out more, here: Really Long Link
As for me, I’m afraid I’m going to take Kump’s word over Oxygeninc’s.
2) “Today, cutting edge researchers believe that even relatively healthy people may have trouble extracting all the oxygen they need from the air.”
Really?
I’m looking around for people who are having trouble extracting the oxygen they need from the air.
They should be pretty obvious. I mean, the symptoms of hypoxia are shortness of breath, seizures, coma and death.
Nope, I don’t see any.
When I reach for my Journal of Applied Physiology, I am assured by Hogan, et al, from the University of Tennessee (55 (4): 1134.) that even when you put healthy male volunteers on bicycles and make them pedal to physical exhaustion, they don’t have trouble extracting all the oxygen they need from the air. When you force them to breathe low levels of oxygen (eg, 17% instead of 21%), they breathe faster, but they still consume the exact same volume of oxygen as they would have breathing normal air.
Come to think of it, when I cast my mind back to CPR lessons in primary school, I thought the reason it was OK to use your own expired air in mouth-to-mouth resuscitation was because even expired air still has about 17% oxygen. Maybe not ideal when someone is on the brink of death, but, still, good enough.
3) “…fats and proteins…are not only low in oxygen content, but also require extra oxygen from the body to convert them into energy which further depletes the body’s oxygen reserves…the body has to divert needed oxygen from primary metabolic functions such as heart beat, blood flow, brain function and immune response…”
I think we’ve already covered metabolism in cells. This is a really bizarre set of statements. Yes, you need more oxygen to burn fats and proteins than you do to burn sugar – and you get more energy from them, too. That’s why fat is such an excellent, compact storage solution. Take it from my hips!
Let me just assure people who like to eat steak that while oxygen is indeed required to break down protein and fat, that’s the whole point of eating and breathing oxygen in the first place. It’s not going to interfere with your brain function. Just ask Sam Neill, who does a funky dance and tells us that red meat makes us smarter.
4) “90% of our energy comes from oxygen and only 10% from food and water!”
Oh boy. A real chemistry whiz. As we’ve already heard, the energy comes from the chemical reaction between food and oxygen, with water being produced, not consumed. So this makes NO SENSE AT ALL!
5) (And this is the best…or the worst… of the lot):
“Cancer attacks every organ in our body, except the heart because of its abnormal supply of oxygen.”
This incredible furphy, straight from anus to you, is backed up by the following alleged authoritative quote:
“ ‘Cancer has only one prime cause. It is the replacement of normal oxygen respiration of the body’s cells by an anaerobic (ie., oxygen deficient) cell respiration’ – Dr Otto Warburg, Two-time Nobel Laureate, Winner of the Nobel Prize for Cancer Research”.
Cancer has many causes. Smoking can cause lung cancer. UV exposure can cause melanoma. To conclude a long list of half-truths about our general shortage of oxygen with a punch line that infers that decreased atmospheric oxygen is responsible for cancer is absolutely ludicrous.
Dr Warburg did indeed receive the Nobel Prize, in 1931. According to http://nobelprize.org, it was for “his discovery of the nature and mode of action of the respiratory enzyme…this discovery has opened up new ways in the fields of cellular metabolism and cellular respiration. He has shown, among other things, that cancerous cells can live and develop, even in the absence of oxygen.”
I’m pretty sure Otto would be horrified to find himself the promoter of oxygen hookahs as a cancer preventative.
He might also be puzzled by the claim that the heart has an abnormal supply of oxygen. The heart has an awesome supply of oxygen, care of the coronary arteries. It gets first dibs, being closest to the lungs and all.
As for the heart being cancer-free, Patient UK Really Long Link lists the commoner cardiac tumours as being cardiac myxomas (myxomas are tumours arising from connective tissue), secondary tumours (they start growing elsewhere but travel to the heart via the bloodstream) and rhabdomyomas (these arise from the muscle).
But if you won’t believe me, here is an alternative option to purchasing an Oxygen Bar and setting it up in your house so you and all your friends can frantically sniff the Good Stuff.
Buy a bunch of potted ferns, instead.
Plants use sunlight to transform six molecules of carbon dioxide and six molecules of water into one molecule of sugar and six of oxygen. It’s called photosynthesis. In a closed, sunlit room, green plants will quietly go about their business, making sugar – and consuming it, too, but overall releasing more oxygen than they absorb – and restoring those “oxygen reserves” you might have accidentally paid for.
All meant to imply that we need extra oxygen, which we apparently can’t get just by breathing.
I’m fine with the implications, really I am. But the massive whoppers that are told to bamboozle the innocent make me really, really mad.
As a comparison between the Misleaders and the Liars, here is an example of a Mere Misleading Product Description.
The words on the box, right there for everyone to see, are,
“AVON ANEW, PURE O2, Oxygenating Cream and Sunscreen, 50g”.
Pure O2, hey?
If that’s gaseous oxygen in there, no way does it weigh 50g. And if it’s liquid oxygen, I am blown away by Avon’s advanced cryogenic packaging. Seeing as how liquid oxygen has a boiling point of –183 degrees C.
So…it must not actually be pure O2? Scandal!
When we check, we find these active ingredients:
Octyl Methoxycinnamate 7%
Oxybenzone 4%
Octyl Salicylate 3%
Avobenzone 2%
Double scandal!
But it’s just a brand name, right? I bet it feels nice and cool when it goes on, and everyone who uses it thinks to themselves, “Oh My God, I can feel the oxygen power at work!” According to Avon’s FAQ, the oxygenating cream contains the “Energie-Cell System…Avon's unique blend of technologies that have been combined to energize the cells, increased oxygen utilization by the cells and increase oxygen delivery to the skin cells.”
Hmmm. Energise the cells, hey?
If I check the fourth edition of Keeton and Gould’s chunkier-than-a-phonebook text “Biological Science”, I learn that cells get their energy by combining oxygen and glucose to produce energy, carbon dioxide and water. This occurs in little organelles (think of them as power stations fuelled by sugar) called mitochondria. Mitochindria store the energy they produce in a clever way - as molecules of adenosine triphosphate (that is, adenosine plus THREE phosphate groups).
See, if you start off with a compound called adenosine diphosphate (adenosine plus TWO phosphates), and then use energy to force a THIRD phosphate on top, then, later, when you need energy for other things, you can bust that third phosphate off to release the energy.
Genius, right?
As an aside, I’m afraid the claim of “increased oxygen utilization by the cells” comes apart right here. Cells aren’t stupid. The only thing that steps up energy utilization is increased energy requirement. And frankly, when it comes to skin cells, that’s pretty much out of your control. They do their own thing, under local and hormonal controls. If you want to increase the energy requirement of your muscle cells, you can exercise, but that trick won’t work for the skin. I guess if you damaged it, forcing the healing process to kickstart, that might increase their oxygen utilisation?
Back to trying to energise cells, if you want to give them more energy, you have to either deliver more oxygen, more sugar, or give them little gift-wrapped parcels of ATP.
If we check back a few paragraphs, we find that the product does indeed claim to increase oxygen delivery to the cells.
But if we check our scientific literature, we find that there is already a mechanism for delivering oxygen to cells. It’s called…wait for it… the bloodstream! All those little red blood cells are designed to do one thing, and one thing only: Pick up oxygen from your lungs and transport it to your cells. The poor suckers give up their autonomy to become mere clumps of haemoglobin, the amazing oxygen-carrying molecule that makes it possible for an animal to grow larger than a ping-pong ball, and what recognition do they get for their tireless efforts?
None!
We’re ungrateful! We go clogging our pores up with cream, when the small amount of cutaneous respiration that does occur in people occurs perfectly well by interaction with the atmosphere. (Lexikon: “Cutaneous respiration: ability of taking oxygen through the wet skin (fish, amphibians)”)
You know, the atmosphere? That airy, invisible type stuff that surrounds us and conveniently contains 20.8% oxygen? If you put your arm into a box, and measure the amount of oxygen it absorbs, you find that it’s about 85 cc in an hour (J Clin Invest. 1932 March; 11(2): 387–390). On the other hand (ha ha, geddit), in that same hour, you will have taken something like twelve breaths per minute = 720 breaths, exchanging about half a litre of gas each time = 360 000cc.
I wonder what figures Avon arrived at when it decided to make the claim that its cream increases oxygen delivery through the skin? There does not appear to be any scientific data available. Just a whole lot of marketing schlock.
But it sure made me laugh, and maybe that’s the secret. Laughing can increase your respiratory rate. Go on, have a chuckle! Increase oxygen delivery to your cells, today!
Phew. And that was just the misleading one!
The best example of Downright Lies I can find appears in all its horrific glory right here, in the “Oxygen facts” section:
http://www.oxygeninc.net/
Just a few of the lines I find absolutely outrageous:
1) “Diminishing amounts of atmospheric oxygen.”
Now, I’m not going to pretend I understand the evolution of atmospheric oxygen over millions and billions of years. However, to quote reputable scientific journal, “Nature”, from an article by Kump called “The Rise of Atmospheric Oxygen,” published online on 16/1/08: “Clues from ancient rocks are helping to produce a coherent picture of how Earth's atmosphere changed from one that was almost devoid of oxygen to one that is one-fifth oxygen.”
I’m guessing we have the evolution of plants to thank for that.
You can find out more, here: Really Long Link
As for me, I’m afraid I’m going to take Kump’s word over Oxygeninc’s.
2) “Today, cutting edge researchers believe that even relatively healthy people may have trouble extracting all the oxygen they need from the air.”
Really?
I’m looking around for people who are having trouble extracting the oxygen they need from the air.
They should be pretty obvious. I mean, the symptoms of hypoxia are shortness of breath, seizures, coma and death.
Nope, I don’t see any.
When I reach for my Journal of Applied Physiology, I am assured by Hogan, et al, from the University of Tennessee (55 (4): 1134.) that even when you put healthy male volunteers on bicycles and make them pedal to physical exhaustion, they don’t have trouble extracting all the oxygen they need from the air. When you force them to breathe low levels of oxygen (eg, 17% instead of 21%), they breathe faster, but they still consume the exact same volume of oxygen as they would have breathing normal air.
Come to think of it, when I cast my mind back to CPR lessons in primary school, I thought the reason it was OK to use your own expired air in mouth-to-mouth resuscitation was because even expired air still has about 17% oxygen. Maybe not ideal when someone is on the brink of death, but, still, good enough.
3) “…fats and proteins…are not only low in oxygen content, but also require extra oxygen from the body to convert them into energy which further depletes the body’s oxygen reserves…the body has to divert needed oxygen from primary metabolic functions such as heart beat, blood flow, brain function and immune response…”
I think we’ve already covered metabolism in cells. This is a really bizarre set of statements. Yes, you need more oxygen to burn fats and proteins than you do to burn sugar – and you get more energy from them, too. That’s why fat is such an excellent, compact storage solution. Take it from my hips!
Let me just assure people who like to eat steak that while oxygen is indeed required to break down protein and fat, that’s the whole point of eating and breathing oxygen in the first place. It’s not going to interfere with your brain function. Just ask Sam Neill, who does a funky dance and tells us that red meat makes us smarter.
4) “90% of our energy comes from oxygen and only 10% from food and water!”
Oh boy. A real chemistry whiz. As we’ve already heard, the energy comes from the chemical reaction between food and oxygen, with water being produced, not consumed. So this makes NO SENSE AT ALL!
5) (And this is the best…or the worst… of the lot):
“Cancer attacks every organ in our body, except the heart because of its abnormal supply of oxygen.”
This incredible furphy, straight from anus to you, is backed up by the following alleged authoritative quote:
“ ‘Cancer has only one prime cause. It is the replacement of normal oxygen respiration of the body’s cells by an anaerobic (ie., oxygen deficient) cell respiration’ – Dr Otto Warburg, Two-time Nobel Laureate, Winner of the Nobel Prize for Cancer Research”.
Cancer has many causes. Smoking can cause lung cancer. UV exposure can cause melanoma. To conclude a long list of half-truths about our general shortage of oxygen with a punch line that infers that decreased atmospheric oxygen is responsible for cancer is absolutely ludicrous.
Dr Warburg did indeed receive the Nobel Prize, in 1931. According to http://nobelprize.org, it was for “his discovery of the nature and mode of action of the respiratory enzyme…this discovery has opened up new ways in the fields of cellular metabolism and cellular respiration. He has shown, among other things, that cancerous cells can live and develop, even in the absence of oxygen.”
I’m pretty sure Otto would be horrified to find himself the promoter of oxygen hookahs as a cancer preventative.
He might also be puzzled by the claim that the heart has an abnormal supply of oxygen. The heart has an awesome supply of oxygen, care of the coronary arteries. It gets first dibs, being closest to the lungs and all.
As for the heart being cancer-free, Patient UK Really Long Link lists the commoner cardiac tumours as being cardiac myxomas (myxomas are tumours arising from connective tissue), secondary tumours (they start growing elsewhere but travel to the heart via the bloodstream) and rhabdomyomas (these arise from the muscle).
But if you won’t believe me, here is an alternative option to purchasing an Oxygen Bar and setting it up in your house so you and all your friends can frantically sniff the Good Stuff.
Buy a bunch of potted ferns, instead.
Plants use sunlight to transform six molecules of carbon dioxide and six molecules of water into one molecule of sugar and six of oxygen. It’s called photosynthesis. In a closed, sunlit room, green plants will quietly go about their business, making sugar – and consuming it, too, but overall releasing more oxygen than they absorb – and restoring those “oxygen reserves” you might have accidentally paid for.
| 108 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Tyronne
Sydney Fun
Melbourne DiaryStar
Another great post.
Comment by Thoraiya Dyer
Demented World
I'm guessing it's a US website... there's no way they can appoint somebody to check the content of every site that springs up, more's the pity!
Comment by Jarrah
Back to the Eighties
Its only a matter of time people.
Oxygen = $$$
Im getting in early and putting some in to storage while its still free. I'll be rich I tells ya!
Back to the Eighties
www.backtotheeighties.net
Comment by jon
Orble News
Urban Hint
Blog Adviser
You may also need to add the email address admin -at- orblemail.com to your address book in order to receive Orble admin emails in the future.
Thanks,
Jon.
(Guy who runs Orble with Charles)
Comment by Thoraiya Dyer
Demented World
Jon: I got the email. Going to reply to Charles now. Thanks