23 and me

Weeks 1

Amy Weeks

Professor Ocxanne Jean

ENC1102

16 January 2021

Wellness Culture’s Obsession with Fitbits, 23andMe, and Data Isn’t Necessarily Making Us

Healthier by Timothy Caulfield

In this article, “Wellness Culture’s Obsession with Fitbits, 23andMe, and Data Isn’t

Necessarily Making Us Healthier” by Timothy Caulfield, he resourcefully weighs little pros and

the many cons of wearing devices that monitor one’s health and daily habits such as wearable

activity monitors like Fitbits. The author of this article displays the message that studies show that

people who wear fitness trackers lose significantly less weight than people who do not. It seems

that the intended purpose of this article was to provide credible resources that only show one side

of the story and not present both sides of the argument of this specific topic. Caulfield relies on

statistics and data to show that using health monitoring devices do not necessarily lead to a happy

and healthy life, he then drenches his message by using sarcasm, pathos, and pessimism.

Caulfield displays the familiar tone of sarcasm throughout his entire article by inserting

humorous remarks and references to grab the reader’s attention to see his side of the topic. He

states “It can even turn sleeping into a competitive sport. (Sleep harder, dammit!)” to attempt to

make the reader laugh while also agreeing with his words. He utilizes the word “competitive” in a

negative sense that draws the reader away from the idea. In the next statements, he goes on to

mock and patronize in sarcastic tones “Indeed, those Apple Watch and Fitbit ads, with their ocean-

Weeks 2

going triathletes and nocturnal urban street dancers, make it seem like monitoring your step count

will transform a sedentary and pedestrian life into a 1980s music video.” “A lot of the new data

suggests our technology isn’t transforming us into a generation of street-dancing, step-maximizing,

sleep-mastering triathletes.” Caulfield’s phrases and references can come off as condescending in

the sense that he is using terms like “triathletes”, “street dancers”, and “sleep mastering” in a

negative, mocking tone.

This article would have been more well-rounded if the author would have applied pathos

and simply have presented both sides of the argument whether or not individuals who wear fitness

trackers live better lives. It is advised that the author should have applied ethos to this article rather

than pathos due to the topic having a history of strong, valid, opinions from both ends. He goes

down the path to appeal to emotions and sympathy by stating “ Another study found that for

adolescents, fitness trackers were demoralizing, largely because the devices added a peer-pressure,

competitive vibe to physical activity.” Caulfield does not provide any history of positive results

from other studies, given if there were any. Another example of Caulfield appealing to the reader’s

emotions is stating “A series of studies published in 2016 found that measuring activities can make

them feel more like work and, consequently, less fun.” He uses the phrases “more work” and “less

fun” to have the reader realize that measuring activities can be a negative thing and not something

that someone would like to do.

Continuously throughout the article, Caulfield pessimistically presents a plethora of data

through referencing studies that were conducted that only had negative effects of using fitness

trackers. Not once in his article does he provide positive feedback or studies showing improvement

in overall health and life of individuals using health monitoring devices. He displays this

pessimism by stating “If these technologies are really going to make us healthier, they must do

Weeks 3

more than merely provide bits of information about our life, they must cause us to act on that

information in a meaningful way.” Caulfield uses phrases like “they must do more” and “they must

cause us” to point out his opinion that the devices are not good enough and should not be used. The

way that Caulfield puts a negative phrase in parenthesis in the middle of a scientific statement also

shows a great deal of negativity towards the entire statement. “This new test uses a variety of

genetic markers in order to offer a prediction (a prediction that not everyone agrees will always be

accurate) on the chance of developing the disease.”

The uses of sarcasm, pathos, and pessimism throughout this article can potentially rub

some readers the wrong way and put them off to the article completely. Caulfield relies on

statistics and data to show that using health monitoring devise does not necessarily lead to a happy

and healthy life, he then drenches his message by using sarcasm, pathos, and pessimism. Caulfield

provides numerous references to studies conducted on this topic and many resources that prove his

message that wearable activity monitors do not contribute to a happier and healthier lifestyle. He

provides no positive feedback to wearing said devices and never encourages his readers to make

the choice for themselves, this article is strictly his opinion with resources that back that up and

prove him right. In the future, it would be advised that Caulfield present both sides of the argument

with equal amounts of references to studies and display his opinion at the end but remind the

reader that the choice is ultimately theirs to make.

Weeks 4

Works Cited

Caulfield, Timothy. “Wellness Culture’s Obsession with Fitbits, 23andMe, and Data Isn’t

Necessarily Making Us Healthier.” NBC News: Think Opinion, Analysis, Essays (July

21, 2019)