Advertising: Planet Fitness Sheds Aspirational Approach

COMMERCIALS for gyms tend to feature actors who look like Calvin Klein underwear models, with physiques that most will not achieve no matter how long they spend on an elliptical machine.

Planet Fitness, a national chain of about 600 fitness clubs, is introducing a campaign that mocks fitness fanatics, especially those whose devotion infringes on others.

A new commercial opens with a slight woman who is curling small dumbbells in a drab gym as a brawny man berates her like a drill sergeant.

“If you can’t handle a big girl’s workout, the little girl’s gym is right across the street!” shouts the man, a whistle hanging around his neck and his hands balled into fists, as the woman appears to be on the brink of tears. “If you were committed to this workout the way you committed to that morning doughnut, you’d be puking out your ears right now!”

The spot cuts to a flashing light and siren and the words “Lunk Alarm,” and then to the same woman in street clothes being given a tour of a Planet Fitness facility.

“And that’s why I don’t like gyms,” she says.

“Well,” begins the employee showing her around, “we’re not a gym — we’re Planet Fitness.”

The ad closes with a voice-over, which says: “No gymtimidation. No lunks. Just $10 a month.”

The ad, by Red Tettemer & Partners in Philadelphia, will be introduced widely on Jan. 10. Three other spots in the campaign follow the same structure, opening with overbearing gym rats and closing with assurances that Planet Fitness is more laid back.

Planet Fitness will spend an estimated $10 million to $12 million on the campaign. It spent $15.8 million on advertising in the first nine months of 2012, more than the $14.9 million it spent in all of 2011, according to Kantar Media, a unit of WPP.

Rather than being just a narrative device in the spots, lunk alarms have actually been fixtures at Planet Fitness gyms. Members who exhibit lunk behavior, which the company defines on posters in its facilities as grunting, dropping weights loudly and being judgmental, are subject to a public shaming when a manager at the facility sounds the alarm.

In some cases, Planet Fitness even revokes memberships, as it did at a location in Wappingers Falls, N.Y., in 2006. Albert Argibay, a bodybuilder whose exertions were considered grunting by Planet Fitness, but which Mr. Argibay countered in news accounts as merely heavy breathing, kept lifting after he was told to leave, and was eventually escorted from the premises by police officers.

While the slogan “No Gymtimidation” is being introduced with the new campaign, the company has for years promised what it calls a “judgment-free zone.” That, in the words of the Planet Fitness Web site, “means members can relax, get in shape, and have fun without being subjected to the hard-core, look-at-me attitude that exists in too many gyms.”

Jamie Medeiros, director of marketing at Planet Fitness, said that only about 15 percent of Americans belonged to gyms, and that the company was focused not on trying to lure consumers from other facilities but on enticing those who had avoided gyms altogether.

“We go after the 85 percent who don’t belong to a gym now or who have never belonged to a gym,” Ms. Medeiros said.

While many chains sell protein powders and a wide range of supplements, Planet Fitness takes the counterintuitive approach of serving the type of food that dieters typically avoid.

Every month members are treated to pizza on the first Monday night and bagels on the second Tuesday morning, while Tootsie Rolls are handed out daily.

“The common person doesn’t have time to work out every day, and they may not aspire to the type of person who has six-pack abs and eats egg whites,” Ms. Medeiros said. “But we want to be the type of facility that people want to go to as opposed to, ‘Oh my god, I have to go to the gym today!’ ”

The company has thrived even during the economic downturn, growing to four million members today from about 3.2 million a year ago, according to Ms. Medeiros. About 60 percent of its members are women, much higher than what Ms. Medeiros said is the national average of 20 percent.

Health clubs, like cellphone carriers, tend to sell one- or two-year contracts, but Planet Fitness instead has a month-to-month plan, at $10 monthly, which the company believes knocks down a barrier to joining.

Among consumers who exercise, 71 percent agreed with the statement that fitness clubs were too expensive, according to a survey by Mintel, a market research firm. As for the atmosphere, only 27 percent said that they enjoyed the social aspects of gyms.

When brands hire celebrity endorsers and attractive models, marketers typically refer to the advertisements as aspirational, meaning that consumers do not see themselves reflected in the ad as much as an ideal to which they aspire. But Steve Red, the chief creative officer of Red Tettemer & Partners, said the aspirational approach can backfire when it comes to promoting health clubs.

“I’m never going to get to be that washboard-stomach, super-cut guy that I see in the Equinox ads,” said Mr. Red, referring to the chain of upscale gyms. “There are a ton of gym brands that are all about being cut and sinewy and having a six-pack, but I would argue that approach is not aspirational — it’s inaccessible.”

Read More..

Advertising: Planet Fitness Sheds Aspirational Approach

COMMERCIALS for gyms tend to feature actors who look like Calvin Klein underwear models, with physiques that most will not achieve no matter how long they spend on an elliptical machine.

Planet Fitness, a national chain of about 600 fitness clubs, is introducing a campaign that mocks fitness fanatics, especially those whose devotion infringes on others.

A new commercial opens with a slight woman who is curling small dumbbells in a drab gym as a brawny man berates her like a drill sergeant.

“If you can’t handle a big girl’s workout, the little girl’s gym is right across the street!” shouts the man, a whistle hanging around his neck and his hands balled into fists, as the woman appears to be on the brink of tears. “If you were committed to this workout the way you committed to that morning doughnut, you’d be puking out your ears right now!”

The spot cuts to a flashing light and siren and the words “Lunk Alarm,” and then to the same woman in street clothes being given a tour of a Planet Fitness facility.

“And that’s why I don’t like gyms,” she says.

“Well,” begins the employee showing her around, “we’re not a gym — we’re Planet Fitness.”

The ad closes with a voice-over, which says: “No gymtimidation. No lunks. Just $10 a month.”

The ad, by Red Tettemer & Partners in Philadelphia, will be introduced widely on Jan. 10. Three other spots in the campaign follow the same structure, opening with overbearing gym rats and closing with assurances that Planet Fitness is more laid back.

Planet Fitness will spend an estimated $10 million to $12 million on the campaign. It spent $15.8 million on advertising in the first nine months of 2012, more than the $14.9 million it spent in all of 2011, according to Kantar Media, a unit of WPP.

Rather than being just a narrative device in the spots, lunk alarms have actually been fixtures at Planet Fitness gyms. Members who exhibit lunk behavior, which the company defines on posters in its facilities as grunting, dropping weights loudly and being judgmental, are subject to a public shaming when a manager at the facility sounds the alarm.

In some cases, Planet Fitness even revokes memberships, as it did at a location in Wappingers Falls, N.Y., in 2006. Albert Argibay, a bodybuilder whose exertions were considered grunting by Planet Fitness, but which Mr. Argibay countered in news accounts as merely heavy breathing, kept lifting after he was told to leave, and was eventually escorted from the premises by police officers.

While the slogan “No Gymtimidation” is being introduced with the new campaign, the company has for years promised what it calls a “judgment-free zone.” That, in the words of the Planet Fitness Web site, “means members can relax, get in shape, and have fun without being subjected to the hard-core, look-at-me attitude that exists in too many gyms.”

Jamie Medeiros, director of marketing at Planet Fitness, said that only about 15 percent of Americans belonged to gyms, and that the company was focused not on trying to lure consumers from other facilities but on enticing those who had avoided gyms altogether.

“We go after the 85 percent who don’t belong to a gym now or who have never belonged to a gym,” Ms. Medeiros said.

While many chains sell protein powders and a wide range of supplements, Planet Fitness takes the counterintuitive approach of serving the type of food that dieters typically avoid.

Every month members are treated to pizza on the first Monday night and bagels on the second Tuesday morning, while Tootsie Rolls are handed out daily.

“The common person doesn’t have time to work out every day, and they may not aspire to the type of person who has six-pack abs and eats egg whites,” Ms. Medeiros said. “But we want to be the type of facility that people want to go to as opposed to, ‘Oh my god, I have to go to the gym today!’ ”

The company has thrived even during the economic downturn, growing to four million members today from about 3.2 million a year ago, according to Ms. Medeiros. About 60 percent of its members are women, much higher than what Ms. Medeiros said is the national average of 20 percent.

Health clubs, like cellphone carriers, tend to sell one- or two-year contracts, but Planet Fitness instead has a month-to-month plan, at $10 monthly, which the company believes knocks down a barrier to joining.

Among consumers who exercise, 71 percent agreed with the statement that fitness clubs were too expensive, according to a survey by Mintel, a market research firm. As for the atmosphere, only 27 percent said that they enjoyed the social aspects of gyms.

When brands hire celebrity endorsers and attractive models, marketers typically refer to the advertisements as aspirational, meaning that consumers do not see themselves reflected in the ad as much as an ideal to which they aspire. But Steve Red, the chief creative officer of Red Tettemer & Partners, said the aspirational approach can backfire when it comes to promoting health clubs.

“I’m never going to get to be that washboard-stomach, super-cut guy that I see in the Equinox ads,” said Mr. Red, referring to the chain of upscale gyms. “There are a ton of gym brands that are all about being cut and sinewy and having a six-pack, but I would argue that approach is not aspirational — it’s inaccessible.”

Read More..

Advertising: Planet Fitness Sheds Aspirational Approach

COMMERCIALS for gyms tend to feature actors who look like Calvin Klein underwear models, with physiques that most will not achieve no matter how long they spend on an elliptical machine.

Planet Fitness, a national chain of about 600 fitness clubs, is introducing a campaign that mocks fitness fanatics, especially those whose devotion infringes on others.

A new commercial opens with a slight woman who is curling small dumbbells in a drab gym as a brawny man berates her like a drill sergeant.

“If you can’t handle a big girl’s workout, the little girl’s gym is right across the street!” shouts the man, a whistle hanging around his neck and his hands balled into fists, as the woman appears to be on the brink of tears. “If you were committed to this workout the way you committed to that morning doughnut, you’d be puking out your ears right now!”

The spot cuts to a flashing light and siren and the words “Lunk Alarm,” and then to the same woman in street clothes being given a tour of a Planet Fitness facility.

“And that’s why I don’t like gyms,” she says.

“Well,” begins the employee showing her around, “we’re not a gym — we’re Planet Fitness.”

The ad closes with a voice-over, which says: “No gymtimidation. No lunks. Just $10 a month.”

The ad, by Red Tettemer & Partners in Philadelphia, will be introduced widely on Jan. 10. Three other spots in the campaign follow the same structure, opening with overbearing gym rats and closing with assurances that Planet Fitness is more laid back.

Planet Fitness will spend an estimated $10 million to $12 million on the campaign. It spent $15.8 million on advertising in the first nine months of 2012, more than the $14.9 million it spent in all of 2011, according to Kantar Media, a unit of WPP.

Rather than being just a narrative device in the spots, lunk alarms have actually been fixtures at Planet Fitness gyms. Members who exhibit lunk behavior, which the company defines on posters in its facilities as grunting, dropping weights loudly and being judgmental, are subject to a public shaming when a manager at the facility sounds the alarm.

In some cases, Planet Fitness even revokes memberships, as it did at a location in Wappingers Falls, N.Y., in 2006. Albert Argibay, a bodybuilder whose exertions were considered grunting by Planet Fitness, but which Mr. Argibay countered in news accounts as merely heavy breathing, kept lifting after he was told to leave, and was eventually escorted from the premises by police officers.

While the slogan “No Gymtimidation” is being introduced with the new campaign, the company has for years promised what it calls a “judgment-free zone.” That, in the words of the Planet Fitness Web site, “means members can relax, get in shape, and have fun without being subjected to the hard-core, look-at-me attitude that exists in too many gyms.”

Jamie Medeiros, director of marketing at Planet Fitness, said that only about 15 percent of Americans belonged to gyms, and that the company was focused not on trying to lure consumers from other facilities but on enticing those who had avoided gyms altogether.

“We go after the 85 percent who don’t belong to a gym now or who have never belonged to a gym,” Ms. Medeiros said.

While many chains sell protein powders and a wide range of supplements, Planet Fitness takes the counterintuitive approach of serving the type of food that dieters typically avoid.

Every month members are treated to pizza on the first Monday night and bagels on the second Tuesday morning, while Tootsie Rolls are handed out daily.

“The common person doesn’t have time to work out every day, and they may not aspire to the type of person who has six-pack abs and eats egg whites,” Ms. Medeiros said. “But we want to be the type of facility that people want to go to as opposed to, ‘Oh my god, I have to go to the gym today!’ ”

The company has thrived even during the economic downturn, growing to four million members today from about 3.2 million a year ago, according to Ms. Medeiros. About 60 percent of its members are women, much higher than what Ms. Medeiros said is the national average of 20 percent.

Health clubs, like cellphone carriers, tend to sell one- or two-year contracts, but Planet Fitness instead has a month-to-month plan, at $10 monthly, which the company believes knocks down a barrier to joining.

Among consumers who exercise, 71 percent agreed with the statement that fitness clubs were too expensive, according to a survey by Mintel, a market research firm. As for the atmosphere, only 27 percent said that they enjoyed the social aspects of gyms.

When brands hire celebrity endorsers and attractive models, marketers typically refer to the advertisements as aspirational, meaning that consumers do not see themselves reflected in the ad as much as an ideal to which they aspire. But Steve Red, the chief creative officer of Red Tettemer & Partners, said the aspirational approach can backfire when it comes to promoting health clubs.

“I’m never going to get to be that washboard-stomach, super-cut guy that I see in the Equinox ads,” said Mr. Red, referring to the chain of upscale gyms. “There are a ton of gym brands that are all about being cut and sinewy and having a six-pack, but I would argue that approach is not aspirational — it’s inaccessible.”

Read More..

World Briefing | Middle East: Comedian Accused of Insulting Egyptian President to Be Investigated

Prosecutors in Cairo opened a criminal investigation on Tuesday into allegations that a popular television comedian, Bassem Youssef, who has taken special aim at ultraconservative Islamists on his program, had insulted Egypt’s president, Mohamed Morsi, during his satirical monologues.  

The accusations against Mr. Youssef come amid growing fears among Egypt’s media professionals that the country’s newly ratified Constitution offers scant protections for freedom of expression.

Since Mr. Morsi was elected in June, the authorities have opened investigations into several media figures accused of insulting him or the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist group he once led.

An Islamist lawyer who filed the complaint against Mr. Youssef, Ramadan al-Aqsuri, said a skit in which the comedian printed a picture of Mr. Morsi’s face on a red pillow amounted to a “sharp attack on the person of the president.” Separately, a Muslim Brotherhood lawyer filed a lawsuit asking the state to pull Mr. Youssef’s show off the air and to close down the channel that carries it, citing “sarcasm against the president.”  

Read More..

Tech Giants, Learning the Ways of Washington, Brace for More Scrutiny

Mario Tama/Getty Images

Nadine Wolf demonstrated against online piracy legislation a year ago in New York. The measures were defeated.

SAN FRANCISCO — Silicon Valley lobbied hard in Washington in 2012, and despite some friction with regulators, fared fairly well. In 2013, though, government scrutiny is likely to grow. And with this scrutiny will come even greater efforts by the tech industry to press its case in the nation’s capital and overseas.

In 2012, among other victories, the industry staved off calls for federal consumer privacy legislation and successfully pushed for a revamp of an obscure law that had placed strict privacy protections on Americans’ video rental records. It also helped achieve a stalemate on a proposed global effort to let Web users limit behavioral tracking online, using Do Not Track browser settings.

But this year is likely to put that issue in the spotlight again, and bring intense negotiations between industry and consumer rights groups over whether and how to allow consumers to limit tracking.

Congress is likely to revisit online security legislation — meant to safeguard critical infrastructure from attack — that failed last year. And a looming question for Web giants will be who takes the reins of the Federal Trade Commission, the industry’s main regulator, this year. David C. Vladeck, the director of the commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, has resigned, and there have been suggestions that its chairman, Jon Leibowitz, would step down.

The agency is investigating Google over possible antitrust violations and will subject Facebook to audits of its privacy policy for the next 20 years. Its next steps could serve as a bellwether of how aggressively the commission will take on Web companies in the second Obama administration.

“Now that the election is over, Silicon Valley companies each are thinking through their strategy for the second Obama administration,” said Peter Swire, a law professor at Ohio State University and a former White House privacy official. “The F.T.C. will have a new Democratic chairman. A priority for tech companies will be to discern the new chair’s own priorities.”

In early 2012, an unusual burst of lobbying by tech companies helped defeat antipiracy bills, which had been backed by the entertainment industry. Silicon Valley giants like Facebook and Google feared that the bills would force them to police the Internet.

At the end of the year, Silicon Valley also got its way when the Obama administration stood up against a proposed global treaty that would have given government authorities greater control over the Web.

The key to the industry’s successes in 2012 was simple: it expanded its footprint in Washington just as Washington began to pay closer attention to how technology companies affect consumers. “Privacy and security became top-tier important policy issues in Washington in 2012,” said David A. Hoffman, director of security policy and global privacy officer at Intel.

“Industry has realized it is important to be engaged,” he continued, “to make sure government stakeholders are fully informed and educated about the role that new technology plays and to make sure any action taken doesn’t unnecessarily burden the innovation economy while still protecting individual trust in new technology.”

At the end of 2012, tech companies were on track to have spent record amounts on lobbying for the year. In the first three quarters, they spent close to $100 million, which meant that they were likely to surpass the $127 million they spent on lobbying in 2011, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based nonpartisan group that tracks corporate spending. Even the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz hired a lobbyist in Washington: Adrian Fenty, a former mayor of the city.

Technology executives and investors also made generous contributions in the 2012 presidential race, luring both President Obama and Mitt Romney to Northern California for fund-raisers and nudging them to speak out on issues like immigration overhaul and lower tax rates.

In a blog post in November, the center said Silicon Valley’s lobbying expenditures have ballooned in recent years, even as spending by other industries has fallen.

Facebook more than doubled its lobbying outlay in the year, reporting close to $2.6 million through the third quarter of 2012. Google spent more than any other company in the industry, doling out more than $13 million in the same period and more than double its nearest competitor, Microsoft, which spent just over $5.6 million in the same period.

Among Google’s advocates on Capitol Hill is a former Republican congresswoman, Susan Molinari, who heads Google’s office in Washington.

Google has particular reason to be engaged. It faces a wide-reaching antitrust investigation by the Federal Trade Commission, just as Microsoft did a decade ago. At issue is whether Google’s search engine results favor Google products over its rivals’.

Although the agency was ready to settle that case before the holidays, without harsh remedies, late last month it shelved the inquiry and put stronger penalties back in play. A resolution is expected in January.

Read More..

Scant Proof Is Found to Back Up Claims by Energy Drinks

Energy drinks are the fastest-growing part of the beverage industry, with sales in the United States reaching more than $10 billion in 2012 — more than Americans spent on iced tea or sports beverages like Gatorade.

Their rising popularity represents a generational shift in what people drink, and reflects a successful campaign to convince consumers, particularly teenagers, that the drinks provide a mental and physical edge.

The drinks are now under scrutiny by the Food and Drug Administration after reports of deaths and serious injuries that may be linked to their high caffeine levels. But however that review ends, one thing is clear, interviews with researchers and a review of scientific studies show: the energy drink industry is based on a brew of ingredients that, apart from caffeine, have little, if any benefit for consumers.

“If you had a cup of coffee you are going to affect metabolism in the same way,” said Dr. Robert W. Pettitt, an associate professor at Minnesota State University in Mankato, who has studied the drinks.

Energy drink companies have promoted their products not as caffeine-fueled concoctions but as specially engineered blends that provide something more. For example, producers claim that “Red Bull gives you wings,” that Rockstar Energy is “scientifically formulated” and Monster Energy is a “killer energy brew.” Representative Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, a Democrat, has asked the government to investigate the industry’s marketing claims.

Promoting a message beyond caffeine has enabled the beverage makers to charge premium prices. A 16-ounce energy drink that sells for $2.99 a can contains about the same amount of caffeine as a tablet of NoDoz that costs 30 cents. Even Starbucks coffee is cheap by comparison; a 12-ounce cup that costs $1.85 has even more caffeine.

As with earlier elixirs, a dearth of evidence underlies such claims. Only a few human studies of energy drinks or the ingredients in them have been performed and they point to a similar conclusion, researchers say — that the beverages are mainly about caffeine.

Caffeine is called the world’s most widely used drug. A stimulant, it increases alertness, awareness and, if taken at the right time, improves athletic performance, studies show. Energy drink users feel its kick faster because the beverages are typically swallowed quickly or are sold as concentrates.

“These are caffeine delivery systems,” said Dr. Roland Griffiths, a researcher at Johns Hopkins University who has studied energy drinks. “They don’t want to say this is equivalent to a NoDoz because that is not a very sexy sales message.”

A scientist at the University of Wisconsin became puzzled as he researched an ingredient used in energy drinks like Red Bull, 5-Hour Energy and Monster Energy. The researcher, Dr. Craig A. Goodman, could not find any trials in humans of the additive, a substance with the tongue-twisting name of glucuronolactone that is related to glucose, a sugar. But Dr. Goodman, who had studied other energy drink ingredients, eventually found two 40-year-old studies from Japan that had examined it.

In the experiments, scientists injected large doses of the substance into laboratory rats. Afterward, the rats swam better. “I have no idea what it does in energy drinks,” Dr. Goodman said.

Energy drink manufacturers say it is their proprietary formulas, rather than specific ingredients, that provide users with physical and mental benefits. But that has not prevented them from implying otherwise.

Consider the case of taurine, an additive used in most energy products.

On its Web site, the producer of Red Bull, for example, states that “more than 2,500 reports have been published about taurine and its physiological effects,” including acting as a “detoxifying agent.” In addition, that company, Red Bull of Austria, points to a 2009 safety study by a European regulatory group that gave it a clean bill of health.

But Red Bull’s Web site does not mention reports by that same group, the European Food Safety Authority, which concluded that claims about the benefits in energy drinks lacked scientific support. Based on those findings, the European Commission has refused to approve claims that taurine helps maintain mental function and heart health and reduces muscle fatigue.

Taurine, an amino acidlike substance that got its name because it was first found in the bile of bulls, does play a role in bodily functions, and recent research suggests it might help prevent heart attacks in women with high cholesterol. However, most people get more than adequate amounts from foods like meat, experts said. And researchers added that those with heart problems who may need supplements would find far better sources than energy drinks.

Hiroko Tabuchi contributed reporting from Tokyo and Poypiti Amatatham from Bangkok.

Read More..

Scant Proof Is Found to Back Up Claims by Energy Drinks

Energy drinks are the fastest-growing part of the beverage industry, with sales in the United States reaching more than $10 billion in 2012 — more than Americans spent on iced tea or sports beverages like Gatorade.

Their rising popularity represents a generational shift in what people drink, and reflects a successful campaign to convince consumers, particularly teenagers, that the drinks provide a mental and physical edge.

The drinks are now under scrutiny by the Food and Drug Administration after reports of deaths and serious injuries that may be linked to their high caffeine levels. But however that review ends, one thing is clear, interviews with researchers and a review of scientific studies show: the energy drink industry is based on a brew of ingredients that, apart from caffeine, have little, if any benefit for consumers.

“If you had a cup of coffee you are going to affect metabolism in the same way,” said Dr. Robert W. Pettitt, an associate professor at Minnesota State University in Mankato, who has studied the drinks.

Energy drink companies have promoted their products not as caffeine-fueled concoctions but as specially engineered blends that provide something more. For example, producers claim that “Red Bull gives you wings,” that Rockstar Energy is “scientifically formulated” and Monster Energy is a “killer energy brew.” Representative Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, a Democrat, has asked the government to investigate the industry’s marketing claims.

Promoting a message beyond caffeine has enabled the beverage makers to charge premium prices. A 16-ounce energy drink that sells for $2.99 a can contains about the same amount of caffeine as a tablet of NoDoz that costs 30 cents. Even Starbucks coffee is cheap by comparison; a 12-ounce cup that costs $1.85 has even more caffeine.

As with earlier elixirs, a dearth of evidence underlies such claims. Only a few human studies of energy drinks or the ingredients in them have been performed and they point to a similar conclusion, researchers say — that the beverages are mainly about caffeine.

Caffeine is called the world’s most widely used drug. A stimulant, it increases alertness, awareness and, if taken at the right time, improves athletic performance, studies show. Energy drink users feel its kick faster because the beverages are typically swallowed quickly or are sold as concentrates.

“These are caffeine delivery systems,” said Dr. Roland Griffiths, a researcher at Johns Hopkins University who has studied energy drinks. “They don’t want to say this is equivalent to a NoDoz because that is not a very sexy sales message.”

A scientist at the University of Wisconsin became puzzled as he researched an ingredient used in energy drinks like Red Bull, 5-Hour Energy and Monster Energy. The researcher, Dr. Craig A. Goodman, could not find any trials in humans of the additive, a substance with the tongue-twisting name of glucuronolactone that is related to glucose, a sugar. But Dr. Goodman, who had studied other energy drink ingredients, eventually found two 40-year-old studies from Japan that had examined it.

In the experiments, scientists injected large doses of the substance into laboratory rats. Afterward, the rats swam better. “I have no idea what it does in energy drinks,” Dr. Goodman said.

Energy drink manufacturers say it is their proprietary formulas, rather than specific ingredients, that provide users with physical and mental benefits. But that has not prevented them from implying otherwise.

Consider the case of taurine, an additive used in most energy products.

On its Web site, the producer of Red Bull, for example, states that “more than 2,500 reports have been published about taurine and its physiological effects,” including acting as a “detoxifying agent.” In addition, that company, Red Bull of Austria, points to a 2009 safety study by a European regulatory group that gave it a clean bill of health.

But Red Bull’s Web site does not mention reports by that same group, the European Food Safety Authority, which concluded that claims about the benefits in energy drinks lacked scientific support. Based on those findings, the European Commission has refused to approve claims that taurine helps maintain mental function and heart health and reduces muscle fatigue.

Taurine, an amino acidlike substance that got its name because it was first found in the bile of bulls, does play a role in bodily functions, and recent research suggests it might help prevent heart attacks in women with high cholesterol. However, most people get more than adequate amounts from foods like meat, experts said. And researchers added that those with heart problems who may need supplements would find far better sources than energy drinks.

Hiroko Tabuchi contributed reporting from Tokyo and Poypiti Amatatham from Bangkok.

Read More..

Scant Proof Is Found to Back Up Claims by Energy Drinks

Energy drinks are the fastest-growing part of the beverage industry, with sales in the United States reaching more than $10 billion in 2012 — more than Americans spent on iced tea or sports beverages like Gatorade.

Their rising popularity represents a generational shift in what people drink, and reflects a successful campaign to convince consumers, particularly teenagers, that the drinks provide a mental and physical edge.

The drinks are now under scrutiny by the Food and Drug Administration after reports of deaths and serious injuries that may be linked to their high caffeine levels. But however that review ends, one thing is clear, interviews with researchers and a review of scientific studies show: the energy drink industry is based on a brew of ingredients that, apart from caffeine, have little, if any benefit for consumers.

“If you had a cup of coffee you are going to affect metabolism in the same way,” said Dr. Robert W. Pettitt, an associate professor at Minnesota State University in Mankato, who has studied the drinks.

Energy drink companies have promoted their products not as caffeine-fueled concoctions but as specially engineered blends that provide something more. For example, producers claim that “Red Bull gives you wings,” that Rockstar Energy is “scientifically formulated” and Monster Energy is a “killer energy brew.” Representative Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, a Democrat, has asked the government to investigate the industry’s marketing claims.

Promoting a message beyond caffeine has enabled the beverage makers to charge premium prices. A 16-ounce energy drink that sells for $2.99 a can contains about the same amount of caffeine as a tablet of NoDoz that costs 30 cents. Even Starbucks coffee is cheap by comparison; a 12-ounce cup that costs $1.85 has even more caffeine.

As with earlier elixirs, a dearth of evidence underlies such claims. Only a few human studies of energy drinks or the ingredients in them have been performed and they point to a similar conclusion, researchers say — that the beverages are mainly about caffeine.

Caffeine is called the world’s most widely used drug. A stimulant, it increases alertness, awareness and, if taken at the right time, improves athletic performance, studies show. Energy drink users feel its kick faster because the beverages are typically swallowed quickly or are sold as concentrates.

“These are caffeine delivery systems,” said Dr. Roland Griffiths, a researcher at Johns Hopkins University who has studied energy drinks. “They don’t want to say this is equivalent to a NoDoz because that is not a very sexy sales message.”

A scientist at the University of Wisconsin became puzzled as he researched an ingredient used in energy drinks like Red Bull, 5-Hour Energy and Monster Energy. The researcher, Dr. Craig A. Goodman, could not find any trials in humans of the additive, a substance with the tongue-twisting name of glucuronolactone that is related to glucose, a sugar. But Dr. Goodman, who had studied other energy drink ingredients, eventually found two 40-year-old studies from Japan that had examined it.

In the experiments, scientists injected large doses of the substance into laboratory rats. Afterward, the rats swam better. “I have no idea what it does in energy drinks,” Dr. Goodman said.

Energy drink manufacturers say it is their proprietary formulas, rather than specific ingredients, that provide users with physical and mental benefits. But that has not prevented them from implying otherwise.

Consider the case of taurine, an additive used in most energy products.

On its Web site, the producer of Red Bull, for example, states that “more than 2,500 reports have been published about taurine and its physiological effects,” including acting as a “detoxifying agent.” In addition, that company, Red Bull of Austria, points to a 2009 safety study by a European regulatory group that gave it a clean bill of health.

But Red Bull’s Web site does not mention reports by that same group, the European Food Safety Authority, which concluded that claims about the benefits in energy drinks lacked scientific support. Based on those findings, the European Commission has refused to approve claims that taurine helps maintain mental function and heart health and reduces muscle fatigue.

Taurine, an amino acidlike substance that got its name because it was first found in the bile of bulls, does play a role in bodily functions, and recent research suggests it might help prevent heart attacks in women with high cholesterol. However, most people get more than adequate amounts from foods like meat, experts said. And researchers added that those with heart problems who may need supplements would find far better sources than energy drinks.

Hiroko Tabuchi contributed reporting from Tokyo and Poypiti Amatatham from Bangkok.

Read More..

Central Africa’s Wildlife Rangers Face Deadly Risks

ZAKOUMA NATIONAL PARK, Chad — Just before dawn, the rangers were hunched over in prayer, facing east. They pressed their foreheads into the dry earth and softly whispered Koranic verses, their lips barely moving. A cool wind bit at their faces.

All of a sudden, Djimet Seid, the cook, said he heard “one war whoop — or maybe it was a scream.”

And then: “K-k-k-k-k-k-k,” the angry bark of a Kalashnikov assault rifle, opening up on fully automatic.

In an instant, an entire Chadian squad of rangers was cut down with alarming precision by elephant poachers who were skilled at killing more than just animals. Crouching in the bush, the poachers fired from a triangle of different spots, concealed and deadly accurate.

“If you go look at the infantry books, it’s exactly how you do a first light attack, exactly,” said Rian Labuschagne, a former paratrooper and now the manager of Zakouma National Park in southern Chad. “Our guys didn’t have a chance.”

Out here, among the spent bullet shells and the freshly dug graves, the cost of protecting wildlife is painfully clear. As ivory poaching becomes more militarized, with rebel groups and even government armies slaughtering thousands of elephants across Africa to cash in on record-high ivory prices, a horrible mismatch is shaping up. Wildlife rangers — who tend to be older, maybe a bit slower and incredibly knowledgeable about their environment and the ways of animals, but less so about infantry tactics — are wading into the bush to confront hardened soldiers.

The outcome, too often, is not only firefights and battles, but also coldblooded murder, with dozens of African wildlife rangers killed in recent years, many in revenge-driven ambushes. Ivory poachers, it seems, are becoming increasingly wily and ruthless.

This summer, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a militia of infamous elephant poachers, sneaked up to the headquarters of a wildlife reserve and killed 5 people and 14 okapi, a rare animal with a giraffelike neck and zebralike legs. One guard who narrowly escaped said the attackers sliced open the chest of a downed colleague and ate his heart. In Zimbabwe, poachers are spreading deadly poisons on elephant carcasses to kill vultures. By taking out the birds that serve as a natural early warning system that a kill has been made, the poachers make it even more dangerous for rangers because they have no idea when the poachers are around. In Mozambique, the authorities said that poachers have recently begun using land mines.

Kenya, which is considered tame compared with some of these other places, has lost six rangers this year, more than in recent memory. One of them was Florence Hadia Abae, pregnant and the mother of a small boy. In March, she was following the footprints of suspected poachers near Tsavo National Park, a fabled tourist destination, when a poacher popped out of the bush and shot her in the face.

One of her colleagues was killed in the same ambush, shot in the leg, then finished off with a short, brutish stroke of an ax.

“They had no idea what they were walking into,” said Rob Dodson, a British conservationist working near Tsavo.

In the Zakouma attack, which happened about 50 miles outside the park boundaries in September, five rangers were killed on the spot; one remains missing and is presumed dead. Mr. Seid, the cook, was seriously wounded. The attack appeared to be revenge for a raid on a poachers’ camp, and much of the evidence points to the Sudanese military. For years, wildlife groups have blamed the janjaweed — Sudanese horseback raiders who traditionally work in tandem with the government military — for wiping out many of Central Africa’s elephant herds.

But specific evidence recovered from the poachers suspected of killing Zakouma’s rangers strengthens the Sudanese government link, the Chadian authorities and human rights groups say. A few weeks before the attack, Zakouma rangers raided a poachers’ camp nearby and discovered one uniform for Abu Tira, Sudan’s notorious paramilitary service, which has been blamed for burning down villages and committing other atrocities. The rangers also found several elephant tusks and a stamped leave slip from the Sudanese Army granting four soldiers permission to go to the Chadian border.

Most incriminating, though, were the digital photos recovered from a phone showing stacks of elephant carcasses that looked similar to photos from a horrific massacre of hundreds of elephants in Cameroon this year, suggesting that the Sudanese poachers who killed the Zakouma rangers may have been involved in one of the biggest single elephant slaughters in decades.

“This is not some random group of thugs,” said Jonathan Hutson, a spokesman for the Satellite Sentinel Project, a nonprofit group that helped analyze some of the evidence. “They’re poaching for profit to fund mass atrocities in Sudan.”

Officials at the United States Africa Command, based in Stuttgart, Germany, have also been helping analyze some of the forensics.

At first, Rabie A. Atti, a Sudanese government spokesman, reflexively dismissed the evidence.

“Pictures can be fabricated,” he said.

But then he added, “If there is concrete evidence, and someone is proven to be corrupt, he can be taken to court.”

Isma’il Kushkush contributed reporting from Khartoum, Sudan.

Read More..

Some Companies Seek to Wean Employees From Their Smartphones

Resolutions to change behavior are common at this time of year, but they usually involve exercising more or smoking less. Now, some companies are adopting policies aimed at weaning employees from their electronic devices.

Matthew Ryan Williams for The New York Times

Michelle Barry and Mark Jacobsen of Centric Brand Anthropology strive for the elusive work-life balance.

Atos, an international information technology company, plans to phase out all e-mails among employees by the end of 2013 and rely instead on other forms of communication. And starting in the new year, employees at Daimler, the German automaker, can have incoming e-mail automatically deleted during vacations so they do not return to a flooded in-box. An automatic message tells the sender which person is temporarily dealing with the employee’s e-mail.

No one is expected to be on call at all hours of the day and night, and “switching off” after work is important, “even if you are on a business trip,” said Sabrina Schrimpf, a Daimler spokeswoman, referring to the company’s recently released report, “Balanced! — Reconciling Employees’ Work and Private Lives.”

Disconnecting can be more challenging for business travelers who frequently work across time zones.

And there is a ripple effect, said Leslie A. Perlow, a professor of leadership at Harvard Business School and the author of “Sleeping With Your Smartphone.” “These guys fly in the middle of the night and send e-mails back to colleagues” who wait up, ready to respond.

A study conducted last spring by the Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project found that while mobile phones were valued as a way to stay productive, there were downsides to being available at all times. The nationwide survey of 2,254 adults found that 44 percent of cellphone owners had slept with their phone next to their bed and that 67 percent had experienced “phantom rings,” checking their phone even when it was not ringing or vibrating. Still, the proportion of cellphone owners who said they “could live without it” has gone up, to 37 percent from 29 percent in 2006.

Sam Chapman, chief executive of Empower Public Relations in Chicago, said he used to feel phantom vibrations and frequently read and sent e-mail on his BlackBerry in the middle of the night. He slept poorly, did not feel refreshed in the morning and considered himself addicted. “I wanted to make sure that what happened to me didn’t happen to my employees,” he said.

So Mr. Chapman adopted what he called a BlackBerry blackout policy. He and his staff of about 20 turn off their BlackBerrys from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. on weekdays and completely on weekends for all work-related use, with rare exceptions. “When I’m well rested, I show up to work ready to go,” he said.

He maintains that regimen while traveling, and said the policy had increased company productivity.

Professor Perlow agreed that companies could improve their bottom line by encouraging employees to disconnect at times. “Being constantly on actually undermines productivity,” she said.

But it is not always easy. In early 2012, when Michelle Barry, Mark Jacobsen and a third partner created Centric Brand Anthropology, a Seattle-based company that advises clients on brand strategy, design and culture management, they gave serious thought to the issue.

“A huge priority for us was to have a good balance between work-life,” said Mr. Jacobsen, Centric’s vice president and creative director. “Yet we have found that very difficult to do while working with large multinational clients,” which often require international travel and constant availability.

Being a start-up compounded those challenges. “Just because you can e-mail at 2 a.m., doesn’t mean it’s a good thing,” he said.

Centric encourages employees to prepare a week before a trip, designating a colleague as backup, informing clients about their travel plans, and trying to avoid deadlines immediately after they return. Employees are also encouraged to take spouses or partners on longer assignments and to build in downtime, said Ms. Barry, the company’s president and chief executive. When traveling, she said, “I make a commitment to myself not to stay up all night answering e-mails.”

Experts say there is no firm data for how many companies have policies restricting the use of electronic devices outside the office. “The companies I know actively encourage workers to stay connected after hours and on weekends,” said Dennis J. Garritan, a managing partner of the private equity firm Palmer Hill Capital and an adjunct professor at Harvard Business School.

Read More..