Choose a nutrition-related article or claim to critique. The article or claim can come from a popular magazine, newspaper, book, web site, social media page,
documentary, or product brochure/label. The claim can be related to any popular diet, supplement, food, ingredient, or eating strategy as it relates to any
aspect of health, fitness, wellness, or performance. To receive full credit, please choose an article or claim that cites some supporting âresearchâ and
contains enough information to do a thoughtful critique (5 pts.).
Write a 2-page, typed, double-spaced paper (12 pt. font with 1â margins) in which you thoroughly answer the 3 questions below and include your references (in
either MLA or APA citation format) at the end. NOTE: Your citations should include your nutrition article or claim, as well as 2 additional scientific
research references (from peer-reviewed journals or credible government/professional organizations, ex Google Scholars)) that either support or refute the
claim (5 pts.).
Please proof-read your paper for correct grammar/spelling (5 pts.).
1. What is the nutrition claim being made and how trustworthy is the source? 10 pts.
Who is the author/source making the claim and/or conducting the research? Does this personâs credentials, work affiliations, education, and experience
provide you with confidence that they are a credible and unbiased source of nutrition information?
Where is the research/claim published? Is this a reliable source of nutrition information? Who paid for the research/article? Is there any conflict of
interest or potential sources of bias?
2. How good is the research supporting the claim? 10 pts.
Is it testimonials/anecdotal evidence or actual research?
How strong is the study design (epidemiological vs. intervention; randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled)?
Who were the subjects and how many subjects were used?
What was the length of the study?
Was the study published in a peer-reviewed journal?
3. What is your overall evaluation of the nutrition claim? Is the claim put in proper perspective and presented in a responsible manner? 15 pts.
Sample Solution
The picture is contained inside the stillness and quietness of the edge, as contextualized in Sally Mann’s work Immediate Family. This article will investigate through basic examination: the photos, pundits reaction and the equals each make to Roland Barthes hypothesis of level demise nitty gritty in Camera Lucida, with further examination into Susan Sontag’s On Photography and Ariella Azoulay’s Photography: The Ontological Question. Barthes conjectures that a detachment is made when the body is set before the focal point through an intrusive force dynamic in which figures an alteration to the current body. He states, “I loan myself to the social game, I present, I realize I am presenting, I need you to realize that I am presenting” (Barthes 11) as a change of the subject into an article. Barthes further clarifies that he is “neither subject nor object however a subject who feels he is turning into an article.” (Barthes 14) Through the way toward being shot as a “miniaturized scale form of death,” the focal point goes about as an arrangement in a record. (Barthes 14) The picture turns into the demise of the subject before the focal point, as they are since modified by the introduction being delivered. The individual who once stayed before the focal point is not, at this point a similar individual after the picture is taken. As a characteristic observer of what has been, the picture starts to go about as a landmark, containing a destruction of time: a record of what is dead and what is going to bite the dust. (Barthes 96) Shot on a 8″ x 10″ see camera at their homestead in Virginia, Mann’s photos are suggestive of the relationship worked among mother and kid. Mann writes in the foreword to her distribution of Immediate Family: “We are turning an account of what it is to grow up. It is a convoluted story. [⦠] But we tell it without dread and without disgrace.” (Mann 7) Through her work, Mann talks about the objectivity made through the viewpoint â an idea suggestive of Roland Barthes “level passing”. While making an obstruction of trust, Mann kept up the pride of those she photos, protecting an open exchange and shared collaboration with the pictures, one that gets conspicuous through the sheer closeness, affectability, and insightfulness of her pictures. A Wall Street Journal article distributed in 1991 entitled “Editing Virginia”, was composed by Raymond Sokolov in focal point of Mann’s work and the administration financing for workmanship. (Mann 145) Sokolov contended that Mann disregarded the obligation of guardians: to ensure, safe house, and support their youngsters. Because of the force dynamic shaped among grown-ups and kids, Sokolov guaranteed that the work is an intrusive demonstration into their adolescence. As deciphered for its indexicality, Sokolov composes of the pictures through the eyes of people in general inside its across the board course. This distortion became decontextualized to be seen as proof and glorification of youngster misuse, inbreeding, and kid sexuality. Related to the Wall Street Journal article, Sokolov incorporates an edited picture of Sally Mann’s photo Virginia at 4, covering Virginia’s eyes, chest, and genitalia with dark bars. While the picture introduced by Mann shows Virginia in her honest, Sokolov’s utilization of control through redaction goes about as a methods for mutilation. In Mann’s picture, Virginia is demonstrated to be standing marginally right of the middle edge with her hands on her ribs, peering legitimately into the focal point at eye level. She is indicated bare, with her outward appearance unbiased, as she models for the camera, mindful that the picture is being taken. The foundation is encased in the shadows, giving minimal logical data with respect to another young lady remaining behind Virginia to one side. While the other young lady stays out of center and wearing a white dress, the lighting upon the two young ladies is calculated down towards them, featuring the state of Virginia’s body. Sokolov’s introduction of Virginia through methods of oversight becomes dehumanizing by redacting her eyes. The proliferation seems like the picture is disgraceful, leaving a more obscene implication than the first Mann created. Susan Sontag writes in her article, On Photography (1977) in which goes before Barthes’ Camera Lucida, of the manner by which the focal point goes about as a type of observation making an ancient rarity of the real world. Sontag guesses that the photo is an allotment of the article before the focal point.>
The picture is contained inside the stillness and quietness of the edge, as contextualized in Sally Mann’s work Immediate Family. This article will investigate through basic examination: the photos, pundits reaction and the equals each make to Roland Barthes hypothesis of level demise nitty gritty in Camera Lucida, with further examination into Susan Sontag’s On Photography and Ariella Azoulay’s Photography: The Ontological Question. Barthes conjectures that a detachment is made when the body is set before the focal point through an intrusive force dynamic in which figures an alteration to the current body. He states, “I loan myself to the social game, I present, I realize I am presenting, I need you to realize that I am presenting” (Barthes 11) as a change of the subject into an article. Barthes further clarifies that he is “neither subject nor object however a subject who feels he is turning into an article.” (Barthes 14) Through the way toward being shot as a “miniaturized scale form of death,” the focal point goes about as an arrangement in a record. (Barthes 14) The picture turns into the demise of the subject before the focal point, as they are since modified by the introduction being delivered. The individual who once stayed before the focal point is not, at this point a similar individual after the picture is taken. As a characteristic observer of what has been, the picture starts to go about as a landmark, containing a destruction of time: a record of what is dead and what is going to bite the dust. (Barthes 96) Shot on a 8″ x 10″ see camera at their homestead in Virginia, Mann’s photos are suggestive of the relationship worked among mother and kid. Mann writes in the foreword to her distribution of Immediate Family: “We are turning an account of what it is to grow up. It is a convoluted story. [⦠] But we tell it without dread and without disgrace.” (Mann 7) Through her work, Mann talks about the objectivity made through the viewpoint â an idea suggestive of Roland Barthes “level passing”. While making an obstruction of trust, Mann kept up the pride of those she photos, protecting an open exchange and shared collaboration with the pictures, one that gets conspicuous through the sheer closeness, affectability, and insightfulness of her pictures. A Wall Street Journal article distributed in 1991 entitled “Editing Virginia”, was composed by Raymond Sokolov in focal point of Mann’s work and the administration financing for workmanship. (Mann 145) Sokolov contended that Mann disregarded the obligation of guardians: to ensure, safe house, and support their youngsters. Because of the force dynamic shaped among grown-ups and kids, Sokolov guaranteed that the work is an intrusive demonstration into their adolescence. As deciphered for its indexicality, Sokolov composes of the pictures through the eyes of people in general inside its across the board course. This distortion became decontextualized to be seen as proof and glorification of youngster misuse, inbreeding, and kid sexuality. Related to the Wall Street Journal article, Sokolov incorporates an edited picture of Sally Mann’s photo Virginia at 4, covering Virginia’s eyes, chest, and genitalia with dark bars. While the picture introduced by Mann shows Virginia in her honest, Sokolov’s utilization of control through redaction goes about as a methods for mutilation. In Mann’s picture, Virginia is demonstrated to be standing marginally right of the middle edge with her hands on her ribs, peering legitimately into the focal point at eye level. She is indicated bare, with her outward appearance unbiased, as she models for the camera, mindful that the picture is being taken. The foundation is encased in the shadows, giving minimal logical data with respect to another young lady remaining behind Virginia to one side. While the other young lady stays out of center and wearing a white dress, the lighting upon the two young ladies is calculated down towards them, featuring the state of Virginia’s body. Sokolov’s introduction of Virginia through methods of oversight becomes dehumanizing by redacting her eyes. The proliferation seems like the picture is disgraceful, leaving a more obscene implication than the first Mann created. Susan Sontag writes in her article, On Photography (1977) in which goes before Barthes’ Camera Lucida, of the manner by which the focal point goes about as a type of observation making an ancient rarity of the real world. Sontag guesses that the photo is an allotment of the article before the focal point.>
