Trans and Saturated Fats: Which is the Lesser of Two Evils?
Belief that Chemistry is the Key
According to heartfoundation.org, margarine always has been and always will be the superior choice to butter. Their argument hinges on the growing science of how they are diminishing the amount and impact of trans fat which is worse for your cholesterol than saturated fat. According to a study cited throughout the article, The Tick program taking place in Australia is actively striving to fix the perceived shortcomings of margarine. This program has apparently found a way to eliminate almost all the harmful trans fat along with retaining the diminished amount of saturated fat. All with the same great taste!!! Anyways, the source does a good job of showing the future of the industry as a whole. It's hard to deny the science and how its advancement will end up making enhanced margarine the better alternative some day.
Belief that Butter is Better
On the other hand, a lesser known website authoritynutrition.com believes that butter is actually the more healthy option compared to the chemically altered margarine. They belong to the school of thought that the chemicals involved in reducing other fats actually are more harmful than the original. They support this argument with the proven research that trans fat is the worst for your cholesterol which in turn drastically increases your risk for a heart attack or stroke. People have been using butter for hundreds of years with little overall impact in health thanks to using it in moderation.Therefore, if there was something so wrong with butter in the first place, there would have been evident issues somewhere along the way according to the article. At the end of the day, this point of view is closely associated with the notion that the more you tinker with a product and alter it chemically the worse it probably is for you. As the article states in conclusion, it's hard to trust a scientist as opposed to a cow in this particular case.
Generational Perspective on Health Risks
Lastly, an article from the most popular news source The Washington Post, was the least helpful article out of all the ones I used. This is interesting considering the prestige and respect associated with the Washington Post over the years. Instead of taking a more medical or scientific approach towards the issue at hand, the article turns it into a story pitting generations against each other. The shock factor and attention attained by making the issue an argument between age demographics as opposed to the importance of the health aspect diminishes the quality of the content in favor of popularity. I personally find this disappointing coming from a news source that many widely consider to be one of the best in the nation. For a news source so powerful and influential, it is their responsibility to present the news in the most balanced and fair way possible. Therefore, the manipulation and disregard for the real issue is why this article is in fact the worst out of all the ones I researched.
Instead, this article should have:
- looked at both sides of the argument and presented them in a balanced and fair manner
- presented more concrete research with regards to trans and saturated fat
- not included any aspect of age or competition between generations
- let the reader decide which side of the argument they decided to agree with after being presented all the information for the issue
In conclusion, I do not think we can totally know for sure which product is more healthy than the other at this time. Whether or not science will ultimately be able to concoct a healthier and equally tasty alternative to butter remains to be seen. The argument and issue is still young with a lot more research to be done in the future. However, it does not change the fact that the article from The Washington Post is still the worst out of the three I chose to analyze.
Bradley chose three articles from three different sources and analyzed what each article said about the butter vs. margarine debate. Each article differed on the information it presented and the way in which it presented its viewpoint on the subject. I feel that his title is pretty explanatory, I knew exactly what I was going to be reading about. It could be slightly more explanatory by adding in something about how the difference between the articles shows that the debate is still going on, but overall it told me what I needed to know before reading and it did so without giving me way more information than I needed. Bradley did a really great job of organizing the blog in an orderly fashion so that it was easy to follow and understand. At no point was I confused as to what I would be reading about. The subheads could have been slightly more explanatory, but again it was pretty clear as to what each paragraph would be about. The pictures are placed well, but I feel as though only the first, and maybe the third, pictures are explanatory. I can clearly tell that the first picture is trying to explain the debate between butter and margarine, but the other pictures are just of butter and margarine, nicely placed, but not providing any real additional information or support to the post. I'm sure for this article it is difficult to find explanatory photos, but I think better pictures could be found (although I did enjoy the color the pictures added to the page and the number of pictures used). Overall I think the layout and strategies used to engage both skimmers and engaged readers works very well.
ReplyDeleteBradley began talking about an article that stated Margarine was better than butter and explained why scientifically. The link to the article was provided in the first sentence of the paragraph, and reasons were given to summarize why this article believes this. The second article that he posted stated that Butter was better than margarine. Again, he linked the article and stated reasons as to why this is believed to be true. I think the articles definitely from good sources, but would make it even stronger is an academic or scholarly study about butter vs. margarine. I was waiting for the third article to be kind of a "tie-breaker", but I didn't feel that the last article really provided any additional information to the blog post other than to say that it was a bad article that didn't provide good information. A possible way to have made it more effective could have been to choose another article that chose a side of the debate, and then crush its credibility with a more academic article that proves it to be wrong. Just an idea!
I think that the bulleted list was done very well to explain what could be changed about the last article to make it a more effective and useful article in terms of this blog post. The only other point of construction criticism I would give is that the conclusion be strengthened a little. I don't think ending with a sentence about how the last article is the worst is effective because the conclusion should sum up findings of research (which it did), and end concluding those findings.
Overall I think he did a great job formatting, researching, and interpreting results. I love how the page is laid out, it makes it an easy read and easily understood, which is awesome! As a whole, I feel that it was very well done and an interesting post.
Great work!