10 22 18 Food Facts Analysis PDF

Preview

Summary

Download 10 22 18 Food Facts Analysis PDF

Description

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/02/well/coffee-drinkers-may-live-longer.html?rref=collection %2Fsectioncollection%2Fwell-eat According to a recent The New York Times article by Nicholas Bakalar, it is claimed that studies show “drinking coffee is associated with lower mortality rates.” The design of the investigation was based off data of about half a million British people with a 10 year follow up. The main objective was to validate the inverse relationship between coffee and mortality that included “ those drinking 8 or more cups per day and those with genetic polymorphisms indicating slower or faster caffeine metabolism.” Its design incorporated factors such as demographics, types of coffee, lifestyle behaviors, and daily consumption. To solidify the results, all the findings were based off questionnaires, samples, and examinations of participants. This research study used the UK Biobank and National Institute of Health as resources, and received funding from the Diabetes United Kingdom, British Heart Foundation, and more. Although the findings were based off reliable support and contributions, correlation does not imply causation. In the beginning of the report, the key points that were provided did not mention general background on the benefits of coffee once. It consistently brought up how the consumption has been known to be “healthy”, yet no proof was presented. With such a strong claim to begin with, readers should find it hard to be convinced without any layout of the main idea that is being studied. In addition, the average participant age was 57 years old with an age range between 38 and 73 years old. Which leads to complete neglect by researchers of a younger consuming population that could have affected statistics. In addition, answer responses such as “‘less than 1,” “do not know,” or “prefer not to answer””, was considered acceptable feedback. That is a major flaw in the study because they not all were definite valid answers and there is no way to

measure that as data. If a significant number of participants chose to not answer some questions such as “how many cups of coffee do you drink daily?”, the inverse relationship would not be as credible and the study would be going based off systematic errors. Apart from the research itself, Bakalar provided a simplified synopsis of the information for his targeted audience. He included examples of the coffee study, and a neutral standpoint on the topic as a whole. Not only did he write about the proven “health effects”, but he added perspectives of viable people. For instance, he incorporated a statement on how “the study provides reassurance to coffee drinkers… the results don’t indicate that people should begin drinking coffee for its health benefits.” Therefore, the purpose of his writing was to allow readers to make their own judgement. In addition, he also gave a general understanding for readers instead of having them analyze the legitimate study. In conclusion, The New York Times article was straightforward and informative without a bias. The title seems to be an appeal tactic to draw attention to viewers which makes the article misleading. The audience most likely expects a persuading piece of writing, but it was surprisingly broad. Besides the article, the actual claims of the study seem too good to be true with disregards to major influencing factors. With careful evaluation, the limitations seem to outweigh its strengths. Realistically, many other circumstances can lead to lower mortality. Therefore, until participation rates are greater than 5.5%, and associations on genetic polymorphisms and coffee-mortality is proven, then this study remains uncredible and invalid....