Peer Response to Jessica's Blog

For this weeks peer response I read Jessica’s blog in which she spoke about preparing a meal and responded to Michael Polan’s “In Defense of Food”. She did a good job not only explaining what she made and how she made it, but why she made it and the nutritional benefits. Jessica made a casserole and described how she mixed together the vegetables with the eggs and the meat. A great point that she added is how the process started in her head as she had to decide what to eat before she could put any sort of plan into action. She expanded as to say the cooking gave her free time to indulge in other activities such as writing her blog. Jessica made many good points about eating as she quoted Polan and denied her animalistic tendencies when it comes to eating food. Furthermore, she does an excellent job deciphering Polan’s passage and making logical sense of his points and ideas.

What Jessica does best is after analyzing Polan’s arguments she refutes some of his points and applies an article she read to support her point. She compares the human relationship with food to the human relationship with life itself. All in all, she brings this all together in explaining how her meal will be both tasteful and healthy. I feel as if Jessica did a great job in relating her meal to Polan’s chapter and an even better job incorporating her article to support her details. Additionally, I enjoy the poll on the bottom of her blog!

Self Evaluation Speech

After preparing and delivering my speech, I feel as if the relevance of my topic was one of my strong suits. I believe that all students could have learned from my all nighter tricks, as it is not uncommon for students to have piled up work in college, especially for freshman who are still adjusting to the college lifestyle. After watching the video I think that I did a suitable job explaining and clarifying each step of my process along with creating certain mnemonics.

While watching the video, I think I presented some sort of energy and my volume hopefully reached the entire audience. I am somewhat inexperienced when it comes to giving speeches and I believe that I could have used more eye contact and stayed more in place. Physically, there was not much to demonstrate because of my topic choice.

I believe that my visual aids were effective because although I was not showing how to use the visual aid they served as a good supplement to the information that I was providing.

If I could do this again I may not have used the same topic. Instead, I would have chosen something where I was doing more of an action such as showing how to tie a tie. Considering my choice, I would not have any significant changes. A power point may have helped, but I believe I was fine without it.

In general, I was satisfied with my performance, but given a second chance I would have done more to make it more fun, appealing, and would have chosen a topic that the class could have interacted with.

Here is the link to my video

Analysis of a Celebrity Endorsement

For this weeks blog I will be reviewing a celebrity endorsement of my least favorite NFL player, Tom Brady. He had just shot a commercial for Earth Hour, as he asks people to turn their lights for 1 hour on March 27^th at 8:30 pm. I do not feel as if Tom Brady is an effective choice or an appropriate endorser for this type of advertisement.

First of all, he is a football player and unless he does other efforts for global warming that I don’t know about it seems odd that he has taken this stance. In my honest opinion, I don’t believe he truly cares about this subject, but I am sure he is making lots of money from somebody. Also, there is no visual aid in this commercial, just Tom Brady in his kitchen, an idea that is very plain, dull, and ineffective. Since March 27^th is only two days away it will be not be long until we find out if this campaign will be successful. For me at least, this simple plea did not spark enough interest for me to turn my lights off on this coming Saturday night.

This article defends my opinion as it pokes fun at Brady and is feeble attempt at endorsing this product. It also takes a hit to Brady’s mediocre play over the past two seasons and states how its almost funny that a topic so unrelated to the “manly” sport of football can be endorsed by no one other than a football player. For me personally, an advertisement is most efficient when I can actually relate to it or if I believe that the endorser actually uses the product and it is not just some front or money making operation.

Peer Response: Pat Brady

For this weeks peer response, I read Pat’s blog about In Defense of Food and believe he did a really good job. Pat understood the points that Polan was trying to make, but he also stated how its not realistic for everybody, and that its also a little bit absurd to completely disregard the advice from a nutritionist. Pat clearly states the points that he agrees with and those that he doesn’t. Although not avid of Polan’s work, he shows that Polan made a good point in that eating an orange would be more beneficial than merely taking a pill for vitamin C.

We are both in the same boat in that when one is looking for “a tasty treat”, they cannot simply follow Polan’s guidelines. I also agree with his statement that his book would be helpful for those who are trying to obtain a healthy lifestyle, just not for everybody.

Pat’s article was successful in defending Polan’s article. The main purpose of the article is to show that by taking supplements for Vitamin C and E, you will not necessarily reduce the risks of cardiovascular disease. This is in concordance with Polan’s articles because Polan is a firm believer in getting your nutrients from “real” foods, and not artificial substances.

All in all, I believe that Pat did an excellent job in responding to Michael Polan’s article, In Defense of Food, and I look forward to continue following his blog.

"Real" vs. "Fake" Food

One of my favorite foods is the classic American hamburger. But despite the taste, some of the hamburger meat I eat does not qualify as “real” food. At home, my mom would buy and cook organic, whole hamburger meat. The burgers tasted good, and had no additive substances. It smells fresh and it looks like a typical hamburger that you’d see on a commercial or on a billboard.

In comparison, a hamburger from McDonalds is more processed and not what you would call “real”. The fake burger is very salty and has unhealthy additives that enhance it tastes. The salty burger is very good in taste, just not very good for you. It has a stronger smell that anyone who has ate fast food can attest to. Once you finish eating the fake meat, you will soon feel it in your digestive system.

The fake meat does not provide essential vitamins or nutrients, and is nowhere near nutritionally equivalent to its “real” counterpart. It is said that some burgers contain a small percentage of horse meat.

Personally, I switched over to the fake version mostly due to financial costs. As a college student, my pockets are not very deep, and I generally have to eat what I can afford. Additionally, if I’m looking for a burger at 2AM, I usually have to settle with fast food. In the future, particularly when I return home, and have my mother cooking my food, I will gladly eat the “real” meat. The overall quality of real food greatly affects my health and it also makes me feel better on a standard day to day basis.

In Jeff Zurlinden’s article, he speaks of the dangers of fast food. While looking at the fast food process, it is clearly stated that by eating “fake” meat, you are putting yourself at potential risk.