Tag Archives: peerreviewedcomment

Peer Review

The post that I chose to peer review was Greenwashing by mwalker92. I chose to do this post because they had mentioned many questions in their initial prompt that I am constantly discussing with my friends and people I work with who are very conscious about what they put into their bodies. From reading the post, I learned that media has been promoting fad diets to coincide with beauty terms to come off as an attractive life style for consumers. In addition to that, I also learned that fad diets are not always be successful for consumers because consumers can diet incorrectly and put themselves at risk for many health problems.

I think that many college students and woman (as a general group) could benefit from reading this post because diets like this are “get fit quick” kind of situations because they are eliminating the “negative” parts of their diet when in fact it might not be necessary. College students may want to read this post as well because they can view the diet as a cheap option in order to get some food in their body, when in fact it could cause them to be lacking many nutrients.

The strongest part of this contribution is where the author mentions Celiac disease. Celiac disease is not an easy immune disease to live with and I agree with the sentence where they mention, “I would not recommend it [gluten-free dieting] to any consumer that does not have Celiac disease”. Gluten free means no flour – no wheat. People who have celiac cannot process these ingredients and it can cause their body to have many health complications. I think that this point is very strong and helps to point out that being gluten free is not a fad and is not exactly necessary unless you are celiac. In contrast, the weakest part of this contribution is that there were no other fad diets mentioned in the post but they were in the prompt. I think it would be interesting to learn a bit more about the juicing fad or liquid diets to see what this author had to say.

One part that made me want to read more on this topic is the health problems that can come with each fad diet. We always here about the success stories for the diets but rarely the struggles that come with it or the problems that they can cause. I think it is important that consumers know what they are choosing to put their bodies through when they make these lifestyle changes.

On a scale of 1-4, I would rate this post a 3.5/4 overall because it touched on a personal experience and had very informed points that are beneficial to the reader.

Advertisements

Peer Review Comment

For my Peer Review Comment, I reviewed asinnersthoughts on food! I have left a comment on the original post and below is a copy.

“The main point of this contribution is found in this sentence “…it can cause a lot of shock onto your body because it is not the same nutrients”.

From reading this contribution I learned a lot about you. I personally think it takes a lot of strength and discipline to carry out this lifestyle and it would be very tough for me to change my entire eating habits to become a vegetarian. I am also relieved to know that I am not the only one with the common misconception of justifying all carb loaded foods because “I’m not eating any meat products”.

It would be good for a college student to read this contribution because some of us, including myself, think that being a vegetarian is only eating vegetables, however, you mentioned that you also eat pastas and bread which honestly never crossed my mind. I am also glad that you touched on the moderation subject because usually, most people think you’re really healthy because you are a vegetarian but like you said “I justified eating all of these” … (unhealthy foods) … “under the idea that it was in moderation and that there was no meat in the meal.”

The strongest part of this contribution, to me, was the part where you said, “I feel like this is a concept that we as consumers are not super familiar with and that’s why moderation becomes a back-burner concept to a lot of us.” It’s true, I think that everyone falls guilty of practicing moderation and most of us don’t even entirely know the proper way of it.

Something that someone my question about this contribution is when you said “I am a vegetarian and that can go wrong very quickly.” A few questions that could arise are:

How could being a vegetarian go wrong very quickly? Does this have to do with health? Money? Habits?

Aside from this, this post was generally good and easy to read and understand.

I did find a couple grammar errors which I’m sure were just you trying to type as fast as you could so you wouldn’t forget your thoughts (me all the time). They were both in the first paragraph, the first one came from this sentence “I did wanted to exceed those limits.” (want rather than wanted), and the second came from the following sentence: “Now that I am adult…” (Now that I am an adult…).

Your section on being a vegetarian made me want to read more on this topic. Maybe for the new year I could try it out (not sure how long it would last) but I am sure that there are healthier alternatives to eating meat (I mostly just eat chicken or seafood… so maybe I’m kind of almost there? Probably… not really…)

On a 1 to 4 scale where 1 is the lowest possible and 4 is the highest possible, I rate this contribution a 4 overall, because you answered the prompt in a clear and concise way, and made it personal. I hope that you have been able to practice moderation cautiously like you wanted to!”

 

Peer Review

The post I choose to peer review was “Greenwashing Prompt and Response” by Kelsey. From this contribution, I learned more about the dishonest nature of greenwashing and how items often advertised as environmentally friends are not. It would be good for environmentally conscious consumers to read this because it highlights the ethical negligence and corruption found among environmentally friendly marketing.

The strongest part of this contribution is the Simple Green product example. This company markets their products as non-toxic and biodegradable but, in reality, they are harmful to both human health and the environment. One would also think that with a name like ‘Simple Green’ the company would have eco-friendly products.

I did not notice any spelling/grammar mistakes, but it did see errors in the author’s citations. Firstly, I believe the author used MLA format for the references but APA for the in-text citations. In addition, the source (Simple Green, 2017) is incorrect as it is cited from the Environmental Working Group website. The correct citation would be (Environmental Working Group, n.d.) for APA.

One portion that made me want to read more was the information from the EWG. The site made me curious to see where products I often use fell on their rating scale.

Overall, I would give this post a 3/4. It includes some good information and is written in an interesting way. I removed one point as I do feel like the author could have developed their thoughts on how products like Simple Green cause health and environmental issues.

Peer Reviewed Comment

For the peer reviewed comment, I have chosen to review the post “Family Planning & Misconceptions” written by hannaheileenc on October 22, 2017. I have posted the contribution below my peer reviewed comment. The main part of this contribution can be found in the last sentence, which reads, “Generally: things that make money aren’t the best to be done, but because people are uninformed, predatory organizations may take advantage of this”. This sentence summed up the contribution in an efficient way. From reading this contribution, I learned that there are many medical practices and advertised products that are expensive but may not be as helpful as described. For instance, in paragraph two, the author states the Lambskin condoms “are essentially worthless” as they do not protect against STD’s. They are also billed as a luxury item, despite the fact that they do not do the same job as regular or latex-free condoms.

It would be informative for anyone who is a new parent or planning to become a parent to read this contribution as it debunks some myths around expensive medical treatments for infants and new mothers.

The strongest part of this contribution is paragraph three. This paragraph gives a real-life example of how a patient who was uninformed about the impacts of a medical practice may impact her and her child. The patient is described as being cautious about her caffeine intake during pregnancy as to not agitate the infant’s heart, yet she was given a C-Section without being informed that this may lead to a quick fetal heartbeat. The weakest part of this contribution is paragraph two. In this paragraph the author gives their personal opinion, which while interesting and makes the contribution more relatable, is not very helpful when looking for factual information. There were a few parts that I had to read more than once to understand, but that was only due to grammatical errors as listed below.

I found 2 spelling errors and five grammatical errors. The spelling errors are as follows. Second paragraph second sentence the word “there’s” is spelled “theres”. Fifth paragraph first sentence the word “women’s” is spelled “womens”.  The grammatical errors are as follows. First paragraph second sentence “certain parts reproductive healthcare” should read “certain parts of reproductive healthcare”. First paragraph second sentence “pre-and-postpartum” should read “pre- and post-partum”. First paragraph third sentence “if someone if planning” should read “is someone is planning”. Second paragraph fourth sentence “-luxury” should read “-a luxury”. Third paragraph third sentence says “heartbeat then that happens” should read “heartbeat when that happens”.

One part that made me want to read more on this topic is the fourth paragraph where the author states that women are more likely to be refused surgery to prevent future pregnancies such as a hysterectomy. I do believe that this is because most vasectomies for men are reversible, however, a hysterectomy is not.

On a scale of 1 to 4 with 1 being the lowest, I rate this contribution a 3 overall because it was very informative and got me thinking about the topic, however, it was riddled with spelling and grammatical errors.

Original Post:

Family Planning & Misconceptions by hannaheileenc on October 22, 2017

I know that, for sure, there’s misconceptions within the realm of family planning. Even if we disregard the fact that certain parts reproductive healthcare is stigmatized by one of the major US parties, as well as many religious institutions, even in medical spaces there’s rapid debate about what to do pre-and-postpartum when it comes to reproductive consensus. When should a mother go back on birth control after having a child if someone if planning on waiting to have another? What birth control is right for someone who doesn’t plan on having children at any point? Are there luxury products that may not be the best for reproductive health? Should a person be able to elect to have a C-Section?

Lambskin condoms are one thing, for example, that are essentially worthless (in my humble opinion). Billed as a luxury product, for monogamous couples and as birth control. Great – good to know theres something on the market for that. But it still is just that – luxury. Even for those who have latex allergies, non-latex condoms are an option. And with many monogamous couples, they just aren’t cost effective – I found them online, priced at about 3 USD per condom. Not to mention they’re made of an intestinal membrane, which is pretty disgusting.

And here’s another “boo” to a medical industry so driven by high cost: episiotomy is still high, and was even higher in the near past. C-Sections that may not be deemed necessary are still performed. I know I was an induced labor, and didn’t know that there’s a higher risk of quick fetal heartbeat then that happens – and my Mom, someone who refused to eat chocolate during her pregnancy due to worries that it’d mess with caffeine levels, may not have chosen to be induced if she was informed on that.

Much of reproductive care, as well, is handled by those who may exhibit bias on certain regards – generally, doctors will not perform vasectomies or tubal litigation on those who are young and have not had children, even if they are sure they wouldn’t want to any time in their future. This is typically more common for women, to be refused a procedure.

Aside from that: the myth that womens eggs “begin to die” in their 30’s, leading to fertility clinic profits from performing women in their 20’s.

Generally: things that make money aren’t the best to be done, but because people are uninformed, predatory organizations may take advantage of this.