In this study, women dealing with depression and anxiety decided to change their meals in order to better deal with the mental illness that they have. Throughout the entire article, it had been articulated so that it was informal and story oriented. The tone that was demonstrated was somber towards the beginning and middle of the story that the article started with, but towards the end of the story was very high-spirited as they showed how she used food to help herself get better from her mental illness. The tone towards the end of the article then goes on to be professional in order to express the facts that are given to show that what they are saying is factual and convince them of the results that they exhibited. Even through the formal writing they still try to keep the article uplifting in order to create a happy setting and keep the audience interested. The results that they have had many stories and scientific evidence to prove that the food helped the women improve their lives. The results were also expressed very periodically according to the diet that they suggested and how they differ from one another. Most of the facts given were directed towards the end when explaining how mental health and food correlate to create a balance between the two things. This is shown in order to better understand the science that is used to determine how to properly achieve the results that they wanted.
This article is meant to draw out sympathy and create emotions that make you relate to the people that are going through the process of dealing with their mental illnesses of depression and anxiety. The stories throughout the article create the most emotional reaction when expressing the harsh reality that they have to go through every day, in particular, the story at the beginning that showed the women being diagnosed with depression and anxiety ever since she was little. The logistical style of writing came until the very end when the scientific part was explained to show the data that they had to prove that food did help the women in bettering their lives.
The whole article had been although factual, unconvincing when trying to express their data of food being a factor in improving the women’s depression and anxiety. The stories that they showed of the women had been brief and did not show if the meal that they suggested had been the ones that the women were on. In the article, they showed two diets that they had written about to help, but there was not any proof that these diets had helped any of the women that had on the article. They did have science to show how these two diets could potentially help someone that was going through a mental illness, but not any real situation in which that did happen. This makes the diets look to be assumptions that were made in order to create a better stable argument, but make it look to be falsified information which diminishes their credibility of the whole article. It also creates false hope for people with these mental illnesses when they state how some women have been able to live their lives without their medication, because of the diet that they endorsed and how well it had been working for them. They exaggerate how well food is going to help women such as the first women who are able to be without her antidepressants and completely attributes this success towards changing her diet. They show an unrealistic achievement for women that are dealing with these mental illnesses and want to be able to enjoy their lives without having to take medication every day. They also show faulty informational facts when doing a study where medical students increased their omega 3 fatty acid intake and their anxiety had been reduced by 20 percent. This seemed good until they added how this had no changes in their depression levels, so it had only helped on one side of what they wanted. They also stated how they don’t have the answers for what causes anxiety and depression and have no clear reasoning behind why changing their diets have changed the women’s moods.
In order to find the second article that showed the scientific side of what the first article had been explaining, the search started with the author and the topic of the article, but there had not been a correlation between those articles. The use of an author’s name from the sources gave a scientific report on the sugar intake from sweet food and beverages in correlation to common mental disorder and depression. The two articles had a common component when explaining the use of food to dictate the mental illness in a person. The first article spoke more personally about the effects that food can have on mental health by giving real-life examples, while the second article was all facts and graphs to demonstrate the study that they did in order to prove their hypothesis. Their hypothesis stated facts on evidence to show the effect of a sugar dense diet on depression in the general population. They both had opposing results in which the first article that getting a clear correlation on how food does affect mental illness. The second article had stated that “the analyses of depression and recurrent clinical depression after 10 years show that there is no clear association in sugar intake from sweet food/beverages”. Both the articles had distinct data and results that reinforced their stance on what they wanted to their audience to follow.
In the scientific report, there had many studies made in order to test their hypothesis. They had many charts and graphs for people to see the results that they got and not leave out any facts about what they had gotten. The news report had only used a small part of what the scientific report had stated. They only used the facts that would make their stance credible and did not use the other data that was on a scientific report that would disprove what they were trying to demonstrate. The news report had stated that men who more sugar was 23 percent more likely to develop depression or anxiety over five years compared to those who had less. Although that had been on the scientific report, they had also stated that “the possibility that a mood disorder would lead to high sugar intake is partly the result of poor mental health rather than of higher sugar intake”. There had been many claims in the first article that showed how because of the change in their diet; they were able to show the effect of not having to take medication. When in reality it had been overstated and there was no clear indication to show that it could happen. The scientific report showed how their data could prove for both stances, which shows that there is not a clear indication that sugar could cause mental illness to get better or worse.
In both the scientific report and the news report, there had been many different ways that they had interpreted the data that was given. The news report was able to obtain the data that they wanted in order to strengthen their position of food being able to help people that had a mental illness. The scientific report just demonstrated the facts that they obtained from the tests that they administered. They did not have a particular position in which they wanted to get. They just wanted to test a hypothesis in order to be more conscious of how the food was or was not correspondent to mental illness, particularly with depression.
They did get a conclusion which stated that “their study provides evidence that sugar intake from sweet food/beverages increase the chance of mood disorder in men and that there is limited evidence to show recurrent mood disorders in both sexes”. The main difference between the two was how in a scientific report they show all the facts even if it does not support what their hypothesis had originally stated. In a news report, they have a specific stance on what they want to report and get small chunks of data from many scientific reports in order to present their opinion of what they want to say even though it can be inaccurate and cause a falsified view of information that could mislead people from the truth.