Dhurandhar, et al (2014) were curious to find the effects that eating or skipping breakfast had on overweight and obese individuals. They questioned the association between breakfast consumption and body weight and weight loss. They hypothesized that individuals in the breakfast skipping group would lose more weight than those in the control group. To test this, Dhurandhar and her team conducted a 16-week randomized clinical control study on 283 overweight and obese adults. These participants were placed in either the breakfast eaters group (BEG), control group, or the breakfast skippers group (BSG). The BEG received a pamphlet on healthy eating habits. This pamphlet instructed them to eat breakfast; however, there were no restrictions on the type of foods to consume. The control group was also given a pamphlet that described healthy eating, but the pamphlet had no mention of consuming breakfast. The BSG received a pamphlet on healthy
…show more content…
The literature review was not just a summarization of other studies, but it was critical. The author was specific and pointed out elements that were unclear and information that were questionable. Dhurandhar provided justification as to why her study needed to be done. She used many studies to help her argument, and all the studies mentioned were relevant. The introduction was clear and audience could understand the problem being addressed and the research that needed to be done. Her work was original; she was not repeating anything that has already been done. The weakness of a literature review is that it is unknown what information from other studies is taken out to make one’s argument look stronger. It is also unknown if authors choose weaker research studies to formulate their argument instead of well-done studies. It is hard to tell the motives of an author when considering the literature review, as it is solely dependent on the research they choose to
The literature review was not just a summarization of other studies, but it was critical. The author was specific and pointed out elements that were unclear and information that were questionable. Dhurandhar provided justification as to why her study needed to be done. She used many studies to help her argument, and all the studies mentioned were relevant. The introduction was clear and audience could understand the problem being addressed and the research that needed to be done. Her work was original; she was not repeating anything that has already been done. The weakness of a literature review is that it is unknown what information from other studies is taken out to make one’s argument look stronger. It is also unknown if authors choose weaker research studies to formulate their argument instead of well-done studies. It is hard to tell the motives of an author when considering the literature review, as it is solely dependent on the research they choose to