What are the differences between fast food and traditional food?
Fast food has been a controversial subject of numerous heated debates as there is a growing concern over the current tendency to favour fast food over traditional meals. Below is an outline of some differences between fast food and traditional cuisines.
A problem found in fast food is its high risk of obesity and other related diseases. This is because this category of food contains an excessive amount of fat, sugar, and harmful additives in contrast to the healthy selection of ingredients such as vegetables in a traditional dish. As a result, a typical fast-food meal usually has a high energy density, much higher than a traditional meal, leading to a myriad of potential diseases such as diabetes, obesity, and even cancer if those fast-food items are consumed consistently for long periods.
Fast food is also distinguished from traditional food by its limited variations of dishes. While traditional cuisines are well-known for their emphasis on the complexity and richness of flavour, taste, and choice due to ethnic diversity, junk food rarely varies in most places. However, in this time-minded world, people show a preference for fast food because of its short preparation time, and this tendency would, undoubtedly, pose direct threats to local specialties.
Moreover, it is important to note that traditional meals have many of its social meanings. Although fast food is recognised for its convenience and saving people from home cooking, it discourages family members from preparing deliberate meals for others. People are thus less likely to converse together, which would take a toll on sentimental bonds in family. In this sense, a traditional meal is deemed as a unifying element in family life, bringing people together in times of troubles and times of joy.
In conclusion, fast food, although convenient, would increase one’s risk of gaining weight and other health problems as well as affect cuisine diversity and family solidarity. For the sake of mentioned aspects, traditional meals are the one which should be put more premium on.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-11-11 | Dương Ái Nhi | 61 | view |
| 2024-11-11 | Dương Ái Nhi | 61 | view |
| 2024-11-11 | Duong Gia Han | 89 | view |
| 2024-11-10 | ngocminhho | 67 | view |
| 2024-11-07 | TranthikimNgoc | 89 | view |
- The diagrams below present the estimates and projections of world population from the US Census Bureau 66
- Some say that it would be better if the majority of employees worked from home instead of travelling to a workplace everyday Do you think the advantages of working from home outweigh the disadvantages 89
- Some people think that work is the most important aspect of people s life Without a successful career life become meaningless To what extent do you agree or disagree 89
- What are the differences between fast food and traditional food 89
- Some say that it would be better if the majority of employees worked from home instead of travelling to a workplace everyday Do you think the advantages of working from home outweigh the disadvantages 92
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e direct threats to local specialties. Moreover, it is important to note that t...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, however, if, moreover, so, thus, well, while, in conclusion, in contrast, such as, as a result, as well as, in contrast to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 13.1623246493 106% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 4.0 7.85571142285 51% => OK
Conjunction : 11.0 10.4138276553 106% => OK
Relative clauses : 3.0 7.30460921844 41% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 24.0651302605 62% => OK
Preposition: 45.0 41.998997996 107% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 8.3376753507 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1747.0 1615.20841683 108% => OK
No of words: 331.0 315.596192385 105% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27794561934 5.12529762239 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.26537283232 4.20363070211 101% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86422679725 2.80592935109 102% => OK
Unique words: 197.0 176.041082164 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.595166163142 0.561755894193 106% => OK
syllable_count: 542.7 506.74238477 107% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 5.43587174349 55% => OK
Article: 3.0 2.52805611222 119% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.10420841683 190% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 0.809619238477 494% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.76152304609 84% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 14.0 16.0721442886 87% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 20.2975951904 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.231109517 49.4020404114 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 124.785714286 106.682146367 117% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.6428571429 20.7667163134 114% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.14285714286 7.06120827912 129% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.38176352705 114% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.67935871743 81% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 3.9879759519 125% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 3.4128256513 59% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.446947072072 0.244688304435 183% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.172053866194 0.084324248473 204% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.137503625803 0.0667982634062 206% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.272487110779 0.151304729494 180% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.141234633707 0.056905535591 248% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.3 13.0946893788 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 48.13 50.2224549098 96% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.44779559118 150% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 11.3001002004 109% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.64 12.4159519038 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.83 8.58950901804 114% => OK
difficult_words: 106.0 78.4519038076 135% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 9.78957915832 123% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 10.1190380762 111% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 10.7795591182 111% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 89.8876404494 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 8.0 Out of 9
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.