Antioxidants: Food or Supplement?

I read an article from my nutrition textbook entitled "Antioxidants: Food or Supplements?" I found this nutrition debate to be quite interesting. When I hear the term "antioxidants", I immediately think of the health benefits like reducing heart disease. It never occurred to me that antioxidants can be potentially harmful. After reading the article, I was intrigued to know what other current sources thought about whether antioxidants help or harm. From an informative writing piece on ScientificAmerican.com, I learned a bit more in depth about the functions of antioxidants. Oxidation in the body is a process that can increase cholesterol to stick in the arteries which will increase risk in heart blockage and other problems. Antioxidants theoretically aid in keeping oxidation in check by slowing down the reaction.
But the fact remains, there have been several experiments where antioxidants have done more damage than healing. According to the textbook and website article, the problem lies within supplements not natural food sources high in antioxidants. Both articles indicate a few explanations. Perhaps the supplements are being taken in higher doses than recommended. Also typically, when health conscious people eat foods that naturally contain antioxidants, those same people eat other health foods and are active participants in exercise. Another possible explanation is that many different types of oxidation stress exists and supplements only associates with some of those stresses.
We learned in my nutrition class, moderation is one of the key terms for nutrition. Antioxidants are a great example. Any type of food can be too much of a "good thing". I believe like everything else, antioxidants should be consumed in reasonable amounts, nobody should gorge themselves with pomegranates to obtain lots of antioxidants. But I'm sure antioxidants are beneficial to some extent. I'm anxious to hear from medical resources in the future for conclusive statements about the antioxidant controversy.

Fat or Fabulous?

This week I chose to read Social Lubricant: How a Marketing Campaign Became the Catalyst for a Societal Debate by Rob Walker. He discusses how the Dove campaign for representing "real women" versus showing a stereotypical supermodel has caused a debate about beauty in society. In the magazine column, Walker writes from the perspective of an observer to how people react to Dove's statement, rather than acting as a participant on one side of the argument. If anything, Walker seems to think Dove stand for body image is unoriginal and lacking creative thought.
I find Walker's writing to descriptive and interesting at times. Especially at the beginning, when he describes a picture of the Dove's model. His style is clear and straightforward that appeals to the general audience, subscribers flipping through a magazine skimming pictures and words, not wanting anything too deep or difficult to read. As a female reader, it was refreshing to read a guy's column about the standards of beauty movement. And in certain respects, I liked how short the article was. It was succinct and kept my interest until the end.
On the other hand, because the length was short, no strong conclusions were made or conveyed. Walker's topic and perspective had potential to be a truly intriguing article but the efforts fell short, probably due to length  and time restrictions. And I couldn't detect Walker's voice in this piece. In fact, he seemed uninterested in the discussion, conveying instead an attitude of writing out of duty for doing's sake. A suggestion I would make to Rob Walker is to include visuals in his column. Since Dove ads are mostly a visual appeal, it could be more effective if the picture that Walker was describing in his opening paragraph was shown.