Personally I didn't find this subject too bad. My grievances with it would properly be the structuring of topics as well as how the lectures were taught. However, the assessments were fairly straightforward. I STRONGLY recommend using the textbook (in fact, this is how I supplemented my study from the lectures because some information was just not taught???). TLDR: Lectures were kind of bad but content was easy. Use the textbook to study.

Did this subject in 2020- a lot of the complaints about this subject were based on the online nature of its delivery due to technical issues and backtracking which I believe wouldn’t even apply in the live-delivery of this subject anyway. While the mst did have 5ish erroneous questions, they removed them from grading, and tbh I found the other assessments (essay and exam) to actually be very easy to score well in. The MCQ were super basic in the exam and as long as you read the essay description and write about the topics they suggest a 90 is definitely possible! The resources in this subject were incredible. I 100% recommend the the textbook because it’s very clear and even has practise exam questions with answers. Also, every week the lecturers give you 30ish sample MCQ questions with answers on the topic as practise. The content was super fun and feels really relevant and it will definitely inform you about your nutritional choices! The staff are also super easy to access because of the discussion board and they provide thorough, timely answers to each student. I loved this subject and definitely recommend- please don’t be deterred by bad reviews about tech issues because I doubt they will even be relevant in the future when in person exams resume, and this subject had great real-life application :)

As you probably guessed, the subject has a history of poor coordination (and very sadly it still continues to this date)! The MST was relatively straight forward (but had no back-tracking) and the essays were marked quite harshly (considering they did not not even provide with an exemplar). On to the exam - the MCQ part was easy (this time around they enabled back tracking) but Part B SAQ due to technical issues was pretty difficult (the questions were pretty broad - "2 marks to explain the whole universe"). Having said that, I'm still inclined to give 4 stars primarily due to a relatively easy content, which you could cram during SWOTVAC (if you ask me I spent two weeks before the exam catching up with 8 weeks of content and managed to get a "decent" mark)

The subject was coordinated very poorly. Lectures were delivered as lecture recordings online due to Covid-19. Some lecturers were just terrible (mumbling or simply reading off the powerpoint), watching their lectures was simply a torture. Only do the subject if you want to practise your self-teaching skills. It was much easier to understand the content by reading the textbook than by watching terrible lecture recordings. In terms of assessments, I personally think they were not adjusted reasonably. MST was MCQ on food science aspect of the subject. As it was done online this year, time limit was set to be very very tight. The questions were worded really badly and there were errors in some of the questions as well. To me, errors in test questions is simply ridiculous. It shows how irresponsible they are coz they can't even be bothered to double check the test questions to make sure the questions are right. They also disabled the backtracking function so if we chose the wrong answer and moved on to the next question, that's it, can't go back and change it. For the final exam, there were MCQs and Short Answer Questions. The MCQs for the exam were easy and straight forward if you know the content reasonably well. For SAQs, they put the questions in a word document that was poorly formatted. And again, time limit was very tight and there was a major tech issue with CANVAS (couldn't even log in to canvas to download the questions for at least 10 minutes). There was tech issue with uploading our answers as well, but it took the teaching team a long time to address and respond to these issues. Many students didn't even see their emails regarding the tech issues during the exam and were really disadvantaged because of this. What I heard the most from the teaching team was "the subject was never designed to have open book exams.", "we have 500+ submissions to mark every week (it was them that cancelled tutorials and made worksheet submission compulsory every week to make up for the attendance hurdle)". To me, it seemed that they just hate doing their jobs. Problems like these probably won't happen when everything is back to normal, but the teaching team response and their attitude say a lot about how disorganised and unsupportive they are. I wouldn't normally write a review but my experience was so bad that I had to write a review to give people an idea of what they're getting themselves into if they choose to undertake this subject.

Don't do this subject. The test had questions that were never taught and essays were marked really really harshly.

Had previously heard good things about this subject until this semester. Terrible. From lecturers to content to exams. Tough subject as a breath.

Terrible. Badly coordinated, really harsh marking on essay with nothing but a copy and paste piece of feedback, bad lecturing and really absurd lecture times that make it near-impossible to attend for most people. Steer clear.

I would give 1.5 star. The subject has a lot of content. Pangzhen, one of the lecturers didnt even know what he was talking about. He kept mumbling to himself. On top of that, he was not sure what he wrote on his slides so he had to take 10 seconds to read the slide before continuing again. Basically, it was just a disaster. As mentioned by someone, not sure how he is qualified to teach.

Worst subject ever! Poorly coordinated and the lecturer was really bad!

I am writing this review while sitting in the lecture. I did enjoy the subject overall although it has a fair bit of content. However, for the last 2 weeks of this semester we got a new professor and I cannot seem to understand how he was declared to be fit for teaching. Every 2 words an aaah and basically is inserted into his sentence structure which makes it unbelievably hard to follow. One example of the slides: "If vitamin D mobilises calcium from bones, deficiency in vitamin D should prevent calcium loss from bones and should not mega doses of Vitamin D should result in low bone density diseases such as osteoporosis/osteomalacia?" How is anyone supposed to understand this? Really disappointing!