Paleo diets, in which one eats how early hominids (human ancestors) did, are becoming increasingly popular. Proponents claim our bodies evolved to eat these types of food, especially bone broth, a soup made by cooking animal bones for several hours. They believe it has many health-promoting nutrients, such as cartilage, which can heal our joints, and chondroitin, which promotes nerve regeneration. Skeptics point out that ingested cartilage can’t replenish cartilage in your knees or elbows and ingested chondroitin doesn’t make our brains any healthier. Yet, there is strong anecdotal evidence that people who consume bone broth have fewer metabolic and inflammatory diseases than those who don’t. Therefore, ancient humans knew something about our physiology that we don’t, and that by emulating the way they ate, we can cure many chronic illnesses.
The proponents claim that emulating the diet of our ancestors will help us in curing many chronic illnesses. The reasons they provide are that our bodies evolved to eat these types of food and that our ancestors knew something about our physiology that we don't. There are more reasons that they provide, which are based on beliefs, lacking proper evidence to back their claims.
First, let's consider the assumption that our bodies evolved to eat these types of food and that adding these foods to our diet will improve health. There is no evidence to believe that our bodies have evolved to eat Paleo diets. Even if it were true that our bodies evolved to eat these types of food, our bodies will have no problem with the more easily digestible food we eat today. Moreover, foods such as cartilage and chondroitin might have more nutrients than the food we regularly eat, but the amount of nutrients digested and absorbed by the body is not addressed. It is possible that the nutrients absorbed are more from more digestible food we eat compared to the Paleo diet food, which makes the given argument completely invalid.
The statement that people who consume bone broth have fewer metabolic and inflammatory diseases has many inherent problems. The group of people who consume bone broth might have other healthy habits which are probably leading to better health. To better evaluate this statement an experiment with proper setup must be performed where the only difference between the two sets of people should be their diet.
To add to this, the statement that ancient humans knew something about our physiology that we don't is a very vague statement with no proper basis. Moreover, even if we assume that they had more knowledge, they could very be having the diet they were due based on the availability of food. In the end, there is no reason to believe that this diet will reduce chronic illnesses.
The proponents' argument as stated above is riddled with assumptions that are unwarranted for. Providing evidence to back the above-stated assumptions will help us in better evaluating the argument.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-29 | jason123 | 69 | view |
| 2020-01-25 | Chayank_11 | 57 | view |
| 2020-01-07 | hyunjulia99 | 75 | view |
| 2019-12-29 | neha1980 | 50 | view |
| 2019-12-13 | noitsimani | 61 | view |
- Science and technology will one day be able to solve all of society’s problems 50
- Although sound moral judgment is an important characteristic of an effective leader, it is not as important as a leader’s ability to maintain the respect of his or her peers. 50
- Paleo diets, in which one eats how early hominids (human ancestors) did, are becoming increasingly popular. Proponents claim our bodies evolved to eat these types of food, especially bone broth, a soup made by cooking animal bones for several hours. They 63
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 358 350
No. of Characters: 1720 1500
No. of Different Words: 164 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.35 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.804 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.405 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 111 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 82 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 58 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 39 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 23.867 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.445 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.267 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.365 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.648 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.272 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
The proponents claim that emulating the ...
^^^^
Line 1, column 261, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
... something about our physiology that we dont. There are more reasons that they provi...
^^^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...per evidence to back their claims. First, lets consider the assumption that...
^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...given argument completely invalid. The statement that people who consume bo...
^^^
Line 11, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... sets of people should be their diet. To add to this, the statement that ancie...
^^^^
Line 11, column 99, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
... something about our physiology that we dont is a very vague statement with no prope...
^^^^
Line 15, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...iet will reduce chronic illnesses. The proponents argument as stated above ...
^^^^
Line 15, column 9, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'proponents'' or 'proponent's'?
Suggestion: proponents'; proponent's
... reduce chronic illnesses. The proponents argument as stated above is riddled wit...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, if, moreover, so, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.6327345309 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 10.0 12.9520958084 77% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 11.1786427146 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 22.0 13.6137724551 162% => OK
Pronoun: 50.0 28.8173652695 174% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 38.0 55.5748502994 68% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 16.3942115768 79% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1767.0 2260.96107784 78% => OK
No of words: 356.0 441.139720559 81% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 4.96348314607 5.12650576532 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.34372677135 4.56307096286 95% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.44073161404 2.78398813304 88% => OK
Unique words: 165.0 204.123752495 81% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.463483146067 0.468620217663 99% => OK
syllable_count: 550.8 705.55239521 78% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59920159681 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 4.96107784431 60% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.67365269461 60% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.22255489022 71% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 19.7664670659 81% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 30.4299913736 57.8364921388 53% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 110.4375 119.503703932 92% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.25 23.324526521 95% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.3125 5.70786347227 41% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 8.0 5.25449101796 152% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 8.20758483034 61% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 6.88822355289 102% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.278333865269 0.218282227539 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.101919468568 0.0743258471296 137% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.085872712888 0.0701772020484 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.134369931717 0.128457276422 105% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0985716743441 0.0628817314937 157% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.1 14.3799401198 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 57.61 48.3550499002 119% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.78 12.5979740519 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 7.74 8.32208582834 93% => OK
difficult_words: 68.0 98.500998004 69% => More difficult words wanted.
linsear_write_formula: 10.5 12.3882235529 85% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
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.