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.
Supporters of Paleo diets who believe the food had many health-promoting nutrients fail to produce any evidence from real-life experimentation or knowledge. In today's age science has advanced so much so as to provide fruitful evidence that the animal broth has any effective and health-benefiting nutrients or not. They should rely more on scientific proof rather than anecdotal evidence.
Also ,supporters of Paleo diets should consider that we are not aware under what circumstances was the animal broth soup made. It could be highly possible that humans have shortage of other food supplies and then had to rely on animal bone broth to get considerably more energy or taste than plain water.
Skeptics of Paleo diets should base their analysis only on the basis of anatomy and life longitivity or defence mechanism of humans who consumed the animal bone broth rather than a generalised theoriitical explaination. As many a times, theory can only lead you until to a certain limit and often times theoritical understanding is proven erroneous by pragmatic and practical approaches. In quantum physics, nuclear fission was initially considered impossible, as the atom was thought to be the smallest element. It was only through physical experimentation that an atom was broken down into nuclei. Thus, an idea which was not theoritically achievable with initial understanding became a whole science in itself through practical approach.
Historians and Archeologists who work on the sites of previous civilizations such Harappa and Mesopotamia can argue that human understanding in the past was far more ahead than recent knowledge in many fields. Ancient sciences in medicine like Ayurveda date back to thousands of years and yet are very effective. Its only plausible that the humans of ancient times had deep understanding of human anatomy and nature. But at the same time it can be argued that they believed in experimentation while discovering the nature of things, and not every approach which was followed could be considered as true due to limitation of tools to test accurate results in those times.
To conclude, when considering Paleo diets, one should take into account the circumstances in which the broth was made and the scientific evidence in today's era of the nutrients present in the broth. Before completely throwing away the claim one should also consider any research done on empirical data and the facts and figures from historical evidence as to why the broth was even made in the first place.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-23 | Ruhani | 59 | view |
| 2023-08-18 | Mayuresh08 | 70 | view |
| 2023-08-18 | Akash Konar | 55 | view |
| 2023-08-13 | fabjaved | 62 | view |
| 2023-07-16 | hello_kratnesh101 | 47 | view |
- 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 66
- 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 62
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 11 2
No. of Sentences: 16 15
No. of Words: 406 350
No. of Characters: 2085 1500
No. of Different Words: 224 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.489 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.135 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.949 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 139 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 110 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 83 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 54 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 25.375 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.922 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.375 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.315 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.576 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.096 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 201, Rule ID: SO_AS_TO[1]
Message: Use simply 'to'
Suggestion: to
...todays age science has advanced so much so as to provide fruitful evidence that the anim...
^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 5, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
... rather than anecdotal evidence. Also ,supporters of Paleo diets should conside...
^^
Line 5, column 229, Rule ID: A_PLURAL[1]
Message: Don't use indefinite articles with plural words. Did you mean 'a time' or simply 'times'?
Suggestion: a time; times
...ised theoriitical explaination. As many a times, theory can only lead you until to a ce...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, if, so, then, thus, while, as to, in the first place
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 : 19.0 11.1786427146 170% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 13.6137724551 103% => OK
Pronoun: 18.0 28.8173652695 62% => OK
Preposition: 57.0 55.5748502994 103% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 16.3942115768 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2123.0 2260.96107784 94% => OK
No of words: 406.0 441.139720559 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.22906403941 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.48881294772 4.56307096286 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98947107688 2.78398813304 107% => OK
Unique words: 228.0 204.123752495 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.56157635468 0.468620217663 120% => OK
syllable_count: 679.5 705.55239521 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59920159681 106% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 4.96107784431 81% => OK
Article: 1.0 8.76447105788 11% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 2.70958083832 148% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => 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: 25.0 22.8473053892 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 50.5030552912 57.8364921388 87% => OK
Chars per sentence: 132.6875 119.503703932 111% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.375 23.324526521 109% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.375 5.70786347227 77% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 8.20758483034 49% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.67664670659 128% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.153240313865 0.218282227539 70% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0512128680682 0.0743258471296 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0465302399819 0.0701772020484 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0950629436752 0.128457276422 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0435030184011 0.0628817314937 69% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.9 14.3799401198 111% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.3550499002 78% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.1628742515 156% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.197005988 116% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.35 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.08 8.32208582834 109% => OK
difficult_words: 108.0 98.500998004 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.1389221557 108% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.9071856287 101% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.