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.
Dietary practice must play an important role in determining the health condition of a human being. However, it has been scientifically proved that not all the dietary practice can be applicable to all. The argument regarding the paleo diets may be found helpful in numerous situations though it suffers from irrational statements. Nevertheless, the conclusion of the argument is based on unwarranted assumptions and therefore, not convincing as it stands.
To begin with, the argument has stated that bone broth has been a helpful food item that pushed the developments of our joints throughout the evolution journey of humanhood and therefore, based on this assumption it has been concluded that emulating the eating habit is mandatory. It should be noted that this thought is not based upon any scientific discovery. The argument has not specified whether this finding was published in a peer-reviewed well cited journal like Lancet. If it quoted any renowned scientist, the argument would be more reliable. Therefore, the argument is not strong enough as it is only based upon an assumed cause and effect.
Secondly, the argument, although mentioned some thoughts on human physiology, it has not specified what it understood by the term. Notwithstanding it has been concluded that ancient humans knew something about our physiology that we don't. Moreover, the comparison between the works done by the ancestors and modern scientist has not been presented in a rigorous manner. We all know that there has been significant improvement in modern science which brought us prosperity even in health terms. Which specific topics our modern scientists don't know and to what extent, this has not been specified. Therefore, the argument is based upon vague terms that made it rather weak.
Thirdly, anecdotal evidence has been mentioned as the proof of relationship between consuming bone broth and metabolic efficacy. However, we cannot make a conclusion based on this since the "anecdotal evidence" is not sufficient for medical science. A randomized control trial experiment could be run between a treatment group and a control group to see the effect of bone broth on human prevention power. Strong data analysis is needed for drawing this conclusion that emulating the dietary practice of ancient human will lead us to prevent chronic illness.
Finally, it should be remembered that human has evolved in a number of stages. Therefore, we cannot compare between the ancient human who lived between 2000 B.C. to 3000 B.C. with people of twenty first century. The metabolic system and human physiological system has been evolved in a way that the comparison of such manner would be a comparison of completely two different things.
In conclusion, the argument failed to show a proper scientific evidence, it suffers from lack of analysis, it is comparing between the people two completely different time and it is based upon some vague terms which it did not explain properly. Therefore, I do not support the argument as it is based upon unproven assumptions.
| 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 |
- 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 73
- An ancient, traditional remedy for insomnia — the scent of lavender flowers — has now been proved effective. In a recent study, 30 volunteers with chronic insomnia slept each night for three weeks on lavender-scented pillows in a controlled room where 72
Comments
Essay evaluation report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 494 350
No. of Characters: 2512 1500
No. of Different Words: 236 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.714 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.085 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.789 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 190 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 150 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 108 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 78 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.478 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.826 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.696 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.316 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.554 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.126 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 9, column 234, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
... something about our physiology that we dont. Moreover, the comparison between the w...
^^^^
Line 9, column 349, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in a rigorous manner" with adverb for "rigorous"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...modern scientist has not been presented in a rigorous manner. We all know that there has been signif...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 539, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...h specific topics our modern scientists dont know and to what extent, this has not b...
^^^^
Line 17, column 191, Rule ID: EN_COMPOUNDS
Message: This word is normally spelled with hyphen.
Suggestion: twenty-first
...n 2000 B.C. to 3000 B.C. with people of twenty first century. The metabolic system and human...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 204, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'century' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'centuries'.
Suggestion: centuries
...o 3000 B.C. with people of twenty first century. The metabolic system and human physiol...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
finally, first, however, if, may, moreover, nevertheless, regarding, second, secondly, so, therefore, third, thirdly, well, in conclusion, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.6327345309 148% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.9520958084 85% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 11.1786427146 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 13.6137724551 118% => OK
Pronoun: 45.0 28.8173652695 156% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 55.0 55.5748502994 99% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 16.3942115768 134% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2599.0 2260.96107784 115% => OK
No of words: 492.0 441.139720559 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.2825203252 5.12650576532 103% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70967865282 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92134408661 2.78398813304 105% => OK
Unique words: 242.0 204.123752495 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.491869918699 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 791.1 705.55239521 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 4.96107784431 222% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 12.0 8.76447105788 137% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 2.70958083832 74% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.67365269461 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.22255489022 95% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 22.8473053892 88% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.3640527378 57.8364921388 84% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.291666667 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.5 23.324526521 88% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.33333333333 5.70786347227 111% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 5.25449101796 95% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 6.88822355289 131% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.67664670659 192% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.106209902522 0.218282227539 49% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0295337190427 0.0743258471296 40% => Sentence topic similarity is low.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0286722285544 0.0701772020484 41% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.053726392631 0.128457276422 42% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.023949995546 0.0628817314937 38% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.7 14.3799401198 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.3550499002 106% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.197005988 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.34 12.5979740519 106% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.64 8.32208582834 104% => OK
difficult_words: 125.0 98.500998004 127% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.1389221557 90% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.9071856287 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.