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 positive effects of the paleo diet, as presented by the writer, seem incredible, even too good to be true. The lack of significant evidence to support the writer's assumptions is also an indicator that the information provided must be considered under greater scrutiny.
First, the writer assumes the current form of the paleo diet is accurate to how the food ingested by early hominids. Although, anthropologists may be able to determine certain foods that were available to our ancestors, or even how the food was prepared. For example, the early humans may have eaten the bones from an animal, but uncooked. Furthermore, due to animal migration and general location, it would be a fallacy to assume all tribes of early man ate similar meals.
Additionally, the writer indicates two main nutrients: chondroitin, for nerve regeneration; and cartilage, for joint health. The writer's first assumption is that all animals intake and store these nutrients. Is chondroitin found in birds, fish, and mammals? All, notably, with many bones for stewing. For that matter, are the nutrients released in stew in such a way that our bodies can absorb the nutrients?
However, the writer makes a valid point that humans, as a species, should continue to share of the dietary benefits of our ancestors. Moreover, the writer's assumptions would be viable with concrete evidence; such as a study that chicken bones, when stewed, relesed chondroitin in a form that was both absorbed and helped people suffering from early-onset alzheimers.
The paleo diet should not be avoided; it appears to benefit people, as indicated by the writer, even if only as a placebo. However, the miracle workings of the diet should be taken with a grain of salt without concrete evidence to support the claims made in its favor.
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: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 15 15
No. of Words: 296 350
No. of Characters: 1453 1500
No. of Different Words: 169 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.148 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.909 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.628 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 107 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 82 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 55 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 31 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 19.733 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 6.884 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.667 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.329 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.593 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.062 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 167, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'animals'' or 'animal's'?
Suggestion: animals'; animal's
...he writers first assumption is that all animals intake and store these nutrients. Is ch...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, may, moreover, so, for example, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.6327345309 76% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.9520958084 69% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 11.1786427146 63% => OK
Relative clauses : 9.0 13.6137724551 66% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 15.0 28.8173652695 52% => OK
Preposition: 33.0 55.5748502994 59% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1512.0 2260.96107784 67% => OK
No of words: 296.0 441.139720559 67% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.10810810811 5.12650576532 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.14784890444 4.56307096286 91% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.77971363435 2.78398813304 100% => OK
Unique words: 178.0 204.123752495 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.601351351351 0.468620217663 128% => OK
syllable_count: 465.3 705.55239521 66% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 4.96107784431 40% => OK
Article: 10.0 8.76447105788 114% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 19.7664670659 76% => 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: 19.0 22.8473053892 83% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 44.4310201949 57.8364921388 77% => OK
Chars per sentence: 100.8 119.503703932 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.7333333333 23.324526521 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.53333333333 5.70786347227 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 8.20758483034 85% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 6.88822355289 15% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.67664670659 150% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.1569709266 0.218282227539 72% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0562076160618 0.0743258471296 76% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0395300149522 0.0701772020484 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0816955449209 0.128457276422 64% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0557823076124 0.0628817314937 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.5 14.3799401198 87% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.3550499002 108% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.197005988 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.38 8.32208582834 113% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 98.500998004 91% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 12.3882235529 93% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.1389221557 86% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.9071856287 84% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 54.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.25 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.