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.
Proponet's claim to consuming broth because ancient human's diet involved it does create a good argument for study. But it may not be a great idea before studying all the aspects and answering all the questions presented below.
Firslty, the evidence which suggests that people who consume bone broth are less prone to megtabolic and inflamaory diseases than those who dont, needs to provide several other details regarding how the research or survey was conducted. For instance, the information on the age group of people who are consuming bone broth along with other ingredients involved in their diet. This data is necessary before reaching to the conclusion presents in the prompt as the results of the study may be impacted by the above two factors and may not be the result solely based on consumption of boan broth.Also, we do not know if ancient people were having any other diseases due to this diet they were consuming.
Secondly, comparing ancient humans only on the basis of consumption of bone broth and few other ingredients is definately an incompete study. Can we really compare the fitness of ancient humans with present day population only with one or two dietry ingredients? As, the lifestyle that is followed today is drastically different and hard to compare from what was present several hundereds or years ago. Therefore, deriving such conslusions solely on the basis of a diet consumption can be very dangerous for anyone who is following the recommendations presented in the study. For insctance, present day lifestyle is so different from ancient habbits that they are almost polar opposites. Today, people often spend their entire days sitting on a desk or in front of screens without any kindof physical activity. Whereas, ancient humans may have efficient digestive systems as compared to the present humans who are living this kindof sedentry lifestyle. Hence, samne benefits of the diet on matabolism may not be applicable today.
Furthermore, problem of joint pain in today's population is replete and it is understandable that certain diets that may tackle this issue will be welcomed even if it is dependent on factors that are based on really ancient times. Neverthless, it is essential to find out the exact cause that may be behind joint problems faced by people today. For instance, today women walk in heels which contribute to bad knees and pain related to feet. Also, children are not consuming sufficient calcium which in result causes several bone issues. This example illustrates how joint and bone issues can be resultant of many factors. Therefore , the study needs to be presented in a more comparable data based on all the factors such as complete diet of ancient people along with their lifestyle.
In conclusion, following this study without the above answers can cause further problems in the people today. And to avoid that from happening, a more elaborate and research based data needs to be presented. Only after studying that data and testing it in real world, we can conclude its benefits.
Comments
e-rater score report
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 1 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 16 2
No. of Sentences: 22 15
No. of Words: 504 350
No. of Characters: 2496 1500
No. of Different Words: 238 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.738 4.7
Average Word Length: 4.952 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.578 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 176 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 141 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 94 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 63 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 22.909 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 10.396 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.727 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.293 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.293 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.09 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 1 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 141, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
... and inflamaory diseases than those who dont, needs to provide several other details...
^^^^
Line 2, column 593, Rule ID: SENTENCE_WHITESPACE
Message: Add a space between sentences
Suggestion: Also
...lely based on consumption of boan broth.Also, we do not know if ancient people were ...
^^^^
Line 4, column 630, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
... be resultant of many factors. Therefore , the study needs to be presented in a mo...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, furthermore, hence, if, may, really, regarding, second, secondly, so, therefore, whereas, for instance, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.6327345309 153% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.9520958084 100% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 11.1786427146 143% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 28.8173652695 108% => OK
Preposition: 64.0 55.5748502994 115% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 16.3942115768 67% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2543.0 2260.96107784 112% => OK
No of words: 503.0 441.139720559 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.05566600398 5.12650576532 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73578520332 4.56307096286 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.66091402254 2.78398813304 96% => OK
Unique words: 245.0 204.123752495 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.487077534791 0.468620217663 104% => OK
syllable_count: 799.2 705.55239521 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 4.96107784431 101% => OK
Article: 5.0 8.76447105788 57% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.70958083832 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.22255489022 24% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 19.7664670659 111% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 57.5581093367 57.8364921388 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 115.590909091 119.503703932 97% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.8636363636 23.324526521 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.22727272727 5.70786347227 109% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 5.25449101796 57% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 8.20758483034 73% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 6.88822355289 116% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.67664670659 171% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.118184035974 0.218282227539 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0415525946521 0.0743258471296 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0385894391559 0.0701772020484 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.070365982045 0.128457276422 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0371516876107 0.0628817314937 59% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.3799401198 96% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 7.1628742515 43% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.36 12.5979740519 98% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.46 8.32208582834 102% => OK
difficult_words: 119.0 98.500998004 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 13.5 12.3882235529 109% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.