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 argument is flawed for the following reasons: the assumption that the physiology of early hominids and present day humans are the same, the use of anecdotal evidence to show how beneficial the paleo diet can be for us, and the use of vague language regarding the paleo diet's proposed health benefits.
Primarily, the argument makes the assumption that early hominids and present-day humans have the exact same physiology, and that, therefore, a paleo diet should have the same effect. This is flawed because we do not live in the same environment as early hominids, and, furthermore, even our whole foods are still very processed, and so a paleo diet that would have been consumed by early hominids is not the same as the paleo diet we would currently consume. To strengthen this argument, there should have been clarification about what aspects of our physiology is the same in order to make the argument that a paleo diet consumed by early hominids would be beneficial to us.
The argument also uses anecdotal evidence from people who are currently on the paleo diet as proof of its benefits. One would have to think about who is willing to answer a survey on this topic. Only people who feel very strongly would be willing to answer a survey on it, and individual people are not medical experts who can attest to the presence of metabolic or inflammatory diseases. In order to strengthen this argument, the author should have included evidence peer-reviewed studies that showed a significant difference in metabolic and inflammatory diseases between individuals on the paleo diet and healthy controls.
Finally, the argument also uses vague language to convince readers of the benefits of a paleo diet. It uses phrases such as "health-promoting nutrients," and argues that the paleo diet "can cure many chronic illnesses." This language does not specify the ways in which the paleo diet has been proven to be beneficial. What does it mean for a nutrient to be health-promoting? This language is not specific enough to show how beneficial a paleo diet may be. There are many chronic illnesses that are not tied to diet, so the author cannot be so sure that there are many chronic illnesses that would be completely eradicated with the introduction of a paleo diet. Within the argument the author has specified the ways in which a paleo diet may help, but does not provide any real data. The way to strengthen this argument, the author should have specified the ways in which a paleo diet has been proven to improve health.
The argument was flawed in the following ways: it made assumptions about the similarities between the conditions and physiology of the early hominid body and the body of the present-day human being, it used anecdotal evidence instead of peer-reviewed research, and it used vague language to convince readers of the benefits of the paleo diet.
