You are on page 1of 3

Ian Barrett

Human Bio Tues 7pm

Taking Sides Overemphasis on Eating Healthy
1. the major thesis on the yes side is that orthorexia, the pursuit of the perfect diet, is an effective
and proper way of eating/dieting. Lindsey Getz argues that people avoid anything that is and is
thought to be unhealthy with a pride in eating so consciously. This is deemed unhealthy in her

2. The major thesis for the no side presented by Chris Woolston states the general American diet is
overly abundant in calories, fats, and sugars. He believes it should be limited to a more raw and
natural state to maintain a balance of health. Avoiding calorie rich foods we all know and love.
That is to say overall, that striving to be healthier in our culture is for the better.

3. Two facts presented by the yes side would one, be the most obvious that too much, no matter
how good, is bad. Lack of balance disrupts the universal law of life. Two, common sense and
what we are told about what is healthy may be untrue. That is to say that anything thought
rather than properly researched might all be in the mind. Information changes so rapidly that
what was once thought to be a truth in the past, may no longer be relevant to date. This is a
basic fact and to follow a diet on that premise is not only a fallacy, but overall unhealthy.

4. Two facts on the no side would one, be that limiting the excesses to draw a balance is of course
a positive in any case. Excesses is imbalanced and as stated before, does not resonate with the
natural law of life/homeostasis. Two, staying closer to the natural foods is healthy of course
because that is simply what we ate as we evolved. The more we eat like our ancestors, the more
healthy we MUST be.

5. Two opinions presented by the yes side would be one, orthorexia can start simple and spiral out
of control. That can be said for anything, as everything has a potentially simple beginning. Two,
Getz states people wind up with disordered thinking and psychological torment. Show the
cases and statistics before creating propaganda.

6. Two opinions presented by the no side would one, be that Americans believe eating healthy is a
difficult task. But how can that be if two, there is so many choices our American diet has to
offer, how could it be difficult with such abundance? Poor decisions could be made in any case
regardless of resources.

7. A fallacy on the yes side would be that orthorexia is such a problem it demands a team of
people whose job is to prevent this disorder from happening. How would someone even begin
to control that? When does being healthy go to far when it is all relative to our specific biology.
To have the mass paradigm shift into healthy lifestyles, which is the best way of life or it
wouldnt shift in that direction with the supporting studies we have on health. Then, to have
people contradict the movement with such extreme propaganda is silly. Needing a balance is
understood, but the sentiment to which Getz precedes is faulty and therefore very weak.

8. A fallacy on the no side, paraphrasing Mr. Woolstons words, is that the American diet in a
nutshell is fatty, imbalanced, and oversized. Yet we have some of the fittest people on the
planet, do we not? Look at our Olympic team. Look at all of our sports teams. Our high school
sports programs. Whose diet is Woolston talking about? Could it not be that any of those labels
be apart of any cultures diet? It is a weak statement with a weak paradigm.

9. I personally feel the side that is most correct in their argument is the yes side. Moderation is the
key. Although most of the argument is silly, in this context it is correct and more powerful than
the 'no.' It comes down to choice, and the no side understands this but does not support those
who choose to be overly healthy. It assumes that with the poor American diet, eating healthy no
matter what will compensate for when you cant or dont eat healthy. With choice though, there
are those who go beyond the other end of the spectrum, and that is still unhealthy. The yes side
knows this and supports that argument much better than its opponent.

10. The author that impressed me as being the most empirical in presenting their thesis would have
to go to Chris Woolston of the no side. His findings were more potent as they were available.
Orthoplexia didnt stand a chance against the back up the American diet has in research.

11. For the author who was less on scientific findings, I would say a reason for their bias was
simply their background. Getz was well studied in this field and conceded very little with her
opponent. Especially when there was no denying the truth of the matter, she continued to fight
for her, in my opinion, extreme cause. If people wish to be healthy, even if its imbalanced, it is
better than to be imbalanced and unhealthy. The bias was quite loud in her writing and it was
transparent with her weak supporting evidence. However I do side with her, just not how she
carried her argument.