Taking Sides - Can Overemphasis on Eating Healthy Be Unhealthy?
Taking Sides
TAKING SIDES ANALYSIS REPORT (LONG FORM) #3
Name: Andre Bettinson
Course: Human Biology 1090
Book: Biology 1090 taking sides
Issue number: 3
Title of issue:_Can an Overemphasis on Eating Healthy Become Unhealthy?
1. Author and major thesis of the Yes side.
Lindsey Getz, from “Orthorexia: When Eating Healthy Become an Unhealthy Obsession,” Today’s Dietitian (June 2009)
2. Author and major thesis of the No side.
Chris Woolston, from “What’s Wrong With The American Diet?” Consumer Health Interactive (October 28, 2009)
3. What fallacies of question-framing are made by the authors of the text?
I believe that the authors have framed the issue very well. It is a very specific issue, and certainly just about anything can be done on a level that is unhealthy if it’s not in balance. I believe that the authors could possibly have addressed that not everyone’s health issues that could be attributed to, or changed by their diet is the same. Everyone has different problems, and should have different goals, nothing is a one-size-fits-all approach. Just recommendations based on what condition affect the majority of people.
4. Briefly state in your own words two facts presented by each side.
Yes
Orthorexia Nervosa is not currently in the DSM-V.
The condition in question (Orthorexia Nervosa) and Anorexia Nervosa are not the same.
No
BMI over 25 is recognized overweight.
The average american diet has grown by 304 calories as opposed to 25 years ago. For a total calorie intake of 2,154 calories a day.
5. Briefly state in your own words two opinions presented by each side.
Yes
Orthorexia nervosa should be considered a legitimately recognized condition.
Too much anxiety surrounding what people eat, can be more harmful than the food they’re avoiding.
No
Calorie intake is the main thing that is wrong with the typical American diet.
The macronutrient of dietary fat is more to blame than carbohydrates or protein intake.
6. Briefly identify as many fallacies on the Yes side as you can.
I believe that the Yes side does not have many of their points to be fallacious. If anything it could simply be creating generalizations surrounding those that are impressionable and that could possibly develop ‘Orthorexia nervosa.’
In the frame of this Taking Sides section, it asks a pretty reasonable question that supports extremes in any regard could be unhealthy.
_7. Briefly identify as many fallacies on the No side as you can.
On the No side, I believe that for the lack of scientific explanation into the mechanics of diet, they make false cause for not explaining what is generally bad about dietary fat and cholesterol.
This could be representing the article in an easy-to-understand format for the general readers, but I believe it is important to go into the reasoning why things are bad and why they are good, so they can be weighed rationally and point out in what cases things are very necessary, and what cases they could be questionable.
8. All in all, which author impressed you as being the most empirical in presenting his or her thesis? Why?
The No side was definitely the most empirical with the statistics being cited, and exact trends that we see in the American diet. However, that article is not addressing the psychological element of overemphasis and extreme emotionally charged eating habits. But they surely are dealing with the foundational circumstances and general causes for the typical American diet to be unhealthy.
9. Are there any reasons to believe the writers are biased? If so, why do they have these biases?
The Yes side is biased, they either have first-hand anecdotal evidence or can provide evidence from what their experiences and clients are dealing with.
The No side, is not in direct opposition to the title of this Issue in Taking sides though. I can’t say that they are biased because they do not address the over-emphasis on eating healthy and it’s effect on the psyche in some cases.
10. Which side (Yes or No) do you personally feel is most correct now that you have reviewed the
material in these articles? Why?
I can safely say that empirically, the No side is a big contender. It even ends the article in terms of talking about the key word, moderation; which is supplementary to the Yes side in terms of what the problem is with overemphasis on just about any diet. I don’t believe these articles take on each-other adequately, so I can’t tell you what side I take, because both of them are valid and are not negating either of their points.
Emotional eating in the case of what is coined as Orthorexia nervosa is surely pervasive in the psychological realm, and that’s the lens it should be looked under. Because the treatment of a disorder of the sorts is charged by emotion, it’s those emotions that are the root cause. Psychology specializes in studying and treating emotional conditions, a dietician could surely try to educate and alleviate those emotions with fact, but in the most extreme cases, it would need a team or resources that are knowledgeable in both therapy and nutrition to settle the situation properly.