Can an Overemphasis on Eating Healthy become Unhealthy?
1) The ‘Yes’ side argues that excessive obsession over eating healthy foods could potentially lead to psychological problems, malnutrition or even death. They make several well-founded observations regarding the tendencies of children to pick up unhealthy habits from their parents (whether it’s over-indulgence or ultra-restrictive), valid warning signs of eating disorders (again, possible both ways, as we see with anorexia vs obesity) and real-life stories of people who clearly developed eating disorders around healthful eating.
2) The ‘No’ side focuses on the societal diet trends of the country, covering points from portion control to content of food (salts, sugars, carbohydrates, trans-fats, etc) and ending with the admonition to ‘take control’ of our diets to be healthy. While it was all very good information, I was somewhat let down by the lack of actual debate in the ‘No’ side…all of the information presented would no doubt be agreeable advice to the Yes side as well. The ‘No’ side didn’t seem to address the debate question at all and instead just presented some generalized healthy eating habits instead of coming up with counter-arguments. Perhaps the inability of the ‘No’ side to combat the arguments of the opposing side is part of what helped me decide that I agree with the ‘Yes’ side.
3) In my opinion, the two strongest facts presented by the ‘Yes’ side were two actual experiences had with people who struggled with Orthorexia (the obsession over eating healthfully). The first reference was that of a ten year old child who was terrified of trans fats (an anecdote from a nutrition counselor) and the second was a reference to a young lady who obsessed to the point of becoming obviously dangerously unhealthy (68 lbs and <500 calories a day).The topic of eating disorders and psychological problems are largely difficult to diagnose, understand or ‘prove’ since they originate in the minds of humans; but the ‘Yes’ side gave us several examples of real people who displayed physical deterioration and/or psychological disorders regarding eating healthfully.
4) The ‘No’ side did present some good facts regarding calories and nutrition…one such reference was in regards to the increase in soda consumption in 1978 as opposed to now (it’s increased by approximately 300%, with the percentage of obese children rising by 120%). Another fact presented was a summarization of a 12-year study involving almost 70,000 women proving that a “Western” diet significantly raises the risk of coronary heart disease and various cancers. Now…I’m not saying I disagree with that information; it is, in fact, good information. It’s simply not really that relevant to the argument regarding going overboard on eating healthy. (It’s almost like the ‘No’ side is misinterpreting the ‘Yes’ side as saying “there’s no need to eat healthy and you’ll get too skinny and die unless you eat a ding dong”…)
5) An opinion presented by the ‘Yes’ side is a quote from Evelyn Tribole, a nutritionist, regarding advertisers’ tendencies to put such things as “Guilt-Free” on seemingly healthier options, thus creating the illusion that some food choices inherently come with guilt attached (thus helping drive the development of eating disorders). Another opinion is actually the concept of “Orthorexia”…defined as excessive obsession with maintaining a perfect, ‘pure’ diet free from things perceived to be unhealthy (sugars, preservatives, fats, etc) to the point where it becomes an actual psychological disorder similar to Anorexia. Orthorexia has not yet been clinically recognized, but the ‘Yes’ side sounds optimistic that soon it will be an official diagnosis (enabling better help and rehabilitation for those who suffer from it).
6) The first opinion presented by the ‘No’ side is that all the weight issues this country faces can be blamed on ‘too many calories’. They then boil down their argument to one main opinion: all things in moderation. I almost laughed when I read that because it really seems like the ‘No’ side is actually supplemental to the ‘Yes’ side…they both preach moderation in diet (avoiding either over-indulgence or ultra-restriction), the ‘No’ side just fails to counter-argue the fact that excessive obsession on eating healthfully is also a poor eating habit.
7) I think the ‘Yes’ side was a little misleading when they quoted Kauffmann almost blaming teachers and pediatricions for being responsible for the children coming to her office with healthy-food-related obsessions. It kind of instills a little fear in the reader regarding people generally in positions of trust (there they go again, using that pathos method on the reader).
8) I disliked the ‘No’ side’s assertion that it is human nature to crave excessive fats and sweets and sugars (I personally feel we train ourselves to want these things and become addicted…these things have addictive natures). I believe they intentionally phrased it that way to shift responsibility onto our ‘human nature’ and provide a reason for excessive control of diet (ie: “unless you are super strict with yourself, your animal instincts will cause you to binge and binge until you are obese and die from diabetes” was the implication I got).
9) I believe the ‘Yes’ side is more correct. As I mentioned above and below, they are also the only side that I feel truly addressed the debate issue regarding whether excessive obsession over healthful eating could be damaging psychologically and physically. (It was actually kind of frustrating to read the ‘No’ side…in my head I kept yelling “you’re not even talking about the question at hand!!”)
10) I absolutely think the ‘Yes’ side did a better job presenting the argument (especially since the ‘No’ side seemed kind of oblivious to the debate at hand) with several references to actual people who had experienced psychological issues surrounding obsession over healthful eating and the negative effects it had on them. The ‘No’ side just kind of handed us some generic, cliché nutrition advice and warnings about the dangers of fast food.
11) So actually, both sides seemed to have about the same level of fact-supported statements and anecdotes…the ‘No’ side was just off on some tangent about eating healthy instead of focusing on the topic of psychological disorders surrounding healthful eating. It seems to me that the ‘No’ side chose this route because they feel that people really SHOULD be paying excessive attention to these things and don’t really believe it can get excessive in a negatively impacting way. In other words, by ignoring the question at hand, they were making a statement that they don’t feel healthful eating can spiral out of control and become unhealthy. They closed their presentation with an order for the reader to take control over their diet…almost seems like the material presented by the ‘No’ side is the exact type of thing that the ‘Yes’ side argues contributes to Orthorexia.
2) The ‘No’ side focuses on the societal diet trends of the country, covering points from portion control to content of food (salts, sugars, carbohydrates, trans-fats, etc) and ending with the admonition to ‘take control’ of our diets to be healthy. While it was all very good information, I was somewhat let down by the lack of actual debate in the ‘No’ side…all of the information presented would no doubt be agreeable advice to the Yes side as well. The ‘No’ side didn’t seem to address the debate question at all and instead just presented some generalized healthy eating habits instead of coming up with counter-arguments. Perhaps the inability of the ‘No’ side to combat the arguments of the opposing side is part of what helped me decide that I agree with the ‘Yes’ side.
3) In my opinion, the two strongest facts presented by the ‘Yes’ side were two actual experiences had with people who struggled with Orthorexia (the obsession over eating healthfully). The first reference was that of a ten year old child who was terrified of trans fats (an anecdote from a nutrition counselor) and the second was a reference to a young lady who obsessed to the point of becoming obviously dangerously unhealthy (68 lbs and <500 calories a day).The topic of eating disorders and psychological problems are largely difficult to diagnose, understand or ‘prove’ since they originate in the minds of humans; but the ‘Yes’ side gave us several examples of real people who displayed physical deterioration and/or psychological disorders regarding eating healthfully.
4) The ‘No’ side did present some good facts regarding calories and nutrition…one such reference was in regards to the increase in soda consumption in 1978 as opposed to now (it’s increased by approximately 300%, with the percentage of obese children rising by 120%). Another fact presented was a summarization of a 12-year study involving almost 70,000 women proving that a “Western” diet significantly raises the risk of coronary heart disease and various cancers. Now…I’m not saying I disagree with that information; it is, in fact, good information. It’s simply not really that relevant to the argument regarding going overboard on eating healthy. (It’s almost like the ‘No’ side is misinterpreting the ‘Yes’ side as saying “there’s no need to eat healthy and you’ll get too skinny and die unless you eat a ding dong”…)
5) An opinion presented by the ‘Yes’ side is a quote from Evelyn Tribole, a nutritionist, regarding advertisers’ tendencies to put such things as “Guilt-Free” on seemingly healthier options, thus creating the illusion that some food choices inherently come with guilt attached (thus helping drive the development of eating disorders). Another opinion is actually the concept of “Orthorexia”…defined as excessive obsession with maintaining a perfect, ‘pure’ diet free from things perceived to be unhealthy (sugars, preservatives, fats, etc) to the point where it becomes an actual psychological disorder similar to Anorexia. Orthorexia has not yet been clinically recognized, but the ‘Yes’ side sounds optimistic that soon it will be an official diagnosis (enabling better help and rehabilitation for those who suffer from it).
6) The first opinion presented by the ‘No’ side is that all the weight issues this country faces can be blamed on ‘too many calories’. They then boil down their argument to one main opinion: all things in moderation. I almost laughed when I read that because it really seems like the ‘No’ side is actually supplemental to the ‘Yes’ side…they both preach moderation in diet (avoiding either over-indulgence or ultra-restriction), the ‘No’ side just fails to counter-argue the fact that excessive obsession on eating healthfully is also a poor eating habit.
7) I think the ‘Yes’ side was a little misleading when they quoted Kauffmann almost blaming teachers and pediatricions for being responsible for the children coming to her office with healthy-food-related obsessions. It kind of instills a little fear in the reader regarding people generally in positions of trust (there they go again, using that pathos method on the reader).
8) I disliked the ‘No’ side’s assertion that it is human nature to crave excessive fats and sweets and sugars (I personally feel we train ourselves to want these things and become addicted…these things have addictive natures). I believe they intentionally phrased it that way to shift responsibility onto our ‘human nature’ and provide a reason for excessive control of diet (ie: “unless you are super strict with yourself, your animal instincts will cause you to binge and binge until you are obese and die from diabetes” was the implication I got).
9) I believe the ‘Yes’ side is more correct. As I mentioned above and below, they are also the only side that I feel truly addressed the debate issue regarding whether excessive obsession over healthful eating could be damaging psychologically and physically. (It was actually kind of frustrating to read the ‘No’ side…in my head I kept yelling “you’re not even talking about the question at hand!!”)
10) I absolutely think the ‘Yes’ side did a better job presenting the argument (especially since the ‘No’ side seemed kind of oblivious to the debate at hand) with several references to actual people who had experienced psychological issues surrounding obsession over healthful eating and the negative effects it had on them. The ‘No’ side just kind of handed us some generic, cliché nutrition advice and warnings about the dangers of fast food.
11) So actually, both sides seemed to have about the same level of fact-supported statements and anecdotes…the ‘No’ side was just off on some tangent about eating healthy instead of focusing on the topic of psychological disorders surrounding healthful eating. It seems to me that the ‘No’ side chose this route because they feel that people really SHOULD be paying excessive attention to these things and don’t really believe it can get excessive in a negatively impacting way. In other words, by ignoring the question at hand, they were making a statement that they don’t feel healthful eating can spiral out of control and become unhealthy. They closed their presentation with an order for the reader to take control over their diet…almost seems like the material presented by the ‘No’ side is the exact type of thing that the ‘Yes’ side argues contributes to Orthorexia.