Dietary Differences

 

1. Describe the basic diet plan for one of the three diets. Explain how the diet is meant to help with weight loss or improved health. Relate this to what you know about metabolism.

2. Describe the basic diet plan of the second of the three diets. Explain how the diet is meant to help with weight loss or improved health. Relate this to what you know about metabolism

3. Explain at least three similarities or differences between your two chosen diets

4. Explain any possible health benefits or concerns (at least 3) that could result from following your chosen diet plans

Sample Solution

Dietary Differences

If you find yourself in a conversation about dieting or weight loss, chances are you will hear of the ketogenic, or keto diet. That is because the keto diet has become one of the most popular methods worldwide to shed excess weight and improve health. Research has demonstrated that adopting this low-carb, high-fat diet can promote fat loss and even improve certain conditions such as type 2 diabetes and cognitive decline (PubMed Central). A healthy ketogenic diet should consist of about 75% fat, 10-30% protein and no more than 55 or 20 to 50 grams of carbs per day. Focus on high-fat, low-carb foods like eggs, meats, dairy and low-carb vegetables, as well as sugar-free beverages. Be sure to restrict highly processed items and unhealthy fats.

ople a guide whether it’s lawful to enter a war or not. However, this is only one part of the theory of the just war. Nevertheless, it can be seen above that jus ad bellum can be debated throughout, showing that there is no definitive theory of a just war, as it is normatively theorised.

The second section begins deciphering jus in bello or what actions can we classify as permissible in just wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 323).

First, it is never just to intentionally kill innocent people in wars, supported by Vittola’s first proposition. This is widely accepted as ‘all people have a right not to be killed’ and if a soldier does, they have violated that right and lost their right. This is further supported by “non-combatant immunity” (Frowe (2011), Page 151), which leads to the question of combatant qualification mentioned later in the essay. This is corroborated by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ending the Second World War, where millions were intently killed, just to secure the aim of war. However, sometimes civilians are accidentally killed through wars to achieve their goal of peace and security. This is supported by Vittola, who implies proportionality again to justify action: ‘care must be taken where evil doesn’t outweigh the possible benefits (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).’ This is further supported by Frowe who explains it is lawful to unintentionally kill, whenever the combatant has full knowledge of his actions and seeks to complete his aim, but it would come at a cost. However, this does not hide the fact the unintended still killed innocent people, showing immorality in their actions. Thus, it depends again on proportionality as Thomson argues (Frowe (2011), Page 141).