Questões de Inglês

TEXT 

  Dr. Melissa Li is a pathologist who specializes in gastrointestinal and autopsy pathology at Providence St. Vincent Medical Center in Portland, Ore. She contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights. 

  In mid-February, a committee of top U.S. government scientists and nutritionists presented recommendations for the latest U.S. Dietary Guidelines. They concluded that a diet "higher in plant-based foods … and lower in animal-based foods is more health-promoting and is associated with lesser environmental impact."

  While those findings aren't news to many working in medicine and nutrition, the report represents a shift in what the government may recommend to the American public in the soon-to-be revised U.S. Dietary Guidelines. And that's a good thing. 

  As a pathologist, I see disease daily in biopsies, resections and autopsies. When patients provide me with medical histories, it saddens me to see a litany of illnesses — heart disease , cancer, diabetes, obesity and stroke — that are largely preventable through diet. Simply reducing the amount of meat, eggs and dairy we eat has a profound effect on health, yet, instead, patients take a laundry list of drugs to battle their chronic diseases. As a nation, we pour billions of dollars into treating the symptoms of disease and far less into preventing them. 

  Eating more plant-based meals and less meat has helped prevent and reverse heart disease, and reduce the risk of diabetes, some cancers and obesity. Those findings were supported just weeks ago, at a meeting of the American Heart Association, when researchers released results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study, which started in 1992. The lead researcher, Camille Lassale of Imperial College London, concluded, "A pro-vegetarian diet that emphasizes a higher proportion of plant-based foods compared to animal-based foods may help lower the risks of dying from heart disease and stroke by up to 20 percent." 

  Recommending a more plant-based diet is something that the government has shied away from. This is partly because the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which co-authors the guidelines with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is responsible for managing and promoting agriculture, including animal agriculture. To put it more simply, the USDA is tasked with promoting animal-based products like meat, dairy, and eggs. So while the agency knows what is in the best interest of Americans (eating more plant-based foods), it is torn between giving sound advice (eating more of said plant-based meals and less meat) and protecting one of the largest industries it is tasked to represent. 

  The benefits of a more plant-based diet are far-reaching, and not just for impacting public health. Such diets lead to fewer animals bred and confined on factory farms, as well as a lighter footprint on the environment, with subsequently decreased greenhouse gas emissions. Moving to a more plantbased diet also helps conserve precious natural resources like water and oil. And it helps reduce pollution, as waste from factory farms has contributed to a number of environmental disasters. 

  The good news is plant-based eating is becoming more and more mainstream, with wellknown public health organizations like the American Heart Association, Defeat Diabetes Foundation, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, and hospitals — like the one where I work, Providence St. Vincent — recommending people eat a more plant-based diet. 

  I am seeing that physicians with whom I collaborate on autopsies are now following this advice. For example, my colleagues in neurology who treat patients with neurodegenerative disorders are advocating plant based diets to prevent Alzheimer's disease. 

  One way we support those recommendations at our hospital is by easing patients into eating more plant-based meals with Meatless Monday. That approach is gaining in popularity at thousands of hospitals, as well as at some of the largest school districts in the country (including in Los Angeles, Detroit and Houston), and at universities like Portland State, Oregon State University, Western Oregon University, and many more. It can be as simple as swapping out chicken nuggets with a bean burrito or a veggie burger instead of a hamburger. 

  As a doctor, I'm proud to work at a hospital that embraces health care, not only for treatment but also for prevention. 

From: http://www.livescience.com April 03, 2015 

Besides the impact on public health, other benefits of a plant-based diet would be 

TEXT 

  Dr. Melissa Li is a pathologist who specializes in gastrointestinal and autopsy pathology at Providence St. Vincent Medical Center in Portland, Ore. She contributed this article to Live Science's Expert Voices: Op-Ed & Insights. 

  In mid-February, a committee of top U.S. government scientists and nutritionists presented recommendations for the latest U.S. Dietary Guidelines. They concluded that a diet "higher in plant-based foods … and lower in animal-based foods is more health-promoting and is associated with lesser environmental impact."

  While those findings aren't news to many working in medicine and nutrition, the report represents a shift in what the government may recommend to the American public in the soon-to-be revised U.S. Dietary Guidelines. And that's a good thing. 

  As a pathologist, I see disease daily in biopsies, resections and autopsies. When patients provide me with medical histories, it saddens me to see a litany of illnesses — heart disease , cancer, diabetes, obesity and stroke — that are largely preventable through diet. Simply reducing the amount of meat, eggs and dairy we eat has a profound effect on health, yet, instead, patients take a laundry list of drugs to battle their chronic diseases. As a nation, we pour billions of dollars into treating the symptoms of disease and far less into preventing them. 

  Eating more plant-based meals and less meat has helped prevent and reverse heart disease, and reduce the risk of diabetes, some cancers and obesity. Those findings were supported just weeks ago, at a meeting of the American Heart Association, when researchers released results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study, which started in 1992. The lead researcher, Camille Lassale of Imperial College London, concluded, "A pro-vegetarian diet that emphasizes a higher proportion of plant-based foods compared to animal-based foods may help lower the risks of dying from heart disease and stroke by up to 20 percent." 

  Recommending a more plant-based diet is something that the government has shied away from. This is partly because the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which co-authors the guidelines with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is responsible for managing and promoting agriculture, including animal agriculture. To put it more simply, the USDA is tasked with promoting animal-based products like meat, dairy, and eggs. So while the agency knows what is in the best interest of Americans (eating more plant-based foods), it is torn between giving sound advice (eating more of said plant-based meals and less meat) and protecting one of the largest industries it is tasked to represent. 

  The benefits of a more plant-based diet are far-reaching, and not just for impacting public health. Such diets lead to fewer animals bred and confined on factory farms, as well as a lighter footprint on the environment, with subsequently decreased greenhouse gas emissions. Moving to a more plantbased diet also helps conserve precious natural resources like water and oil. And it helps reduce pollution, as waste from factory farms has contributed to a number of environmental disasters. 

  The good news is plant-based eating is becoming more and more mainstream, with wellknown public health organizations like the American Heart Association, Defeat Diabetes Foundation, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, and hospitals — like the one where I work, Providence St. Vincent — recommending people eat a more plant-based diet. 

  I am seeing that physicians with whom I collaborate on autopsies are now following this advice. For example, my colleagues in neurology who treat patients with neurodegenerative disorders are advocating plant based diets to prevent Alzheimer's disease. 

  One way we support those recommendations at our hospital is by easing patients into eating more plant-based meals with Meatless Monday. That approach is gaining in popularity at thousands of hospitals, as well as at some of the largest school districts in the country (including in Los Angeles, Detroit and Houston), and at universities like Portland State, Oregon State University, Western Oregon University, and many more. It can be as simple as swapping out chicken nuggets with a bean burrito or a veggie burger instead of a hamburger. 

  As a doctor, I'm proud to work at a hospital that embraces health care, not only for treatment but also for prevention. 

From: http://www.livescience.com April 03, 2015 

According to the researcher Camille Lassale, death from heart-related illnesses may be reduced in 20 percent through a diet 

TEXT

  Clifford the Big Red Dog looks fabulous on an iPad. He sounds good, too — tap the screen and hear him pant as a blue truck roars into the frame. “Go, truck, go!” cheers the narrator. But does this count as story time? Or is it just screen time for babies? It is a question that parents, pediatricians and researchers are struggling to answer as children’s books, just like all the other ones, migrate to digital media.

  For years, child development experts have advised parents to read to their children early and often, citing studies showing its linguistic, verbal and social benefits. In June, the American Academy of Pediatrics advised doctors to remind parents at every visit that they should read to their children from birth, prescribing books as enthusiastically as vaccines and vegetables.

  On the other hand, the academy strongly recommends no screen time for children under 2, and less than two hours a day for older children.

  At a time when reading increasingly means swiping pages on a device, and app stores are bursting with reading programs and learning games aimed at infants and preschoolers, which bit of guidance should parents heed? 

  The answer, researchers say, is not yet entirely clear. “We know how children learn to read,” said Kyle Snow, the applied research director at the National Association for the Education of Young Children. “But we don’t know how that process will be affected by digital technology.”

  Part of the problem is the newness of the devices. Tablets and e-readers have not been in widespread use long enough for the sorts of extended studies that will reveal their effects on learning.

  Dr. Pamela High, the pediatrician who wrote the June policy for the pediatrics group, said electronic books were intentionally not addressed. “We tried to do a strongly evidence-based policy statement on the issue of reading starting at a very young age,” she said. “And there isn’t any data, really, on e-books.” 

  But a handful of new studies suggest that reading to a child from an electronic device undercuts the dynamic that drives language development. “There’s a lot of interaction when you’re reading a book with your child,” Dr. High said. “You’re turning pages, pointing at pictures, talking about the story. Those things are lost somewhat when you’re using an e-book.”

  In a 2013 study, researchers found that children ages 3 to 5 whose parents read to them from an electronic book had lower reading comprehension than children whose parents used traditional books. Part of the reason, they said, was that parents and children using an electronic device spent more time focusing on the device itself than on the story (a conclusion shared by at least two other studies).

  “Parents were literally putting their hands over the kids’ hands and saying, ‘Wait, don’t press the button yet. Finish this up first,’ ” said Dr. Julia Parish-Morris, a developmental psychologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the lead author of the 2013 study that was conducted at Temple University. Parents who used conventional books were more likely to engage in what education researchers call “dialogic reading,” the sort of back-and-forth discussion of the story and its relation to the child’s life that research has shown are key to a child’s linguistic development.

  Complicating matters is that fewer and fewer children’s e-books can strictly be described as books, say researchers. As technology evolves, publishers are adding bells and whistles that encourage detours. “What we’re really after in reading to our children is behavior that sparks a conversation,” said Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, a professor of psychology at Temple and co-author of the 2013 study. “But if that book has things that disrupt the conversation, like a game plopped right in the middle of the story, then it’s not offering you the same advantages as an old-fashioned book.” 

  Of course, e-book publishers and app developers point to interactivity as an educational advantage, not a distraction. Many of those bells and whistles — Clifford’s bark, the sleepy narration of “Goodnight Moon,” the appearance of the word “ham” when a child taps the ham in the Green Eggs and Ham app — help the child pick up language, they say. 

  There is some evidence to bear out those claims, at least in relation to other technologies. A study by the University of Wisconsin in 2013 found that 2-year-olds learned words faster with an interactive app as opposed to one that required no action.

  But when it comes to learning language, researchers say, no piece of technology can substitute for a live instructor — even if the child appears to be paying close attention. 

  Patricia K. Kuhl, a director of the Institute for Learning and Brain Sciences at the University of Washington, led a study in 2003 that compared a group of 9-month-old babies who were addressed in Mandarin by a live instructor with a group addressed in Mandarin by an instructor on a DVD. Children in a third group were exposed only to English.

  “The way the kids were staring at the screen, it seemed obvious they would learn better from the DVDs,” she said. But brain scans and language testing revealed that the DVD group “learned absolutely nothing,” Dr. Kuhl said. “Their brain measures looked just like the control group that had just been exposed to English. 

  The only group that learned was the live social interaction group.” In other words, “it’s being talked with, not being talked at,” that teaches children language, Dr. Hirsh-Pasek said. 

  Similarly, perhaps the biggest threat posed by e-books that read themselves to children, or engage them with games, is that they could lull parents into abdicating their educational responsibilities, said Mr. Snow of the National Association for the Education of Young Children.

  “There’s the possibility for e-books to become the TV babysitters of this generation,” he said. “We don’t want parents to say, ‘There’s no reason for me to sit here and turn pages and tell my child how to read the word, because my iPad can do it.’ ” 

  But parents may find it difficult to avoid resorting to tablets. Even literacy advocates say the guidelines can be hard to follow, and that allowing limited screen time is not high on the list of parental missteps. “You might have an infant and think you’re down with the A.A.P. guidelines, and you don’t want your baby in front of a screen, but then you have a grandparent on Skype,” Mr. Snow said. “Should you really be tearing yourself apart? Maybe it’s not the world’s worst thing.”

  “The issue is when you’re in the other room and Skyping with the baby cause he likes it,” he said. Even if screen time is here to stay as a part of American childhood, good old-fashioned books seem unlikely to disappear anytime soon. Parents note that there is an emotional component to paper-andink storybooks that, so far, does not seem to extend to their electronic counterparts, however engaging.

From: www.nytimes.com, OCT. 11, 2014

“As technology evolves, publishers are adding bells and whistles that encourage detours” is an example of

TEXT

  Clifford the Big Red Dog looks fabulous on an iPad. He sounds good, too — tap the screen and hear him pant as a blue truck roars into the frame. “Go, truck, go!” cheers the narrator. But does this count as story time? Or is it just screen time for babies? It is a question that parents, pediatricians and researchers are struggling to answer as children’s books, just like all the other ones, migrate to digital media.

  For years, child development experts have advised parents to read to their children early and often, citing studies showing its linguistic, verbal and social benefits. In June, the American Academy of Pediatrics advised doctors to remind parents at every visit that they should read to their children from birth, prescribing books as enthusiastically as vaccines and vegetables.

  On the other hand, the academy strongly recommends no screen time for children under 2, and less than two hours a day for older children.

  At a time when reading increasingly means swiping pages on a device, and app stores are bursting with reading programs and learning games aimed at infants and preschoolers, which bit of guidance should parents heed? 

  The answer, researchers say, is not yet entirely clear. “We know how children learn to read,” said Kyle Snow, the applied research director at the National Association for the Education of Young Children. “But we don’t know how that process will be affected by digital technology.”

  Part of the problem is the newness of the devices. Tablets and e-readers have not been in widespread use long enough for the sorts of extended studies that will reveal their effects on learning.

  Dr. Pamela High, the pediatrician who wrote the June policy for the pediatrics group, said electronic books were intentionally not addressed. “We tried to do a strongly evidence-based policy statement on the issue of reading starting at a very young age,” she said. “And there isn’t any data, really, on e-books.” 

  But a handful of new studies suggest that reading to a child from an electronic device undercuts the dynamic that drives language development. “There’s a lot of interaction when you’re reading a book with your child,” Dr. High said. “You’re turning pages, pointing at pictures, talking about the story. Those things are lost somewhat when you’re using an e-book.”

  In a 2013 study, researchers found that children ages 3 to 5 whose parents read to them from an electronic book had lower reading comprehension than children whose parents used traditional books. Part of the reason, they said, was that parents and children using an electronic device spent more time focusing on the device itself than on the story (a conclusion shared by at least two other studies).

  “Parents were literally putting their hands over the kids’ hands and saying, ‘Wait, don’t press the button yet. Finish this up first,’ ” said Dr. Julia Parish-Morris, a developmental psychologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the lead author of the 2013 study that was conducted at Temple University. Parents who used conventional books were more likely to engage in what education researchers call “dialogic reading,” the sort of back-and-forth discussion of the story and its relation to the child’s life that research has shown are key to a child’s linguistic development.

  Complicating matters is that fewer and fewer children’s e-books can strictly be described as books, say researchers. As technology evolves, publishers are adding bells and whistles that encourage detours. “What we’re really after in reading to our children is behavior that sparks a conversation,” said Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, a professor of psychology at Temple and co-author of the 2013 study. “But if that book has things that disrupt the conversation, like a game plopped right in the middle of the story, then it’s not offering you the same advantages as an old-fashioned book.” 

  Of course, e-book publishers and app developers point to interactivity as an educational advantage, not a distraction. Many of those bells and whistles — Clifford’s bark, the sleepy narration of “Goodnight Moon,” the appearance of the word “ham” when a child taps the ham in the Green Eggs and Ham app — help the child pick up language, they say. 

  There is some evidence to bear out those claims, at least in relation to other technologies. A study by the University of Wisconsin in 2013 found that 2-year-olds learned words faster with an interactive app as opposed to one that required no action.

  But when it comes to learning language, researchers say, no piece of technology can substitute for a live instructor — even if the child appears to be paying close attention. 

  Patricia K. Kuhl, a director of the Institute for Learning and Brain Sciences at the University of Washington, led a study in 2003 that compared a group of 9-month-old babies who were addressed in Mandarin by a live instructor with a group addressed in Mandarin by an instructor on a DVD. Children in a third group were exposed only to English.

  “The way the kids were staring at the screen, it seemed obvious they would learn better from the DVDs,” she said. But brain scans and language testing revealed that the DVD group “learned absolutely nothing,” Dr. Kuhl said. “Their brain measures looked just like the control group that had just been exposed to English. 

  The only group that learned was the live social interaction group.” In other words, “it’s being talked with, not being talked at,” that teaches children language, Dr. Hirsh-Pasek said. 

  Similarly, perhaps the biggest threat posed by e-books that read themselves to children, or engage them with games, is that they could lull parents into abdicating their educational responsibilities, said Mr. Snow of the National Association for the Education of Young Children.

  “There’s the possibility for e-books to become the TV babysitters of this generation,” he said. “We don’t want parents to say, ‘There’s no reason for me to sit here and turn pages and tell my child how to read the word, because my iPad can do it.’ ” 

  But parents may find it difficult to avoid resorting to tablets. Even literacy advocates say the guidelines can be hard to follow, and that allowing limited screen time is not high on the list of parental missteps. “You might have an infant and think you’re down with the A.A.P. guidelines, and you don’t want your baby in front of a screen, but then you have a grandparent on Skype,” Mr. Snow said. “Should you really be tearing yourself apart? Maybe it’s not the world’s worst thing.”

  “The issue is when you’re in the other room and Skyping with the baby cause he likes it,” he said. Even if screen time is here to stay as a part of American childhood, good old-fashioned books seem unlikely to disappear anytime soon. Parents note that there is an emotional component to paper-andink storybooks that, so far, does not seem to extend to their electronic counterparts, however engaging.

From: www.nytimes.com, OCT. 11, 2014

The word READING in the sentences “At a time when reading increasingly means swiping pages on a device (...), But a handful of new studies suggest that reading to a child from an electronic device (...), and (...) whose parents read to them from an electronic book had lower reading comprehension (...)” functions, respectively, as

TEXT

  Clifford the Big Red Dog looks fabulous on an iPad. He sounds good, too — tap the screen and hear him pant as a blue truck roars into the frame. “Go, truck, go!” cheers the narrator. But does this count as story time? Or is it just screen time for babies? It is a question that parents, pediatricians and researchers are struggling to answer as children’s books, just like all the other ones, migrate to digital media.

  For years, child development experts have advised parents to read to their children early and often, citing studies showing its linguistic, verbal and social benefits. In June, the American Academy of Pediatrics advised doctors to remind parents at every visit that they should read to their children from birth, prescribing books as enthusiastically as vaccines and vegetables.

  On the other hand, the academy strongly recommends no screen time for children under 2, and less than two hours a day for older children.

  At a time when reading increasingly means swiping pages on a device, and app stores are bursting with reading programs and learning games aimed at infants and preschoolers, which bit of guidance should parents heed? 

  The answer, researchers say, is not yet entirely clear. “We know how children learn to read,” said Kyle Snow, the applied research director at the National Association for the Education of Young Children. “But we don’t know how that process will be affected by digital technology.”

  Part of the problem is the newness of the devices. Tablets and e-readers have not been in widespread use long enough for the sorts of extended studies that will reveal their effects on learning.

  Dr. Pamela High, the pediatrician who wrote the June policy for the pediatrics group, said electronic books were intentionally not addressed. “We tried to do a strongly evidence-based policy statement on the issue of reading starting at a very young age,” she said. “And there isn’t any data, really, on e-books.” 

  But a handful of new studies suggest that reading to a child from an electronic device undercuts the dynamic that drives language development. “There’s a lot of interaction when you’re reading a book with your child,” Dr. High said. “You’re turning pages, pointing at pictures, talking about the story. Those things are lost somewhat when you’re using an e-book.”

  In a 2013 study, researchers found that children ages 3 to 5 whose parents read to them from an electronic book had lower reading comprehension than children whose parents used traditional books. Part of the reason, they said, was that parents and children using an electronic device spent more time focusing on the device itself than on the story (a conclusion shared by at least two other studies).

  “Parents were literally putting their hands over the kids’ hands and saying, ‘Wait, don’t press the button yet. Finish this up first,’ ” said Dr. Julia Parish-Morris, a developmental psychologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the lead author of the 2013 study that was conducted at Temple University. Parents who used conventional books were more likely to engage in what education researchers call “dialogic reading,” the sort of back-and-forth discussion of the story and its relation to the child’s life that research has shown are key to a child’s linguistic development.

  Complicating matters is that fewer and fewer children’s e-books can strictly be described as books, say researchers. As technology evolves, publishers are adding bells and whistles that encourage detours. “What we’re really after in reading to our children is behavior that sparks a conversation,” said Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, a professor of psychology at Temple and co-author of the 2013 study. “But if that book has things that disrupt the conversation, like a game plopped right in the middle of the story, then it’s not offering you the same advantages as an old-fashioned book.” 

  Of course, e-book publishers and app developers point to interactivity as an educational advantage, not a distraction. Many of those bells and whistles — Clifford’s bark, the sleepy narration of “Goodnight Moon,” the appearance of the word “ham” when a child taps the ham in the Green Eggs and Ham app — help the child pick up language, they say. 

  There is some evidence to bear out those claims, at least in relation to other technologies. A study by the University of Wisconsin in 2013 found that 2-year-olds learned words faster with an interactive app as opposed to one that required no action.

  But when it comes to learning language, researchers say, no piece of technology can substitute for a live instructor — even if the child appears to be paying close attention. 

  Patricia K. Kuhl, a director of the Institute for Learning and Brain Sciences at the University of Washington, led a study in 2003 that compared a group of 9-month-old babies who were addressed in Mandarin by a live instructor with a group addressed in Mandarin by an instructor on a DVD. Children in a third group were exposed only to English.

  “The way the kids were staring at the screen, it seemed obvious they would learn better from the DVDs,” she said. But brain scans and language testing revealed that the DVD group “learned absolutely nothing,” Dr. Kuhl said. “Their brain measures looked just like the control group that had just been exposed to English. 

  The only group that learned was the live social interaction group.” In other words, “it’s being talked with, not being talked at,” that teaches children language, Dr. Hirsh-Pasek said. 

  Similarly, perhaps the biggest threat posed by e-books that read themselves to children, or engage them with games, is that they could lull parents into abdicating their educational responsibilities, said Mr. Snow of the National Association for the Education of Young Children.

  “There’s the possibility for e-books to become the TV babysitters of this generation,” he said. “We don’t want parents to say, ‘There’s no reason for me to sit here and turn pages and tell my child how to read the word, because my iPad can do it.’ ” 

  But parents may find it difficult to avoid resorting to tablets. Even literacy advocates say the guidelines can be hard to follow, and that allowing limited screen time is not high on the list of parental missteps. “You might have an infant and think you’re down with the A.A.P. guidelines, and you don’t want your baby in front of a screen, but then you have a grandparent on Skype,” Mr. Snow said. “Should you really be tearing yourself apart? Maybe it’s not the world’s worst thing.”

  “The issue is when you’re in the other room and Skyping with the baby cause he likes it,” he said. Even if screen time is here to stay as a part of American childhood, good old-fashioned books seem unlikely to disappear anytime soon. Parents note that there is an emotional component to paper-andink storybooks that, so far, does not seem to extend to their electronic counterparts, however engaging.

From: www.nytimes.com, OCT. 11, 2014 

In the sentence “Those things are lost somewhat when you're using an e-book” contains a/an