题目内容
The Americans are eating food which is far too sweet. That people load up with more sugar than ever is unquestionable—156 pounds of added sugars per person last year, up from 144 pounds in 1994, which in turn was up from 127 pounds in 1986. The average American now consumes more than 20 teaspoons of added sugars a day, twice the amount recommended by health experts worldwide. In the frenzy to cut back on fats, people have turned to sugar with a vengeance as a feel-good food. The consumption of fructose alone has risen tenfold since 1975. By squeezing out more nutritious foods like fruits, vegetables, whole grains and low-fat dairy products that can help to prevent disease, a high-sugar diet might be making an important contribution to such problems as osteoporosis, cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease and, of course, tooth decay. And by contributing so many easy-to-consume empty calories to our daily diets, added sugars are Undoubtedly a major factor in the precipitous rise in obesity among both children and adults. To make matters worse, most heavy sweetened foods are also high-fat foods. In recent decades sugar has become a pervasive added ingredient in many processed foods, including some that most people think are food for them. These include fruit snacks, flavored yogurt, frozen yogurt, granola bars, frozen fruit bars, juice drinks, sorbet, bran and fruit muffins and breakfast cereals. Yet, because food labels now list only total sugars —a combination of sugars naturally in foods and those added by processors — most people have no idea how much extra sugar they consume. Looking at the ingredients list may offer few clues to the amount of caloric sweeteners that have been added to the product, since manufacturers Can list separately items like high-fructose corn syrup, honey, fruit syrup, molasses and barley malt, and not ever use the word "sugar". Sodas are the largest single source of added sugars — 33% of the total — and recent studies have linked the frequent consumption of sugar-sweetened soft drinks to obesity. People apparently do not compensate for the excess calories they consume as liquids as effectively as they do for the calories in solid foods. One 12-ounce can of soda supplies 160 sweet calories — or 40 grams of sugar. Nearly a tenth of the calories consumed by American teenagers come from nutritionally empty soda, which they drink at the expense of calcium-rich milk and vitamin-rich fruit juices. As a result, many young Americans today are reaching the age of-maximum bone growth with bones highly prone to osteoporosis. A nutritionally sound diet should derive no more than 10% of its calories from added sugar; American children now consume nearly twice that amount. The average teenager derives 19% of calories from added sugar, with the average boys consuming 34 teaspoons and the average girls consuming 24 teaspoons of added sugar daily, Younger children, too, have diets far sweeter than desirable: 6 to 11-year-olds get 18% of their calories from added sugars. The usual argument against listing added sugars on food labels is that the human body makes no distinction between the sugars that occur naturally in foods and those that are added in factories or at the table. It processes all sugar in pretty much the same way, whether it was formed in fruit as it ripened or was added when it was canned. But this metabolic fact ignores important nutritional and health concerns. The sugars naturally present in fruit and milk, for example, come in a package laden with essential nutrients. The sugar added to canned fruit or frozen yogurt brings in nothing but calories. And if enough added sugar calories are present in a person’s diet, there is less room for the nutrient-rich foods that can help to prevent serious chronic diseases. As things now stand, the consumer has no way to know how much sugar was naturally present in a food or drink before it was processed and how much sugar the manufacturer added. Look, for example, at the nutrition information on a container of skim milk. It states that an 8-ounce serving contains 11 grams of sugar, which may create the impression that it is no worse for a person, in terms of sugar content, than a sweetened breakfast cereal with the same amount of sugar per serving. But the sugar in milk is put there by the cow, along with calcium, protein and other nutrients ; the sugar in the cereal, which amounts to nearly a tablespoon of sugar, was added by the manufacturer and serves only to dilute the nutrient value of the grain, which contains little or no sugar. Don’t be fooled by products that claim to contain" all natural" sweeteners. Added ingredients like brown sugar, raw sugar, fruit sugar, high-fructose corn syrup, honey or maple syrup are treated no differently from table sugar once they enter the bloodstream. When it comes to the sugar contained in the products, what do food labels only show
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
Opinion polls are now beginning to show that, whoever is to blame and whatever happens from now on, high unemployment is probably here to stay. This means we shall have to make ways of sharing the available employment more widely.But we need to further, We must ask some primary questions about the future of work. Would we continue to treat employment as the norm Would we not rather encourage many other ways for self-respecting people to work Should we not create conditions in which many of us can work for ourselves, rather than for an employer Should we not aim to revive the household and the neighborhood, as well as the factory and the office, as centers of production and workThe industrial age has been the only period of human history during which most people’s work has taken the form of jobs. The industrial age may now be coming to an end, and some of the changes in work patterns which it brought may have to be reversed. This seems a daunting thought. But, in fact, it could provide the prospect of a better future for work. University employment, as its history shows, has not meant economic freedom.Employment became widespread when the enclosures of the 17th and 18th centuries made many people dependent on paid work by depriving them of the use of the land, and thus of the means to provide a living for themselves. Then the factory system destroyed the cottage industries and removed work from people’s homes. Later, as transportation improved, first by rail and then by road, people commuted longer distances to their places of employment until, eventually, many people’s work lost all connection with their home lives and the place in which they lived.Meanwhile, employment put women at a disadvantage. In pre-industrial time, men and women had shared the productive work of the household and village community, Now it became a custom for the husband to go out to be paid through employment, leaving the unpaid work of the home and family to his wife. Tax and benefit regulations still assume this norm today and restrict more flexible sharing Of work roles between the sexes.It was not only women whose work status suffered. As employment became the dominant form of work, young people and old people were excluded—a problem now, as more teenagers become frustrated at school and more retired people want to live active lives.All this may now have to change. The time has certainly come to switch some effort and resources away from the idealist goal of creating jobs for all, to the urgent practical task of helping many people to manage without full time jobs. The effects of almost universal employment were overwhelming in that ().
When doctors need information about what does of medication to prescribe, they usually consult a fat navy-blue book called The Physicians’ Desk Reference, or PDR, an extensive compilation of data about drugs form their manufacturers. But the doses recommended in the PDR may be too high for many people and may cause adverse reactions, ranging from dizziness trod nausea all the way to death, according to an article published last month in the journal Postgraduate Medicine.For many drugs—including Viagra, Prozac and some medicines used to treat high blood pressure, allergies, insomnia and high cholesterol—smaller doses would work just as well, With far less risk of bad reactions, said Jay Cohen, the author of the article."Side effects drive a lot of people out of treatment that they need," Dr. Cohen said, nothing that people with chronic conditions like high blood pressure, headaches and depression often gave up trying to treat their illness when they found that the cure was worse than the disease. But if doctors were to individualize dosages for each patient, more people might take their medicine.Dr. Cohen said he became aware of the problem because he encountered many patients who suffered from side effects even though they had taken what were supposedly the correct doses of medicine. When Dr. Cohen consulted medical journals and textbooks, he discovered studies showing that many patients were helped by smaller than usual amounts of medication. And many of his own patients did better with reduced doses of medicine.He said his findings helped explain a study published last year by other researchers, who reported that drug reactions in hospitals were among the nation’s leading causes of death, killing more than 100,000 Americans a year. The deaths that the team studied were not due to medication errors by doctors or patients; they occurred in people taking doses thought to be correct.Dosing guidelines generally tend to be too high because they are based on studies conducted in limited numbers of patients by drug companies when they are seeking approval for new products. For those studies to run efficiently, doses need to be high enough to show as quickly as possible that the drug works. But later, after the drug is approved, far more people take it, sometimes along with other drugs, and individual differences begin to show up. Yet, that information does not always make it into the PDR and it is not well taught in medical school, Cohen said.Dr. Cohen cautioned that patients should not begin tinkering with doses of prescription drugs on their own. He said they needed to work with doctors to adjust the doses safely. With some drugs, doses cannot be changed. And in emergencies, he said, it is always safest to stick with recommended doses. In the last paragraph, the phrase "tinkering with" may be replaced by ().
When you close your eyes and try to think of the shape of your own body, what you imagine (or, rather, what you feel) is quite different from what you see when you open your eyes and look in the mirror. The image you feel is much vaguer than the one you see. And if you lie still, it is quite hard to imagine yourself as having any particular size of shape. When you move, when you feel the weight of your arms and legs and the natural resistance of the objects around you, the "felt image" of yourself starts to become clearer. It is almost as if it were created by your own actions and the sensations they cause. The image you make for yourself has rather strange proportions: certain parts feel much larger than they look. If you poke your tongue into a hole in one of your teeth, it feels enormous; you are often surprised by how small it looks when you inspect it in the mirror. But although the "felt image" may not have the exact shape you see in the mirror, it is much more important. It is the image through which you recognize your physical existence in the world. In spite of its strange proportions, it is all one piece, and since it has a consisent right and felt and top and bottom, it allows you to locate new sensations when they occur. It allows you to find nose in the dark, scratch itches and point to pain. If the felt image is damaged for any reason—if it is cut in half or lost, as it often is after certain strokes which wipe out recognition of one entire side—these tasks become almost impossible. What is more, it becomes hard to make sense of one’s own visual appearance. If one half of the felt image is wiped out or injured, the patient stops recognizing the affected of his body. It is hard for him to find the location of sensation on that side, and, although he fells doctor’s touch, he locates it as being on the undamaged side. He loses his ability to accept the affected side as part of his body even when he can see it. If you throw him a pair of gloves and ask him to put them on, he will only glove one hand and leave the other bear. And yet he had had to use the left hand in order to glove the right. The fact that he can see the ungloved hand doesn’t seem to help him, and there is no reason why it should. He can no longer reconcile what he sees with what he feels—the ungloved object lying on the left may look like a hand, but, since there is no felt image corresponding to it, why sould he claim the object as his The "felt image" lets you recognize your physical existence in the world.
When doctors need information about what does of medication to prescribe, they usually consult a fat navy-blue book called The Physicians’ Desk Reference, or PDR, an extensive compilation of data about drugs form their manufacturers. But the doses recommended in the PDR may be too high for many people and may cause adverse reactions, ranging from dizziness trod nausea all the way to death, according to an article published last month in the journal Postgraduate Medicine.For many drugs—including Viagra, Prozac and some medicines used to treat high blood pressure, allergies, insomnia and high cholesterol—smaller doses would work just as well, With far less risk of bad reactions, said Jay Cohen, the author of the article."Side effects drive a lot of people out of treatment that they need," Dr. Cohen said, nothing that people with chronic conditions like high blood pressure, headaches and depression often gave up trying to treat their illness when they found that the cure was worse than the disease. But if doctors were to individualize dosages for each patient, more people might take their medicine.Dr. Cohen said he became aware of the problem because he encountered many patients who suffered from side effects even though they had taken what were supposedly the correct doses of medicine. When Dr. Cohen consulted medical journals and textbooks, he discovered studies showing that many patients were helped by smaller than usual amounts of medication. And many of his own patients did better with reduced doses of medicine.He said his findings helped explain a study published last year by other researchers, who reported that drug reactions in hospitals were among the nation’s leading causes of death, killing more than 100,000 Americans a year. The deaths that the team studied were not due to medication errors by doctors or patients; they occurred in people taking doses thought to be correct.Dosing guidelines generally tend to be too high because they are based on studies conducted in limited numbers of patients by drug companies when they are seeking approval for new products. For those studies to run efficiently, doses need to be high enough to show as quickly as possible that the drug works. But later, after the drug is approved, far more people take it, sometimes along with other drugs, and individual differences begin to show up. Yet, that information does not always make it into the PDR and it is not well taught in medical school, Cohen said.Dr. Cohen cautioned that patients should not begin tinkering with doses of prescription drugs on their own. He said they needed to work with doctors to adjust the doses safely. With some drugs, doses cannot be changed. And in emergencies, he said, it is always safest to stick with recommended doses. We may infer from the text that ().
微信支付 
支付宝支付