Leia o texto para responder a questão.

    Is owning a dog good for your health?

    Dogs really are our best friends, according to a Swedish study that says canine ownership could reduce heart disease. A study of 3.4 million people between the ages of 40 and 80 found that having a dog was associated with a 23% reduction in death from heart disease and a 20% lower risk of dying from any cause over the 12 years of the study.

    Previous studies have suggested dogs relieve social isolation and depression – both linked to an increased risk of heart disease and early death. Dog owners show better responses to stress, their blood pressure and pulse rates don’t soar, have higher levels of physical activity and slightly lower cholesterol levels. The American Heart Association was sufficiently swayed by a review of dozens of studies to release a statement in 2013 saying that owning a dog “was probably” associated with a reduced risk of heart disease. Their reluctance to more strongly endorse dog ownership is because most studies are what is called observational – researchers note an association, but can’t prove causation. This means that other factors might explain why dog owners are healthier than, say, goldfish owners – for example, perhaps only people who are fit in the first place buy pets that need daily walks.

    Tove Fall, an epidemiologist and the lead author of this latest study, says they tried their best to allow for any differences in education, existing ill-health and lifestyles between those with and without dogs. The study found the biggest positive impact of having a dog was on people living alone. “It seems that a dog can be a substitute for living with other people in terms of reducing the risk of dying,” says Fall. “Dogs encourage you to walk, they provide social support and they make life more meaningful. If you have a dog, you interact more with other people. If you do get ill and go into hospital and you have a dog, there’s a huge motivation to try to get back home.” Of course, getting a dog and watching it from your sofa while you eat fatty food is not going to reduce your risk of heart disease.

(Luisa Dillner. www.theguardian.com, 04.12.2017. Adaptado.)

T E X T

    Now, according to an annual survey
by the Babson Survey Research Group and
the Online Learning Consortium, more than
6.3 million students took at least one
[5] distance education course in the Fall 2016
semester (the most recent academic year
for which data is available). That’s 31.6
percent of all higher education
enrollments, according to the study, and
[10] about half of them were taking all of their
classes online.

    Many of these students are traditional
age. But for adult students (generally
defined as those 25 and over, working full

[15] time jobs or with parenting
responsibilities) online education is a
particularly attractive option. Citing several
studies, Louis Soares, chief learning and
innovation officer for the American Council
[20] on Education, says that about a third of all
adult students — roughly 13 million — are
pursuing advanced degrees online.

    “I think it has given adult students
more opportunities,” Mr. Soares said. “If
[25] done correctly, online education can create
a robust learning experience.”

    Research has shown that students can
learn as well online as they can in a face to
face classroom, according to Jovita Ross

[30] Gordon, a professor at Texas State
University.

    “In terms of pros and cons, it offers
great convenience and access for
populations who might not otherwise have
[35] it,” said Professor Ross-Gordon, an expert
on adult education. “But a certain degree
of self-direction is required. And it can be
isolating for some folks.”

    The vast majority of colleges and
[40] universities in the United States offer at
least some online classes, but there are
still those who question its legitimacy and
also the quality of for-profit colleges whose
curriculum is offered solely online.

[45]    Walden University, where Mr. Haynes
is earning his doctoral degree, is one such
institution. He said that he researched the
school through the V.A. and other sources,
and heard positive reports from a friend
[50] who was also pursuing his doctorate in
business administration at Walden, which
Mr. Haynes learned was accredited by the
Accreditation Council for Business Schools.

    For Manda Gibson, online education is
[55] the preferred mode of learning. “I love it,”
said Ms. Gibson, 45, the mother of four,
who works full-time as an instructional
designer at Simpson College in Indianola,
Iowa. Ms. Gibson is pursuing her master’s
[60] in business administration online with

Colorado State University-Global Campus,
and before that earned a bachelor of arts
in management, taking mostly online
classes, at Simpson.

[65]    “When I sit in a regular class, my
mind wanders,” she says. “`Did I do this
for my kids?’ ‘What am I making for dinner
tonight?’ When I do online, I can say, ‘this
hour is my hour.’”

[70]    But she says, with the flexibility of
online education comes responsibility. “You
have to take it seriously,” she said. “Some
people think online classes are easier. I
think it’s actually more work. Because you
[75] might have to spend more time with the
content.”

    Time is a commodity that Mr. Haynes,
like many adult learners, has little of. He
and his wife — Sgt. Chelsea Aiko Haynes
[80] of the Army — have six children, ranging
in age from 1 to 17. He is also active with
the Semper Fi Fund, a nonprofit
organization that provides financial
assistance for catastrophically injured
[85] servicemen and women. But most days,
after the children are off to school and his
wife is at her job at the Pentagon, he sits
down in the living room with his MacBook
Air and gets ready to learn. “I open the
[90] blinds to get some natural sunlight in,” he
said. “The TV’s off, the phone’s on vibrate.
And I commit myself fully to my studies.”

    Here are some tips for success in
online education for adult learners, from
[95] Jeremy Haynes and Manda Gibson, two
students who have flourished in this
learning environment, and from George
Haber, an adjunct professor at Vaughn
College in Queens, and a veteran of over
[100] 25 years of teaching online.

    Set aside specific time periods when
you can do required reading or writing and
stick to the schedule, whether it’s an hour
a night three nights a week; Saturday or
[105] Sunday morning; or some combination.

    Get acquainted with your academic
adviser from the start, as he or she is your
lifeline for anything at the institution.

    Choose a subject for your first
[110] online class that you’re interested in, if
possible. You will be more likely to become
engaged in the material and learn the
technology.

    Ask questions and reach out for help
[115] early. Don’t get frustrated if you don’t
understand something; a quality online
program will not only have self-help
tutorials, but also good student services to
help with the details.

[120]    Take part in any online discussions
or forums. Your lack of participation will be
easily noted by the instructor.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/01/

WEIGHT WATCHERS FOCUSES ON WEIGHT, NOT

    Following Weight Watchers is still not the healthy way to lose weight and keep it off, despite their
newest point system, the “PointsPlus”, where fresh fruits and most vegetables have a zero-point value,
essentially meaning that they are unlimited. This is certainly a positive step, and I applaud Weight
Watchers for taking it. They have tweaked their program a bit to make it healthier. 

[5]   However, the Weight Watchers program is still far from a health-promoting eating style. The
“PointsPlus” system encourages eating foods that produce greater satiety – foods that are higher in fiber
and protein content are more favorably scored. High-fiber foods and high-protein foods are not
nutritionally equivalent. For example, compare beans and grilled chicken. Beans are phytochemical-rich,
protein-adequate, healthful foods with anti-cancer properties and a low glycemic load. Grilled chicken
[10] may also induce satiety because it is very high in protein, but it has no phytochemical content, and it
contains cancer-promoting properties. It is not a food that supports longevity and long-term health.
What’s more, chicken raises IGF-1 in the body, a hormone associated with higher rates of breast cancer.
The problem is that Weight Watchers promotes animal protein as a favorable food to consume, in spite of
the plethora of evidence in recent years linking high IGF-1 to premature aging and cancer.

[15]   Weight Watchers’ guidelines for healthy eating are simply unhealthy and not supported by the
most updated nutritional science. Here are some of their recommendations:

    • They recommend a miniscule five total (half-cup) daily servings of fruits and vegetables
combined which is not nearly enough to achieve disease prevention.

    • They promise to provide a method of weight loss that “fits within one’s lifestyle and
[20] preferences”, assuring potential members that there is “plenty of room for treats and extras.”
To be inclusionary of everyone, they must give watered-down recommendations that are too
close to the disease-causing Standard American Diet. Despite the changes to the points
system that promotes more whole foods, it is still a diet of calorie-counting and controlled
portions of mostly addictive, processed foods.

[25] • They, like most diet plans, attempt to appeal to a mainstream audience who eat a diet of
primarily processed foods and animal products. So they must allow members to continue the
same eating pattern that originally led them down the path to obesity (and also leads to
diabetes, heart disease and cancer). This is evident by Weight Watchers’ line of pre-packaged
foods.

[30] • They sell nutrient-poor, high-sodium, reduced-calorie processed products with lengthy
ingredient lists including added sugars, hydrogenated oils, and white flour—just like
conventional processed foods. The ingredient lists are strategically absent from the Weight
Watchers website, though calorie and point values are visible.

    Weight Watchers is not in the business of health; it is all about weight. Members, and even
[35] leaders, are poorly educated about nutritional science. People are not motivated to eat to win the war
against cancer. Participants continue to be victims of their food addictions because eating a little healthier
and trying to cut back is simply a formula for failure in the vast majority of cases. Weight Watchers gives
lip service to better health and healthier eating, yet continues to sell nutrient-depleted processed junk
food

[40]   A healthy weight is almost impossible to maintain without serious attention to smart nutrition, prevention of all deficiencies, sufficient anti-inflammatory super foods and the resulting elimination of additions and cravings. Weight Watchers mostly serves those who remain forever on the weight loss merry-go-round, struggling with marginally effective recommendations and outcomes

    The Nutritarian diet, as described in my book, The End of Dieting, is not focused on just weight
[45] loss; it is also focused on optimizing health, promoting longevity, and winning the war on cancer. You eat
larger amounts of vegetables, beans and fruits, with attention to eating the most powerful anti-cancer
foods on the planet. Food is rated according to micronutrient content per calorie, not just calories. Eating
delicious, health-promoting foods allows you to lose the cravings and temptations to eat greasy, sugary,
disease-causing foods. More importantly, once you learn how to follow a Nutritarian diet, the weight
[50] comes off dramatically and permanently and you never have to diet again. You become a nutritional
expert who can navigate through life knowing that you can protect yourself from serious and/or tragic
outcomes such as dementia, heart attacks, strokes and cancer. The Nutritarian diet is for people who
want great health and freedom from medical dependency and medical tragedies that eventually afflict
almost all Americans.

By Dr. Joel Fuhrman Retrieved and adapted from https://www.drfuhrman.com/learn/library/articles/46/weight-watchers-focuses-onweight-not-health Access on April 26, 2017.