Questões de Vestibular Comentadas sobre inglês
Foram encontradas 2.761 questões
T E X T
If all of the children who currently are sedentary started exercising every day, societies could save enormous amounts of money in the coming decades and have healthier citizens as a whole, according to a remarkable new study. In the United States alone, we could expect to save more than $120 billion every year in health care and associated expenses. The study is the first to use sophisticated computer simulations to arrive at a literal and sobering societal price tag for allowing our children to be sedentary.
Inactivity is, of course, widespread among young people today. Recent research shows that in the United States and Europe, physical activity tends to peak at about age 7 for both boys and girls and tail off continually throughout adolescence. More than two-thirds of children in the United States rarely exercise at all.
The immediate health consequences for inactive children and their families are worrisome. Childhood obesity, which is linked to lack of exercise, is common, as is the incidence of Type 2 diabetes and other health problems related to being overweight among children as young as 6.
But the long-term financial costs of inactivity in the young, both for them and society as a whole, have never been quantified. So for the new study, which was published this week in Health Affairs, researchers with the Global Obesity Prevention Center at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and other institutions decided to create a bogglingly complex computer model of what the future could look like if we do or do not get more of our children moving.
The researchers began by gathering as much public data as is currently available about the health, weight and physical activity patterns of all 31.7 million American children now aged 8 to 11, using large-scale databases from the Census Bureau, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other groups.
The researchers fed this information into a computerized modeling program that created an electronic avatar for every American child today. In line with reality, two-thirds of these children were programmed to rarely exercise and many were overweight or obese.
The scientists then had the simulated children grow up. Using estimations about how calorie intake and activity patterns affect body weight, the program changed each virtual child’s body day-by-day and year-by-year into adulthood. Most became increasingly overweight.
As the simulated children became adults, the scientists then modeled each one’s health, based on obesity-associated risks for heart disease, diabetes, stroke and cancer, and also the probable financial price of dealing with those diseases (adjusted for future inflation), both in terms of direct expenses for hospitalizations, drugs and so on, and lost productivity because of someone’s being ill.
The results were staggering. According to the computer model, the costs of today’s 8- to 11- year-olds being inactive and consequently overweight would be almost $3 trillion in medical expenses and lost productivity every year once the children reached adulthood and for decades until their deaths.
But when the researchers tweaked children’s activity levels within their model, the numbers began to look quite different. If they presumed that, in an imaginary America, half of all children exercised vigorously for about 25 minutes three times a week, such as during active recess or sports or, more ambitiously, ran around and moved for at least an hour every day, which is the amount of youth exercise recommended by the C.D.C., their virtual lives were transformed.
Most obviously, the incidence of childhood obesity fell by more than 4 percent, a change that resonated throughout the simulated children’s lives and society. There were about half a million fewer cases of adult-onset heart disease, diabetes, cancer and strokes in this simulation, and the society-wide costs associated with these illnesses dropped by about $32 billion every year if the children romped about for 25 minutes three times per week and by almost $37 billion if they moved for an hour every day.
The impacts were even more substantial when the researchers assumed that 100 percent of the children who are now sedentary got regular exercise. In this scenario, the annual total costs during adulthood from obesity-associated medical expenses and lost productivity plummeted by about $62 billion when children were active three times a week and by more than $120 billion every year when all of the virtual children played and moved for at least an hour each day.
From: https://www.nytimes.com May 3, 2017
T E X T
If all of the children who currently are sedentary started exercising every day, societies could save enormous amounts of money in the coming decades and have healthier citizens as a whole, according to a remarkable new study. In the United States alone, we could expect to save more than $120 billion every year in health care and associated expenses. The study is the first to use sophisticated computer simulations to arrive at a literal and sobering societal price tag for allowing our children to be sedentary.
Inactivity is, of course, widespread among young people today. Recent research shows that in the United States and Europe, physical activity tends to peak at about age 7 for both boys and girls and tail off continually throughout adolescence. More than two-thirds of children in the United States rarely exercise at all.
The immediate health consequences for inactive children and their families are worrisome. Childhood obesity, which is linked to lack of exercise, is common, as is the incidence of Type 2 diabetes and other health problems related to being overweight among children as young as 6.
But the long-term financial costs of inactivity in the young, both for them and society as a whole, have never been quantified. So for the new study, which was published this week in Health Affairs, researchers with the Global Obesity Prevention Center at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and other institutions decided to create a bogglingly complex computer model of what the future could look like if we do or do not get more of our children moving.
The researchers began by gathering as much public data as is currently available about the health, weight and physical activity patterns of all 31.7 million American children now aged 8 to 11, using large-scale databases from the Census Bureau, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other groups.
The researchers fed this information into a computerized modeling program that created an electronic avatar for every American child today. In line with reality, two-thirds of these children were programmed to rarely exercise and many were overweight or obese.
The scientists then had the simulated children grow up. Using estimations about how calorie intake and activity patterns affect body weight, the program changed each virtual child’s body day-by-day and year-by-year into adulthood. Most became increasingly overweight.
As the simulated children became adults, the scientists then modeled each one’s health, based on obesity-associated risks for heart disease, diabetes, stroke and cancer, and also the probable financial price of dealing with those diseases (adjusted for future inflation), both in terms of direct expenses for hospitalizations, drugs and so on, and lost productivity because of someone’s being ill.
The results were staggering. According to the computer model, the costs of today’s 8- to 11- year-olds being inactive and consequently overweight would be almost $3 trillion in medical expenses and lost productivity every year once the children reached adulthood and for decades until their deaths.
But when the researchers tweaked children’s activity levels within their model, the numbers began to look quite different. If they presumed that, in an imaginary America, half of all children exercised vigorously for about 25 minutes three times a week, such as during active recess or sports or, more ambitiously, ran around and moved for at least an hour every day, which is the amount of youth exercise recommended by the C.D.C., their virtual lives were transformed.
Most obviously, the incidence of childhood obesity fell by more than 4 percent, a change that resonated throughout the simulated children’s lives and society. There were about half a million fewer cases of adult-onset heart disease, diabetes, cancer and strokes in this simulation, and the society-wide costs associated with these illnesses dropped by about $32 billion every year if the children romped about for 25 minutes three times per week and by almost $37 billion if they moved for an hour every day.
The impacts were even more substantial when the researchers assumed that 100 percent of the children who are now sedentary got regular exercise. In this scenario, the annual total costs during adulthood from obesity-associated medical expenses and lost productivity plummeted by about $62 billion when children were active three times a week and by more than $120 billion every year when all of the virtual children played and moved for at least an hour each day.
From: https://www.nytimes.com May 3, 2017
T E X T
If all of the children who currently are sedentary started exercising every day, societies could save enormous amounts of money in the coming decades and have healthier citizens as a whole, according to a remarkable new study. In the United States alone, we could expect to save more than $120 billion every year in health care and associated expenses. The study is the first to use sophisticated computer simulations to arrive at a literal and sobering societal price tag for allowing our children to be sedentary.
Inactivity is, of course, widespread among young people today. Recent research shows that in the United States and Europe, physical activity tends to peak at about age 7 for both boys and girls and tail off continually throughout adolescence. More than two-thirds of children in the United States rarely exercise at all.
The immediate health consequences for inactive children and their families are worrisome. Childhood obesity, which is linked to lack of exercise, is common, as is the incidence of Type 2 diabetes and other health problems related to being overweight among children as young as 6.
But the long-term financial costs of inactivity in the young, both for them and society as a whole, have never been quantified. So for the new study, which was published this week in Health Affairs, researchers with the Global Obesity Prevention Center at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and other institutions decided to create a bogglingly complex computer model of what the future could look like if we do or do not get more of our children moving.
The researchers began by gathering as much public data as is currently available about the health, weight and physical activity patterns of all 31.7 million American children now aged 8 to 11, using large-scale databases from the Census Bureau, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other groups.
The researchers fed this information into a computerized modeling program that created an electronic avatar for every American child today. In line with reality, two-thirds of these children were programmed to rarely exercise and many were overweight or obese.
The scientists then had the simulated children grow up. Using estimations about how calorie intake and activity patterns affect body weight, the program changed each virtual child’s body day-by-day and year-by-year into adulthood. Most became increasingly overweight.
As the simulated children became adults, the scientists then modeled each one’s health, based on obesity-associated risks for heart disease, diabetes, stroke and cancer, and also the probable financial price of dealing with those diseases (adjusted for future inflation), both in terms of direct expenses for hospitalizations, drugs and so on, and lost productivity because of someone’s being ill.
The results were staggering. According to the computer model, the costs of today’s 8- to 11- year-olds being inactive and consequently overweight would be almost $3 trillion in medical expenses and lost productivity every year once the children reached adulthood and for decades until their deaths.
But when the researchers tweaked children’s activity levels within their model, the numbers began to look quite different. If they presumed that, in an imaginary America, half of all children exercised vigorously for about 25 minutes three times a week, such as during active recess or sports or, more ambitiously, ran around and moved for at least an hour every day, which is the amount of youth exercise recommended by the C.D.C., their virtual lives were transformed.
Most obviously, the incidence of childhood obesity fell by more than 4 percent, a change that resonated throughout the simulated children’s lives and society. There were about half a million fewer cases of adult-onset heart disease, diabetes, cancer and strokes in this simulation, and the society-wide costs associated with these illnesses dropped by about $32 billion every year if the children romped about for 25 minutes three times per week and by almost $37 billion if they moved for an hour every day.
The impacts were even more substantial when the researchers assumed that 100 percent of the children who are now sedentary got regular exercise. In this scenario, the annual total costs during adulthood from obesity-associated medical expenses and lost productivity plummeted by about $62 billion when children were active three times a week and by more than $120 billion every year when all of the virtual children played and moved for at least an hour each day.
From: https://www.nytimes.com May 3, 2017
Read the text below and answer the questions which follow it.
TechTank
Political polarization on Facebook
Darrell M. West and Joshua Bleiberg.
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Social scientists have built a large body of evidence that people tend to befriend others with similar political beliefs. The research demonstrates that the polarization phenomenon also applies to social networks, like Facebook. The study finds that a Facebook user has approximately five friends with similar political views and only one friend on the other side of the spectrum. In a democracy, to encounter a variety of political opinions is generally seen as a positive value for citizens.
Facebook is not just a social network. It’s the platform that millions of people use to learn about current events. Taking small steps to help combat political polarization in the long run will add to the trust that users have in Facebook.
Adapted from:<https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2015/05/13/political-polarization-on-facebook/>
Read the text below and answer the questions which follow it.
TechTank
Political polarization on Facebook
Darrell M. West and Joshua Bleiberg.
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Social scientists have built a large body of evidence that people tend to befriend others with similar political beliefs. The research demonstrates that the polarization phenomenon also applies to social networks, like Facebook. The study finds that a Facebook user has approximately five friends with similar political views and only one friend on the other side of the spectrum. In a democracy, to encounter a variety of political opinions is generally seen as a positive value for citizens.
Facebook is not just a social network. It’s the platform that millions of people use to learn about current events. Taking small steps to help combat political polarization in the long run will add to the trust that users have in Facebook.
Adapted from:<https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2015/05/13/political-polarization-on-facebook/>
Read the text below and answer the questions which follow it.
TechTank
Political polarization on Facebook
Darrell M. West and Joshua Bleiberg.
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Social scientists have built a large body of evidence that people tend to befriend others with similar political beliefs. The research demonstrates that the polarization phenomenon also applies to social networks, like Facebook. The study finds that a Facebook user has approximately five friends with similar political views and only one friend on the other side of the spectrum. In a democracy, to encounter a variety of political opinions is generally seen as a positive value for citizens.
Facebook is not just a social network. It’s the platform that millions of people use to learn about current events. Taking small steps to help combat political polarization in the long run will add to the trust that users have in Facebook.
Adapted from:<https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2015/05/13/political-polarization-on-facebook/>
Read the text below and answer the questions which follow it.
TechTank
Political polarization on Facebook
Darrell M. West and Joshua Bleiberg.
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Social scientists have built a large body of evidence that people tend to befriend others with similar political beliefs. The research demonstrates that the polarization phenomenon also applies to social networks, like Facebook. The study finds that a Facebook user has approximately five friends with similar political views and only one friend on the other side of the spectrum. In a democracy, to encounter a variety of political opinions is generally seen as a positive value for citizens.
Facebook is not just a social network. It’s the platform that millions of people use to learn about current events. Taking small steps to help combat political polarization in the long run will add to the trust that users have in Facebook.
Adapted from:<https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2015/05/13/political-polarization-on-facebook/>
Text 1
The global warming controversy
The global warming controversy is an ongoing dispute about the effects of humans on global climate and about what policies should be implemented to avoid possible undesirable effects of climate change.
The current scientific consensus on climate change is that recent warming indicates a fairly stable long-term trend, that the trend is largely human-caused, and that serious damage may result at some future date if steps are not taken to halt the trend.
Mainstream scientific organizations worldwide (Royal Society, American Geophysical Union, Joint Science Academies, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, American Meteorological Society, and American Association for the Advancement of Science) concur with the assessment that most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the human-caused increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.
However, there is also a small but vocal number of scientists in climate and climate-related fields that disagree with the consensus view.
Adapted from:< https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/global_warming_controversy.htm.> Access 30 Sept. 2017.
Text 2
Climate change label leads to climate science acceptance
On the heels of President Donald Trump's decision to pull the United States out of the Paris climate agreement, a new Cornell University study finds that labels matter when it comes to acceptance of climate science.
The U.S. public doubts the existence of "global warming" more than it doubts "climate change".
In a nationally representative survey, 74.4 percent of respondents said they believed that climate change is really happening. But only 65.5 percent said they believed in global warming.
Nonetheless, it's important to remember that 65 percent of respondents did indicate that global warming is occurring, said co-author Peter Enns, associate professor of government. "In other words, although the term matters -- climate change versus global warming -- an overwhelming majority of people still state that global warming is happening," he said.
Adapted from:<http://mediarelations.cornell.edu/2017/06/21/climate-change-label-leads-to-climate-science-acceptance/>
Text 1
The global warming controversy
The global warming controversy is an ongoing dispute about the effects of humans on global climate and about what policies should be implemented to avoid possible undesirable effects of climate change.
The current scientific consensus on climate change is that recent warming indicates a fairly stable long-term trend, that the trend is largely human-caused, and that serious damage may result at some future date if steps are not taken to halt the trend.
Mainstream scientific organizations worldwide (Royal Society, American Geophysical Union, Joint Science Academies, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, American Meteorological Society, and American Association for the Advancement of Science) concur with the assessment that most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the human-caused increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.
However, there is also a small but vocal number of scientists in climate and climate-related fields that disagree with the consensus view.
Adapted from:< https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/global_warming_controversy.htm.> Access 30 Sept. 2017.
Text 2
Climate change label leads to climate science acceptance
On the heels of President Donald Trump's decision to pull the United States out of the Paris climate agreement, a new Cornell University study finds that labels matter when it comes to acceptance of climate science.
The U.S. public doubts the existence of "global warming" more than it doubts "climate change".
In a nationally representative survey, 74.4 percent of respondents said they believed that climate change is really happening. But only 65.5 percent said they believed in global warming.
Nonetheless, it's important to remember that 65 percent of respondents did indicate that global warming is occurring, said co-author Peter Enns, associate professor of government. "In other words, although the term matters -- climate change versus global warming -- an overwhelming majority of people still state that global warming is happening," he said.
Adapted from:<http://mediarelations.cornell.edu/2017/06/21/climate-change-label-leads-to-climate-science-acceptance/>
Text 1
The global warming controversy
The global warming controversy is an ongoing dispute about the effects of humans on global climate and about what policies should be implemented to avoid possible undesirable effects of climate change.
The current scientific consensus on climate change is that recent warming indicates a fairly stable long-term trend, that the trend is largely human-caused, and that serious damage may result at some future date if steps are not taken to halt the trend.
Mainstream scientific organizations worldwide (Royal Society, American Geophysical Union, Joint Science Academies, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, American Meteorological Society, and American Association for the Advancement of Science) concur with the assessment that most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the human-caused increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.
However, there is also a small but vocal number of scientists in climate and climate-related fields that disagree with the consensus view.
Adapted from:< https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/global_warming_controversy.htm.> Access 30 Sept. 2017.
Text 2
Climate change label leads to climate science acceptance
On the heels of President Donald Trump's decision to pull the United States out of the Paris climate agreement, a new Cornell University study finds that labels matter when it comes to acceptance of climate science.
The U.S. public doubts the existence of "global warming" more than it doubts "climate change".
In a nationally representative survey, 74.4 percent of respondents said they believed that climate change is really happening. But only 65.5 percent said they believed in global warming.
Nonetheless, it's important to remember that 65 percent of respondents did indicate that global warming is occurring, said co-author Peter Enns, associate professor of government. "In other words, although the term matters -- climate change versus global warming -- an overwhelming majority of people still state that global warming is happening," he said.
Adapted from:<http://mediarelations.cornell.edu/2017/06/21/climate-change-label-leads-to-climate-science-acceptance/>
Text 1
The global warming controversy
The global warming controversy is an ongoing dispute about the effects of humans on global climate and about what policies should be implemented to avoid possible undesirable effects of climate change.
The current scientific consensus on climate change is that recent warming indicates a fairly stable long-term trend, that the trend is largely human-caused, and that serious damage may result at some future date if steps are not taken to halt the trend.
Mainstream scientific organizations worldwide (Royal Society, American Geophysical Union, Joint Science Academies, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, American Meteorological Society, and American Association for the Advancement of Science) concur with the assessment that most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the human-caused increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.
However, there is also a small but vocal number of scientists in climate and climate-related fields that disagree with the consensus view.
Adapted from:< https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/global_warming_controversy.htm.> Access 30 Sept. 2017.
Text 2
Climate change label leads to climate science acceptance
On the heels of President Donald Trump's decision to pull the United States out of the Paris climate agreement, a new Cornell University study finds that labels matter when it comes to acceptance of climate science.
The U.S. public doubts the existence of "global warming" more than it doubts "climate change".
In a nationally representative survey, 74.4 percent of respondents said they believed that climate change is really happening. But only 65.5 percent said they believed in global warming.
Nonetheless, it's important to remember that 65 percent of respondents did indicate that global warming is occurring, said co-author Peter Enns, associate professor of government. "In other words, although the term matters -- climate change versus global warming -- an overwhelming majority of people still state that global warming is happening," he said.
Adapted from:<http://mediarelations.cornell.edu/2017/06/21/climate-change-label-leads-to-climate-science-acceptance/>
by Lisa Eadicicco
Regina Dugan, Facebook's vice president of engineering and head of its secretive Building 8, the future is full of revolutionary technologies that will enable us to communicate without typing keys, tapping screens, or even talking.
Dressed in a dark Steve Jobs-like turtleneck, Dugan announced Wednesday that Facebook has a team of 60 people working on a computer interface powered by the human brain. The system would be capable of "typing" 100 words per minute by decoding users' neural activity, which is five times faster than we're able to type on smartphones. Facebook says the technology could be useful as an input tool for augmented reality devices, or as an aide for people with communication disorders.
Disponível em: <http://time.com/4747050/facebook-f8-day-2-keynote/>. Acesso em: 23 abr. 2017.
Com base no texto, pode-se afirmar que o Facebook
Most Teens Take a Voluntary Week-Long Break From Social Media
by Barbara Ortutay
The common stereotype has teens glued to their phones 24-7. But nearly 60 percent of teens in the U.S. have actually taken a break from social media — the bulk of them voluntarily, a new survey found. The poll, from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, surveyed teens aged 13 to 17 and found that most value the feeling of connection with friends and family that social media provides. A much smaller number associate it with negative emotions, such as being overwhelmed or needing to always show their best selves. The survey, released Thursday, found that teens' social media breaks are typically a week or longer, and that boys are more likely to take longer breaks.
Disponível em: <http://time.com/4758172/teenagers-social-media-break-survey/>. Acesso em: 23 abr. 2017.
De acordo com o texto, pode-se inferir que
by Eva Hershaw
Chinese scientists have transplanted the head of a donor rat onto the back of a host body, creating an equally garish and impressive two-headed rat that may offer insights into the viability of an eventual human head transplant.
The process, which was done by way of a rat triad, which included a donor, recipient, and blood supply rat, provided a continuous blood supply to the donor brain throughout the transplant, avoiding brain tissue hypothermia — a condition where the brain suffers in absence of a blood supply. The problem has long been one of the major barriers to carrying out a successful head transplant in animal specimens.
Disponível em: <https://www.seeker.com/health/medicine/surgeons-conduct-head-transplants-on-rats-sayhumans-are-next>. Acesso em: 23 abr. 2017.
Com base no texto, é possível afirmar que
I. um transplante de cabeça foi realizado em ratos. II. cientistas planejam transplantar cabeça em humanos. III. o rato que recebeu o transplante não sobreviveu. IV. o rato teve sua cabeça substituída por uma outra. V. dois ratos foram usados no procedimento descrito.
Assinale a alternativa que apresenta apenas afirmativas corretas.
by Rossella Lorenzi
Researchers investigating a 14th century burial ground have identified a rare case of "coffin birth" - a gruesome phenomenon in which a deceased pregnant woman's fetus is expelled within the grave. The event, which has seldom been reported in archaeology, is known as postmortem fetal extrusion. It results from a build-up of gas pressure within the decomposing body. "In this case, we have a partial expulsion of a 38- to 40-week-old fetus, which was found to be complete and to lie within the birth canal," Deneb Cesana, at the University of Genova, told Seeker.
Disponível em: <https://www.seeker.com/coffin-birth-found-in-black-death-burial-2333620306.html>. Acesso em: 23 abr. 2017.
Com base no texto, é correto afirmar que
Disponível em: <http://www.callouscomics.com/index/14-november-2014>. Acesso em: 22 abr. 2017.
Sobre a tirinha, pode-se concluir que o homem
SpaceX launched a top-secret spy satellite for the U.S. government Monday morning and then successfully landed the booster for recycling. The unmanned Falcon 9 rocket lifted off from its NASA-leased pad at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. It was SpaceX's first mission for the National Reconnaissance Office. No details were divulged about the newly launched NRO satellite. Instead, SpaceX focused its webcast on the successful touchdown of the first-stage booster. The leftover booster — its job done — landed at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station several minutes after liftoff. Sonic booms rattled the area, serving as a Monday morning wake-up call. Across the country, cheers erupted at SpaceX Mission Control at company headquarters in Hawthorne, California. SpaceX strives to return most of its boosters for reuse.
The company's first recycled rocket flew last month. This was the fourth SpaceX booster landing at Cape Canaveral; even more have landed on ocean platforms.
Disponível em: <http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/spacex-launches-spy-satellite-1.4093085>. Acesso em: 23 abr. 2017.
According to the text,
I. SpaceX is a technology company which launches satellites. II. Falcon 9 is a new top-secret U.S. government spy satellite. III. present technology allows for the use of recycled rockets. IV. the satellite was launched in secrecy from Hawthorne, California. V. NRO and SpaceX have worked on previous satellite projects.
Assinale a alternativa que apresenta apenas afirmativas corretas.
by Alexa Erickson
Breakfast is the most important meal of the day, right? So why not have two? There’s a growing trend promoting a “second breakfast” as a weight-loss mechanism. The idea: If you eat more in the morning, you’ll be less likely to snack at night, when, according to research, it’s harder to burn off calories. Now there’s research adding weight to this claim.
A study conducted by researchers at Yale and the University of Connecticut suggests that eating something small to jump-start your metabolism followed by a slightly larger meal an hour or two later can keep you satiated until lunchtime and help prevent overeating throughout the rest of the day. The study, published in the journal Pediatric Obesity, tracked the weight and breakfast-eating patterns of students from 12 randomly selected urban area schools over the course of two years. The team looked at six different eating patterns: frequent breakfast skippers, inconsistent school eaters, inconsistent home eaters, frequent school eaters, frequent home eaters, and double-breakfast eaters. They found that it was the frequent breakfast skippers who showed increased odds of becoming overweight or obese compared to the double-breakfast eaters.
Disponível em: <http://www.rd.com/health/diet-weight-loss/could-eating-second-breakfast-help-you-lose-weight/>. Acesso em: 23 abr. 2017.
De acordo com o texto,
I. tomar café da manhã em duas etapas parece ajudar a perder peso. II. pessoas que não tomam café com frequência tendem a ser magras. III. este estudo avalia hábitos alimentares de 12 grupos de estudantes. IV. os pesquisadores acham que é mais difícil perder peso à noite. V. aqueles que comem mais de manhã tendem a comer menos à noite.
Assinale a alternativa que apresenta apenas afirmativas corretas.
Conheça nossos planos