help with crit assgn due in 48 hours

Disclaimer: This is a machine generated PDF of selected content from our products. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace original scanned PDF. Neither Cengage Learning nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the machine generated PDF. The PDF is automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. CENGAGE LEARNING AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the machine generated PDF is subject to all use restrictions contained in The Cengage Learning Subscription and License Agreement and/or the Gale College Collection Terms and Conditions and by using the machine generated PDF functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against Cengage Learning or its licensors for your use of the machine generated PDF functionality and any output derived therefrom.

The case for lo pro: why America's latest dietary fetish is bad for just about everybody Author: Maddie Oatman Date: September-October 2016 From: Mother Jones(Vol. 41, Issue 5) Publisher: Foundation for National Progress Document Type: Article Length: 945 words

Full Text:  [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

YOU MIGHT NOTICE, the next time you go grocery shopping, that supermarket aisles are turning into one big advertisement for protein. The health claims are everywhere. Wheyhey ice cream--"20 g of protein per pot"--promises to help with "losing weight" and "skin anti aging." P28 high-protein sliced bread wants to be "part of your journey to a healthy lifestyle." Kellogg's Special K Protein cereal "satisfies hunger longer." Everyone at work seems to be on a high-protein Paleo diet. And American consumers, according to one business analytics firm, spend about $250 million a year on protein powder alone.

Given all the hype, it might come as no surprise that American adults are eating roughly double the average daily protein recommendation of 60 grams for women and 70 grams for men. "If you have enough calories in your diet, not getting enough protein would be very, very hard," journalist Marta Zaraska told me when I interviewed her for Bite, Mother Jones food podcast.

So what's driving the overconsumption? In her recent book, Meathooked: The History and Science of Our 2.5-Million-Year Obsession With Meat, Zaraska traces the origins of America's love affair with protein back to a shaky research finding from the 1800s: German scientist Carl von Voit set out to determine how much protein soldiers and hard laborers required by observing how much protein they consumed (150 grams a day). "It's a bit like observing children stuffing themselves with cookies and concluding that young humans require tons of sugar to grow," Zaraska writes. By 1944, the US Department of Agriculture had halved the von Voit recommendation, but the myth persisted.

Most of the protein we eat comes from animals: The average American adult ate roughly 225 pounds of meat and fish last year. Until fairly recently, conventional wisdom held that meat, which contains large amounts of essential amino acids, provides our bodies with "complete" proteins, whereas plants cannot. But that's not really true. Zaraska credits part of the misunderstanding to, ironically enough, the 1971 bestseller Diet for a Small Planet. Frances Moore Lappe's seminal manual for low-impact living encouraged vegetarians to (painstakingly) chart the amino acid content of the plant foods they consumed and "complete" the proteins by eating those foods in complementary combinations.

It's true that some plant foods are low in certain essential amino acids. Beans, for instance, are lacking in methionine, whereas grains have plenty. But by the 1980s, scientists had figured out that "the liver can store the amino acids so we don't have to combine them in one meal," explains the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. And plant-derived foods such as buckwheat, quinoa, and soy can deliver complete proteins in one fell swoop. Lappe apologized in her 20th-anniversary edition for reinforcing a "myth"--one perpetuated by websites like Paleo Leap, which touts meat's protein benefits and claims "the only people who have to worry about mixing and matching specific protein sources are vegetarians."

Many health experts now say that if you eat a broad range of foods, vegetarian or otherwise, you needn't give protein a second thought. The Institute of Medicine's latest intake recommendation is 0.36 grams of protein daily per pound of body weight, and slightly more if you're pregnant or lactating. Being neither, and a bit lighter than average, I need about 44 grams a day. But when I tallied up everything I ate one day this past spring, I was startled to discover I had downed 64 grams of protein without even trying. Cashew milk with my morning oatmeal (15 grams total), black beans (7 grams), and cheese ravioli (12 grams) easily put me over the top, and I don't even eat meat! Considering the protein content of a four-ounce serving of chicken breast (35 grams) or skirt steak (29 grams), it's easy to see how we well-fed Americans overshoot our daily needs.

It's not that a little extra protein will hurt you, says Christopher Gardner, a professor of medicine at Stanford University. For most people, it's fine. But "high protein" food products often come packed with other, less healthy ingredients. Consider Cheerios Protein: When the cereal launched in 2014, General Mills claimed its new O's would provide "long-lasting energy," but that likely had more to do with the fact that Cheerios Protein contains 14 times as much added sugar as regular Cheerios--with just a touch more protein.

But while Gardner worries that our protein obsession is edging out real foods--"We're saying, I'm going to have a bar as a meal,' which means it's coming with fewer of the natural nutrients"--his bigger concern is the environmental impact. Some two-thirds of the protein we eat is from animals, which are resource intensive. Producing a one-third-pound hamburger, for instance, requires 660 gallons of water--to say nothing of the deforestation, water pollution, habitat loss, and desertification related to meat, egg, and dairy operations. The food system is responsible for roughly a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions--and most of that comes from raising livestock.

In 2015, the advisory committee for federal dietary guidelines urged a shift away from meat and toward a plant-heavy diet that is "more health promoting" and "associated with lesser environmental impact." The meat industry's friends in Congress made sure the environmental precautions were left out of the final guidelines. But Oxford University researchers upped the ante this year, estimating that a global shift from animal proteins to a more plant-based diet could slash food-related emissions by up to 70 percent by 2050. So the next time you hit the steakhouse or stock up on beef jerky, just be aware that your amino habit could, in the words of the Oxford team, have "major ramifications" for the planet's health.

Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2016 Foundation for National Progress http://www.motherjones.com Source Citation (MLA 9th Edition)    Oatman, Maddie. "The case for lo pro: why America's latest dietary fetish is bad for just about everybody." Mother Jones, vol. 41, no.

5, Sept.-Oct. 2016, pp. 66+. Gale College Collection, link.gale.com/apps/doc//GCCO?u=tihsho_b&sid=lms- GCCO&xid=eb510109. Accessed 18 Feb. 2025.

Gale Document Number: GALE|A462045844

Disclaimer: This is a machine generated PDF of selected content from our products. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace original scanned PDF. Neither Cengage Learning nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the machine generated PDF. The PDF is automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. CENGAGE LEARNING AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the machine generated PDF is subject to all use restrictions contained in The Cengage Learning Subscription and License Agreement and/or the Gale College Collection Terms and Conditions and by using the machine generated PDF functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against Cengage Learning or its licensors for your use of the machine generated PDF functionality and any output derived therefrom.

The case for lo pro: why America's latest dietary fetish is bad for just about everybody Author: Maddie Oatman Date: September-October 2016 From: Mother Jones(Vol. 41, Issue 5) Publisher: Foundation for National Progress Document Type: Article Length: 945 words

Full Text:  [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

YOU MIGHT NOTICE, the next time you go grocery shopping, that supermarket aisles are turning into one big advertisement for protein. The health claims are everywhere. Wheyhey ice cream--"20 g of protein per pot"--promises to help with "losing weight" and "skin anti aging." P28 high-protein sliced bread wants to be "part of your journey to a healthy lifestyle." Kellogg's Special K Protein cereal "satisfies hunger longer." Everyone at work seems to be on a high-protein Paleo diet. And American consumers, according to one business analytics firm, spend about $250 million a year on protein powder alone.

Given all the hype, it might come as no surprise that American adults are eating roughly double the average daily protein recommendation of 60 grams for women and 70 grams for men. "If you have enough calories in your diet, not getting enough protein would be very, very hard," journalist Marta Zaraska told me when I interviewed her for Bite, Mother Jones food podcast.

So what's driving the overconsumption? In her recent book, Meathooked: The History and Science of Our 2.5-Million-Year Obsession With Meat, Zaraska traces the origins of America's love affair with protein back to a shaky research finding from the 1800s: German scientist Carl von Voit set out to determine how much protein soldiers and hard laborers required by observing how much protein they consumed (150 grams a day). "It's a bit like observing children stuffing themselves with cookies and concluding that young humans require tons of sugar to grow," Zaraska writes. By 1944, the US Department of Agriculture had halved the von Voit recommendation, but the myth persisted.

Most of the protein we eat comes from animals: The average American adult ate roughly 225 pounds of meat and fish last year. Until fairly recently, conventional wisdom held that meat, which contains large amounts of essential amino acids, provides our bodies with "complete" proteins, whereas plants cannot. But that's not really true. Zaraska credits part of the misunderstanding to, ironically enough, the 1971 bestseller Diet for a Small Planet. Frances Moore Lappe's seminal manual for low-impact living encouraged vegetarians to (painstakingly) chart the amino acid content of the plant foods they consumed and "complete" the proteins by eating those foods in complementary combinations.

It's true that some plant foods are low in certain essential amino acids. Beans, for instance, are lacking in methionine, whereas grains have plenty. But by the 1980s, scientists had figured out that "the liver can store the amino acids so we don't have to combine them in one meal," explains the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. And plant-derived foods such as buckwheat, quinoa, and soy can deliver complete proteins in one fell swoop. Lappe apologized in her 20th-anniversary edition for reinforcing a "myth"--one perpetuated by websites like Paleo Leap, which touts meat's protein benefits and claims "the only people who have to worry about mixing and matching specific protein sources are vegetarians."

Many health experts now say that if you eat a broad range of foods, vegetarian or otherwise, you needn't give protein a second thought. The Institute of Medicine's latest intake recommendation is 0.36 grams of protein daily per pound of body weight, and slightly more if you're pregnant or lactating. Being neither, and a bit lighter than average, I need about 44 grams a day. But when I tallied up everything I ate one day this past spring, I was startled to discover I had downed 64 grams of protein without even trying. Cashew milk with my morning oatmeal (15 grams total), black beans (7 grams), and cheese ravioli (12 grams) easily put me over the top, and I don't even eat meat! Considering the protein content of a four-ounce serving of chicken breast (35 grams) or skirt steak (29 grams), it's easy to see how we well-fed Americans overshoot our daily needs.

It's not that a little extra protein will hurt you, says Christopher Gardner, a professor of medicine at Stanford University. For most people, it's fine. But "high protein" food products often come packed with other, less healthy ingredients. Consider Cheerios Protein: When the cereal launched in 2014, General Mills claimed its new O's would provide "long-lasting energy," but that likely had more to do with the fact that Cheerios Protein contains 14 times as much added sugar as regular Cheerios--with just a touch more protein.

But while Gardner worries that our protein obsession is edging out real foods--"We're saying, I'm going to have a bar as a meal,' which means it's coming with fewer of the natural nutrients"--his bigger concern is the environmental impact. Some two-thirds of the protein we eat is from animals, which are resource intensive. Producing a one-third-pound hamburger, for instance, requires 660 gallons of water--to say nothing of the deforestation, water pollution, habitat loss, and desertification related to meat, egg, and dairy operations. The food system is responsible for roughly a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions--and most of that comes from raising livestock.

In 2015, the advisory committee for federal dietary guidelines urged a shift away from meat and toward a plant-heavy diet that is "more health promoting" and "associated with lesser environmental impact." The meat industry's friends in Congress made sure the environmental precautions were left out of the final guidelines. But Oxford University researchers upped the ante this year, estimating that a global shift from animal proteins to a more plant-based diet could slash food-related emissions by up to 70 percent by 2050. So the next time you hit the steakhouse or stock up on beef jerky, just be aware that your amino habit could, in the words of the Oxford team, have "major ramifications" for the planet's health.

Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2016 Foundation for National Progress http://www.motherjones.com Source Citation (MLA 9th Edition)    Oatman, Maddie. "The case for lo pro: why America's latest dietary fetish is bad for just about everybody." Mother Jones, vol. 41, no.

5, Sept.-Oct. 2016, pp. 66+. Gale College Collection, link.gale.com/apps/doc//GCCO?u=tihsho_b&sid=lms- GCCO&xid=eb510109. Accessed 18 Feb. 2025.

Gale Document Number: GALE|A462045844