Textos para Praticar a Leitura em Inglês – 19 12 16
Seguem abaixo 4 textos com nível de testes de proficiência de mestrados para você praticar sua leitura em inglês.
Saúde – Short-term, low-carb diets better for weight loss than low-fat diets
Trying to work out the best way to shift those extra festive pounds ready for the new year? Well, look no further; Mayo Clinic physicians say that low-carb diets are slightly better than low-fat diets for weight loss in the short-term.
Low-carb diets found to be slightly better for weight loss in the short-term, compared with low-fat diets.
The plethora of diets on the weight loss market is often confusing. Low-carb diets, in particular, go under numerous names – such as Atkins, South Beach, Paleo, and Ketogenic. So which of these is the best option for weight loss? Are the diets safe, and is there a huge difference in results between them?
The Mayo Clinic in Arizona aimed to review studies that examine low-carb diets, in order to find out if they are safe and effective for weight loss, and cardiovascular and metabolic health. They published the results of their study in The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association.
Depending on the diet, the physicians found that the definition of low-carb diet is highly variable. Previous studies have shown low-carb diets as comprising less than 45 percent of daily calories from carbohydrates. However, this figure is not dissimilar to the typical Western diet that has more than 50 percent.
While all of the reviewed diets were based on the idea of carbohydrate restriction, the allowed carbs accounted for anywhere between 4-46 percent of daily calories, which the researchers say “convolutes the evidence.”
Physicians advise eating ‘real foods,’ not highly processed meats
An analysis of 41 trials that evaluated the effects of low-carb diets on weight loss revealed that participants lost between 2.5-9 more pounds than individuals who followed a low-fat diet.
“The best conclusion to draw is that adhering to a short-term low-carb diet appears to be safe and may be associated with weight reduction,” says Dr. Heather Fields, an internal medicine physician at Mayo Clinic and lead researcher on this study.
“However, that weight loss is small and of questionable clinical significance in comparison to low-fat diets. We encourage patients to eat real food and avoid highly processed foods, especially processed meats, such as bacon, sausage, deli meats, hot dogs, and ham when following any particular diet,” she adds.
To analyze the potentially harmful effects and safety of low-carb diets, Fields and colleagues looked at research conducted between January 2005 and April 2016. People tend to eat more meat when carbohydrates are restricted, which could increase the risk of death from all causes, including cancer.
Most of the studies failed to provide the source or quality of proteins and fats consumed in the low-fat diets, making it difficult to draw conclusions linking excessive meat consumption to all-cause mortality and increased cancer risks.
However, the studies did show that compared with other diets, low-carb diets were effective for weight loss without adverse effects on blood pressure, glucose, and cholesterol.
“Physicians must keep in mind that the literature is surprisingly limited, considering the popularity of these diets and the claims of health benefits in the public press. Our review found no safety issues identified in the current literature, but patients considering low-carb diets should be advised there is very little data on long-term safety and efficacy,” Field notes.
Low-carb diets may provide short-term weight loss satisfaction
Field notes that drawing broad conclusions proved difficult due to various limitations within the research. Some of the studies did not include information on the type of weight lost, such as whether it was fat, muscle, or water. Also, many of the studies relied on participants recalling foods and beverages they had consumed, which can be subject to error.
Dr. Tiffany Lowe-Payne, an osteopathic family physician, points out that several factors can affect a person’s success with weight loss, including genetics, personal history, and their ability to stick to the diet.
“As an osteopathic physician, I tell patients there is no one-size-fits-all approach for health. When you think of what dieters want – and what they need to stay motivated – it is the satisfaction of results. They want to see significant weight loss and fast. For many, a low-carb lifestyle provides the answer they are looking for.”
Dr. Tiffany Lowe-Payne
Dr. Lowe-Payne recognizes that carbohydrates make up a considerable part of many people’s diets. She also highlights that after 6 months, weight loss is virtually the same for individuals regardless of whether they are on a low-carb or low-fat diet.
For patients who are trying to lower their blood sugar levels or manage insulin resistance, low-carb diets have been shown to be beneficial, Lowe-Payne concludes.
Written by Hannah Nichols
Jurídica – Brand Protection in Kenya as Relates to Trademarks
The competitive business environment in which many businesses operate requires them to constantly explore new ways to enhance their competitive advantage over rival businesses. One way of doing this is by imaginatively making use of trademarks to differentiate the products and services they offer to the public from those of competitors in the market.
To differentiate the products and services businesses offer from those of their competitors in the market, businesses use distinctive marks or signs on their products and services. For instance, a business dealing in electronics might use a specific logo and colours to distinguish its products from those of competitors in the same industry and locality. Such differentiation through the use of marks is important given that in the long run businesses develop a brand reputation which they may wish to protect so as to reap benefits accruing from such reputation. Moreover a reputable brand name can be sold off with its value dependant on the protection its owners accorded to it by legal means like registered trademarks in addition to other factors.
A trademark is a distinguishing sign which may consist of a letter(s), words, colours, numbers, drawings, a symbol or a combination of all these that can be used to identify the goods or services of a business or entity from others in the market place. Competitors or even new entrants into an industry may want to unethically ride on the good will and reputation which a business or individual strove hard to build. The benefit of registration of a trademark is that the owner can sue a person who infringes on it. Trademark infringement takes a variety of forms, the common occurring when a legitimate business in the same industry uses a trademark that is confusingly or deceptively similar to that of a rival in a bid to ride on the good will of the rival.
Benefits of registration of marks used in business
The importance of a business taking the time to register its distinctive marks is illustrated in the case of the trade mark of “Mololine Services Limited”. Mololine is a well-known company within the transport and parcel services business here in Kenya. Mololine Services Limited has developed good will over time which has seen it attract many customers and also seen some competitors within the transport industry seek to unfairly ride on the company good will.
A new entrant into the transport business sought to do this by using a deceptively similar name to open a booking office within the same location as Mololine Services Limited. Moline had registered a trademark that had striking similarities to Mololine in a way that made it was highly likely that a member of the public would be misled into confusing the new business for Mololine Services Limited.
Being aggrieved by the unlawful actions of the competitor, Mololine Services Limited proceeded to the High Court in the case Mololine Services Limited Versus Moline Limited and the Registrar of Trademarks. The court in its verdict found in favour of Mololine Services Limited in that the new competitor, Moline’s name and mark used in the transport industry and at a locality proximate to that of Mololine Services Limited created a high likely hood of causing confusion among members of the Public.
The law recognizes that one of the implications of a trademark infringement on the owner of the mark is loss of revenue. An aggrieved person is therefore entitled to sue seeking an account of profits made out of the infringement of the trade mark. Such inquiry enables the court establish loss for purposes of compensation. Other remedies may include an order for delivery and destruction of the infringing products together with order for an injunction together with a variety of damages.
Some of the matters looked at by the court in establishing trade mark infringement
The landmark case of Reckitt & Coleman Properties Ltd Versus Borden set the elements that must be present for a successful claim of trademark infringement or passing off. First, the complainant has to establish that the goods and services have a good will or reputation attached to them which the purchasing public associates them with and are recognised by the public as distinctive to the complainant’s goods or services. Secondly, the complainant must demonstrate a misrepresentation made by the defendant to the public (whether or not intentionally) leading or likely leading the public to believe the goods or services offered by him are the goods or services of the plaintiff.
To seal revenue leakages or the brand value, brand owners should protect the brand at an early stage by registration. As they grow, brand names can be one of the assets that can be sold for a valuable consideration. On the other hand, owners of registered trademarks have a task of protecting the brand and its value by taking legal action against those who infringe on it.
In other jurisdictions, businesses have been known of using proxies to disparage competitors’ brands and trademarks. There are also cases of unscrupulous businesses counterfeiting the brands of others for a profit. The danger is that consumers’ health can be put at risk and consequently a loss of assurance of product safety. In addition to the above stated dangers of infringement of trademarks and brands, is another global problem: counterfeits. Counterfeits deny government revenue and may aid in money laundering activities. Therefore, business owners have to be vigilant to protect their brands from the above listed disreputable associations through getting professional legal advice when in doubt as to where their remedies lie or the course of action to take.
AUTHOR: AIP Advocates
Educação – Women Make Up Majority of U.S. Law Students for First Time
For the first time, women make up a majority of law students, holding just over 50 percent of the seats at accredited law schools in the United States.
The number of men and women enrolled in juris doctorate programs has been nearly equal for a number of years, but this is the first time women have moved past the 50 percent mark, according to data released Thursday by the American Bar Association.
Currently, 55,766 women nationwide are studying for a juris doctor degree, compared with 55,059 men, according to the bar association. First-year students are more than 51 percent women, or 19,032, and 48.6 percent men, or 18,058.
The A.B.A. requires accredited law schools to annually disclose data in a number of areas, including admissions, financial aid and employment outcomes, but law schools do not require students to identify their gender, so there may be some students who are not listed as women or men.
“There are more women than men based on data we have,” said Barry Currier, managing director for accreditation and legal education at the A.B.A.’s Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar. “It is a snapshot in time, and the numbers can be updated by the schools. But it is not likely to be large numbers.”
Over all, law school enrollment remains flat, with only a tiny increase of a few dozen first-year students offering an encouraging sign. Enrollment is stabilizing after dropping almost 30 percent since 2010.
Law schools have been trying to broaden their base of applicants. At the same time, the field of potential recruits has been constricted somewhat by a much-debated new requirement. That requirement tightens the standard law schools must meet for bar passage rates for their graduates. The new requirement restricts the leeway schools have for accepting promising students who do not meet standard admission measures, including test scores and grade point averages.
Not every law graduate takes a state bar exam, but those who want to become a practicing attorney must do so.
At the same time, law school admissions scores have been slipping in recent years, especially from 2012 to 2013, although the decline seemed to have slowed more recently.
Amid all these pressures, some law schools have found that reaching out to women has yielded more qualified applicants. Historically, women earned 57.1 percent of college degrees, but lagged men in applying to law school.
Female enrollment passing the 50 percent “is a milestone, but one to view with caution,” said Deborah J. Merritt, a law professor at the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University. She and a colleague, Kyle McEntee, the executive director of Law School Transparency, recently released data that showed that while the number of female law students was rising, a portion of women wound up attending lower-ranked schools.
That undercuts their employment possibilities and their earnings potential since higher-ranked schools generally have better track records for placing their graduates in full-time, long-term jobs requiring a law degree, they concluded.
So, while women may have the edge in enrollment numbers, it is less clear that will lead to an advantage in the profession.
Administração / Economia / Contábeis – The Stock Market Looks Awfully Expensive Since the Trump Rally
A new president won’t take office for another month, but the financial markets’ early verdict on the Donald J. Trump era is in, and it is straightforward.
They are saying the Trump administration will be good for corporate profits, and hence the stock market is way up. (The Standard & Poor’s 500 is up 6 percent since Election Day). It will also mean higher interest rates and inflation over time. (The yield on 10-year Treasury bonds has risen to 2.6 percent from 1.85 percent in the same span.)
But the result of those two shifts should make anyone thinking of investing in the stock market nervous. You’d be counting on the profit-boosting elements of the Trump agenda being enacted and the profit-hampering possibilities not materializing. Another way to think about it: Putting money into the stock market right now means accepting less compensation for taking on risk than was available before Election Day.
Consider a simplified, stylized version of the choice that all investors face as they choose between the two most common types of financial assets, stocks and bonds. Suppose you have $1,000 to invest over the next 10 years. If you buy one of the aforementioned 10-year Treasury bonds, you’ll get exactly 2.6 percent of $1,000, or $26, each year for 10 years. Then you’ll get your $1,000 back.
If you instead buy $1,000 worth of stocks, you’re buying a flow of income that is much less certain. Right now, the earnings of the S.& P. 500 index amount to 4.7 percent of the value of the index (that’s the earnings-to-price ratio, the inverse of the more widely followed price-to-earnings ratio). So if you buy stocks, you’re figuring that you are buying $47 worth of annual income initially. But that’s a number that could either rise or fall over the coming decade before you look to sell.
When you try to determine whether stocks or bonds are more attractive, what matters is how those rates compare to each other and what you expect to happen to corporate earnings in the future. Most of the time, investors demand compensation for taking on the risk of buying volatile, unpredictable stocks.
On Election Day, for example, the earnings yield on stocks was 5 percent, and the Treasury bond yield was 1.85 percent, meaning that investors were compensated with an extra 3.15 percentage points on their money for taking the risk of putting it into the stock market.
The moves since the election — higher stock prices and lower bond prices — have narrowed that gap to only 2.17 percentage points at Friday’s close. The amount of compensation you get for the risk of investing in stocks has fallen by a third in the last six weeks. (The gap has come down a great deal in the last five years as stock prices have risen a lot faster than corporate earnings.)
Now, there’s no “right” level for this risk compensation. It was lower than it is now throughout the mid-2000s, and was even persistently in negative territory during the late 1990s (though that was in the midst of a stock market bubble). The question at any given moment is whether there is a good justification for the size of that gap.
The financial markets’ take on the Trump economy is that it will be good for corporate profitability. A cut in corporate income taxes, a key part of the Trump campaign’s tax plan, would accrue straight to businesses’ bottom line. A lighter touch on regulations should mean companies in regulated sectors like banks and energy companies would become more profitable. If there is a large-scale infrastructure program as Mr. Trump has proposed, it will be good news for companies that supply the heavy construction industry.
But the weird thing since the election has been investors’ willingness to price in all the stuff that is good news for corporate earnings while seemingly ignoring the elements that are less welcome for businesses’ bottom line.
The dollar is up about 5 percent against a basket of other major currencies since the election, a shift that will damage the earnings of firms with a large international business. The rise in interest rates could hurt sales in rate-sensitive sectors like automobiles and housing. The unemployment rate has fallen to 4.6 percent, which suggests employers will have to pay more to attract and keep workers in the year ahead.
And that’s not even to mention the more speculative risks that could come from a Trump administration. Mr. Trump has threatened to impose tariffs and pledged to disrupt trade arrangements that form the very underpinnings of modern global capitalism. If his erratic approach to diplomacy leads to geopolitical conflict, that probably won’t be good for most businesses’ bottom lines.
If, like most people, you’re a long-term buy-and-hold investor, it doesn’t make sense to try to time the market by moving money into or out of stocks based on the latest headlines. After all, the more positive view of the outlook for big business could well turn out to be right.
But it’s worth keeping your eyes wide open about the risk stock investors are taking, the limited compensation they’re getting for it, and the real possibilities that things could turn out differently.