Literatura académica sobre el tema "National-socialisme Mal, Problème du"

Objective; Obesity is an important health problem, leading to many metabolic diseases such as type2 diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular diseases, cancer. The are many diet proposals to combat obesity. Since obesity is relatively rare in Japan, we wante to know what kind of foods influence body mass index (BMI) in old Japanese people. METHODS; Healthy participants, old men and women and male medical doctors (MD) were given self-administered diet history questionnaires and described answers on each item by recollection of diets they took (7 days dietary recall). We used a brief-type self-administered diet history questionnaire (BDHQ) by using which the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare reports national Nutrition Surveys. From these questionnaires, we calculated the intakes of energy, carbohydrate, fat, protein or other foods. RESULTS; Me take more alcohol, salt fruit, beans than women. Intakes of major foods such as carbohydrate, lipid, and protein did not influence BMI in men and women. MD with higher BMI tend to take vegetables and fruits. MD may be more health concerned than lay people. CONCLUSION; within the range of foods intakes in Japan, no restriction of any food such as carbohydrate is not necessary for staying lean. Medical doctors seem to be very health concerned compared to lay people.

I want to begin with what some might cite as a characteristic move of the socialist intellectual in capitalist society: namely, biting the hand that feeds you. In the course of explaining to me the rejection by the National Endowment for the Humanities board of a highly-rated proposal for a Seminar for College Teachers, the NEH program officer wrote that “some reviewers were concerned that the focus on the canon, while doubtless an important issue for teachers of American literature, lacked the kind of scholarly significance generally expected of Summer Seminars. . . .” Pursuing this theme, he later wrote that my “application was rather more thesis-driven than most of our seminar proposals.” I discover everywhere signs of this division. On the one side, we find the supposedly pedagogical or professional problems raised by the question of the canon, and on the other side, what is lauded as “of scholarly significance” or, more simply, criticism or theory. In a recent “Newsletter for Graduate Alumnae and Alumni" issued by the Yale English Department, for example, Cyrus Hamlin ruminates “precisely how this procedure of hermeneutical recuperation” he is proposing “should affect the canon and the curriculum of our institution is difficult to say. . . .” and he proceeds to ignore the question (p. 2). In the same document, Margaret Homans suggests why he does so. “At Yale,” she writes . . . while post-structuralism has proven to be intellectually more unsettling than liberal humanism, the feminist versions of post-structuralism are institutionally more easily accommodated than some of the projects of liberal feminism, such as challenging the content of the canon we teach, with its vast preponderance of white, male authors (p. 4). . . . Interestingly, Homans here appropriates the project of canon revision solely to the domain of “liberal feminism,” a common enough way of trying to limit the scope of this intellectual movement to a supposed clique of uppity, middleclass women.