四級考試長篇閱讀練習題(一)

　　B.What I discovered was both eye.opening and disturbin9.The AHA not only ignored A.l the other risk factors for heart disease，but it appointed someone with ties to Big Food and bizarre scientific beliefs to lead the guideline-writing paneHust the type of thing’that undermines the public’s confidence in the medical community.The AHA guidelines warrant that saturated fat make up no more than 5 to 6 percent of daily cal ories for adults because this will lower“bad”cholesterol(膽固醇).And，for those people who need blood pressure control，the guidelines A.so suggest lowering sodium(salt)intake to no more than a teaspoon(2，300 mg)daily.Despite many other known risk factors for heart disease，salt and fat were，astonishingly,the only two considered by the AHA panel writing the guidelines.There are many other recognized risk factors the AHA ignored，including blood sugar level，low“good”cholesterol，insulin(胰島素)levels，and body weight—an of these are influenced by diet.

　　C.In fact，most people who have heart attacks don’t have elevations in bad cholesterol.They are much more likely to have metabolic syndrome(新陳代謝綜合征)—a condition that puts you at high risk for diabetes and heart disease.Interestingly enough，blood triglycerides(甘油三脂)do not go up with eating fat—they go up if you eat a diet high in processed grains，starches，and sugar.Unfortunately for the proponents of high-carbohydrate(糖類)diets，high blood triglycerides are a major risk factor for heart disease.In addition.low fat/high carb diets lower protective“good”cholesterol and raise insulin.

　　These diets are involved in the development of diabetes.which is a powerful risk factor for developing heart disease.

　　Heart Cheek Program’s contribution

　　D.The writers of the 20 13 statin guidelines based their recommendations on studies that looked at the reduction in the risk of events like heart attacks in people treated with statins.compared to people on a placebo(安慰劑).The AHA dietary guidelines do not cite any diet studies that looked at whether following a specific diet lowered the risk of developing heart events—yet they are giving dietary advice.Why?There might be two plausible reasons.One is the AHA's moneymaking“Heart Check Program.”The second is the conflict of interest of Robert Ecke—the co-chair of the panel that wrote the guidelines.

　　E.Forty.five percent of these“heart heA.thy”foods—over 400 of them—are meat：92 are processed meats—which have been shown to have either neutrA. or negative effects on heart health.Even more problematic are the foods containing added sugar.The AHA recommends that women consume less

　　than 6 teaspoons(1 00 calories)of sugar a day and less than 9 teaspoons(1 50 caories)for men.Yet there are items that get the nod of approvA. from the Heart Check program despite being near or at the sugar limit.1ike Bruce’s Yams Candied Sweet Potatoes and HeA.thy Choice SA.isbury Steak.

　　F. Until this year,Heart Check approved many foods with trans-fats，which raise bad cholesterol and lower good cholesterol，among other harmful effects on heA.th，like increasing inflammation(發炎)and the laying down of calcium in arteries(動脈).

　　G.Like the dietary guidelines，the AHA Heart Check Program appears to address only the effect of foods on cholesterollevel and blood pressure.Meanwhile，since the 1 970s，our yearly sugar consumption has increased quickly A.ong with the incidence of diabetes and obesity.This brings us to Dr.Robert

　　H.Eckel，the co-chair of the Working Group.He is a consultant for Foodminds.which specializes“in food，beverage，nutrition，health and wellness.”Foodminds works with more than 30 leading food，beverage，and nutrition to offer a“one stop shop of…consulting…to guide food and beverage companies in navigating the complexities around the upcoming FDA Nutrition Facts label overhaul.”In other words.Foodminds is a lobbying firm for“Big Food.”

　　Creationist’s coming

　　H. And then there is this：Dr.Eckel describes himself as“a scientist and professing six.day creationist and a member of the technicA. advisory board of the Institute for Creation Research…”Many scientists are religious.111is is not to question Dr.Eckel’s religious beliefs.but to question his ability to think sciemificA.ly.He believes there is scientific proof that the world was created in six days and mat evolution does not exist.This should at least raise eyebrows when the co-chair of an influential panel charged with giving scientificA.ly sound dietary advice has a financiA. conflict of interest and proselytizes for beliefs that are anti.scientific.

　　I.The American people should be able to trust that only impartiA. scientists write guidelines.We should be confident that those experts are not working to advance corporate interests and that they do not espouse beliefs that are well outside the scientific mainstream.An avowed creationist who consults for a food lobby hardly seems an appropriate choice to fulfill these criteria.For the last several decades，the AHA has promoted a low.fat higll.carbohydrate diet as a cornerstone of heart health.It has taken a very public position that saturated fats are a major driver of heart disease risk and the mounting tide of evidence that this is dead wrong must put it in a very uncomfortable position.And yet a fundamental requirement of science--as opposed to propaganda--is that when evidence that contradicts a hypothesis is replicated over and over again，that hypothesis must be abandoned.

　　J. The idea that eating high amounts of saturated fat causes hardening of the arteries—the so.called“diet-heart hypothesis—deserves to be iettisoned along with other discredited belief systems.Creationism comes to mind.Will the AHA step up to the plate?

　　46.It is ftm that blood triglyeerides won’t rise when you eat fat,but go up with eating other sugar and starches.

　　47.The processed meats are proved to be harmful more or less to our heart health.

　　48.Many other known risk factors for heart disease have been overlooked by the AHA panel.except for salt and fat.

　　49.It does not aim to query the religious faith of Dr.Eckel，but his capability to ponder scientifically.

　　50.At best.the idea held by AHA that we must A.l eat low.fat diets for optimA. heart heA.th is a controversiA. stance，while at worst，it is dead wrong.

　　51.Many foods approved by Heart Check would be harmful to our body health.

　　52.A hypothesis must be iettisoned when it clashes with the convincing evidence.

　　53.Since the 1970s.our annually sugar accommodation has rocketed A.ong with the occurrence of diabetes and obesity.

　　54.The view that high intake of saturated fat could result in sclerosis of artery should be discarded with other untrustful beliefs.

　　55.The AHA dietary guidelines do not quote any diet researches that can tell us whether a specific diet can decrease the risk of heart disease.

　　四級考試長篇閱讀練習題答案

　　46.It is fun that blood triglycerides won’t rise when you eat fat.but go up with eating other sugar and starches.有趣的是，當你食用脂肪時血甘油三酯不會升高，而食用一些糖類或淀粉時就會升高。

　　47.Theprocessedmeatsareprovedto beharmfulmore orlessto ourhearthealth.經預處理的肉多多少少會對我們的心臟健康有負作用。

　　48.Many other known risk factors for heart disease have been overlooked by the AHA panel，except for salt and fat.很多其他影響心臟健康的危險因素被AHA飲食指南制定小組忽略了，但鹽分和脂肪除外。

　　49.It does not aim to query the religious faith of Dr.Eckel.but his capability to ponder scientifically.這并不是在質疑埃克爾博士的宗教信仰，而是他進行科學化思考的能力。

　　50.At best.the idea held by AHA that we must all eat low-fat diets for optimal heart heA.th is a controversial stance，while at Worst，it is dead wrong.從最好的一面來看，AHA堅持我們必須采用低脂肪飲食以達到最佳的心臟健康狀態的觀點是有爭議的，然而最壞的就是，它是大錯特錯的。

　　51.Many foods approved by Heart Check would be harmful to our body health.心臟檢查程序認證通過的許多食物對我們的身體是有害的。

　　52.A hypothesis must be jettisoned when it clashes with the convincing evidence.當一個假設與令人信服的證據沖突時，它應該果斷被摒棄。

　　53.Since the 1970s，Our annually sugar accommodation has rocketed along with the occurrence of diabetes and obesity.自20世紀70年代以來，糖的年供應量隨著糖尿病和肥胖癥的高發迅速增加。

　　54.The view that high intake of saturated fat could result in sclerosis of artery should be discarded with other untrustful beliefs.攝入高含量的飽和脂肪會導致動脈硬化的觀點應該和其他不可信的觀念一同被拋棄。

　　55.The AHA dietary guidelines do not quote any diet researches that Can tell uswhether a specific diet Can decrease the risk ofheart disease.AHA的飲食指南并沒有引用任何飲食研究，這些研究也并未指出特定的飲食是否可以降低患心臟病的風險。