JAMAIKIE RAMOS

11-STEAM A

INDEPENDENT ASS. 2( meal for a day )

MEAL PLAN FOR A DAY

BREAKFAST 2 large boiled egg = 156 cal

1 cup of rice = 208 cal
1 piece of fried hotdog and tuyo = 256
cal
LUNCH Half of rice = 104 cal
1 cup of munggo gisado = 238 cal
SNACKS 5 pieces fried banana = 156 cal
DINNER Half rice = 108 cal
1 fried egg = 98
DESSERT 1 piece cake =134 cal
Total of my calorie intake a day = 1,302

Report :Low-carb versus high-carb – is the evidence really

contradictory?
It isn’t surprising that people are confused about nutrition when the media
presents different findings as gladiatorial battles: vegetarian versus carnivore,
high-fat versus low-fat diets and, more recently, low-carb diets versus high-
carb. But, when you dig down into the data, many of these studies are
reporting surprisingly similar things – and this is the case with the latest
studies reporting on carbohydrates and health..
Most of the supposedly contradictory findings on carbs come from two large
observational studies, published a year apart. One is called PURE, the other,
ARIC. Headlines for the PURE study, published in August 2017, said a low-
carb diet with more fat was the answer to a longer and healthier life.
But that finding was later contradicted by the ARIC study, which led to
headlines saying that a low-carb diets could reduce your life expectancy by
five year.
In fact, these “contradictory” studies had strikingly similar results – they both
found that getting around half of your energy from carbs is associated with the
lowest risk of dying early. The view that a moderate amount of carbs is
optimal for good health is supported by the press release on the PURE study
from the researcher’s university (McMaster University in Canada) as well as
by reporting in the scientific press. So where did headlines such as “New
study favours fat over carbs” in the New York Times come from.The PURE
study, which examined the eating habits of about 136,000 people from 18
countries and checked on their health seven years later, found that the 20% of
people with the lowest carbohydrate intake had a 28% lower risk of death
during the study period. But the people in the lowest carb category still got
46% of their calories from carbs, which is not dissimilar to the UK guideline
recommendation. So the study did not favour fat over carbs as the headline
suggested. Before considering the amount of carbs that is optimal for our
health, we first need to know how low-carb and high-carb are defined. Studies
typically describe carbohydrate intake as a percentage of energy, instead of
an amount in grammes. There is no agreed definition of what constitutes low
or high-carb intake – but above 45% of total energy intake is generally
considered high, and below 26% is low. However, the PURE and ARIC
studies used different definitions. PURE described intakes above 60% as
high-carb – and linked this level to an increased risk of premature death. In
the case of ARIC, which looked at the eating habits of about 15,000 people in
the US for 25 years, it considered 70% and above to be a high intake.
Interestingly, this variation was also seen when it defined low-carb intake,
which in ARIC was classified as any carb intake below 40% of total energy.
This is much higher than many advocates of low and very low-carb diets
recommend, typically 5-10% of dietary energy, or around 50g per day.

Although the ARIC paper discusses low-carb diets and restricting

carbohydrates, it did not look at people who were actively pursuing a low-carb
diet for weight management or for managing type 2 diabetes, which is very
different. In this case the evidence suggests that carefully planned,
individualised approaches, including very low carb diets, can be safe and
highly effective. Both the ARIC and the PURE study found that there appears
to be a sweet spot of about 50% of energy from carbohydrate, where the risk
of dying during the study was lowest. Anything more or less than this was
associated with an increased risk of premature death. It seems that
moderation is key, not just with carbohydrates but also fat. A deeper look at
the ARIC study suggests that the potentially negative effects of a lower
carbohydrate diet can be moderated if the diet is more plant based, despite
containing more protein and fat, such as a diet rich in avocados, olives, nuts
and seeds. This suggests there is something more than just carbohydrate,
protein and fat in our food. The logical conclusion from these studies is that
we should think more about overall diet rather than single macronutrients.
Indeed, this is what the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United
Nations recommends.

INDEPENDENT ASS.3.2 (Compare n write)

Report : APPLIANCES AND EQUIPMENT

Electricity consumption by household appliances continues to increase. It reached

over 3 000 TWh in 2019 and accounted for 15% of global final electricity demand, or
one-quarter of electricity used in buildings. Demand is driven by rising ownership of
connected plug-load devices, especially in developing countries that are becoming
wealthier. Mandatory Energy Performance Standards (MEPS) cover one-third of the
energy used, mainly for large household appliances, but smaller plug loads, including
consumer electronics, are less well regulated. Greater policy coverage and
stringency will be needed to realise the SDS. The amount of electricity used by
household appliances and other small plug-load devices (products powered by
means of an ordinary AC plug) has increased nearly 3% per year since 2010. While
energy policies have led to efficiency gains, especially for major household goods
such as refrigerators and televisions, small appliances and plug-load devices globally
are not aligned with the Sustainable Development Scenario (SDS), which requires
that total energy consumption fall 40% by 2025.

Recent product improvements are promising, as appliance manufacturers

have taken advantage of technological advances to produce increasingly
efficient products, for example by using advanced sensors, direct-drive motors
and heat pumps in clothes washers and dryers. The highest drops in energy
intensity are for televisions screens (W/cm2), although at the same time they
also have become much larger.
Ever-changing consumer preferences and overall growth in ownership are
offsetting these savings, however. The rise in ownership of major appliances
such as refrigerators, washing machines and televisions continues to push up
energy demand in many countries, especially in emerging markets. For
televisions, or displays in general, greater screen size, resolution and picture
quality have been counteracting gains in energy savings, although this effect
is beginning to plateau. Of total final electricity demand from all appliances
and other electrical equipment in residential buildings in 2019, major
appliances accounted for only 33% – down from 46% in 2000.This decline
results from significant growth in the number of small plug-load devices such
as routers, set-top boxes, smart speakers, computers, telephones, tablets and
other connected devices being used. Overall plug-load energy use has
increased twice as much as for major appliances in the past decade. In some
countries, such as Canada, Japan, Korea and the United States, electricity
demand from major household appliances has even decreased since 2010,
largely because of energy efficiency improvements and appliance ownership
saturation – but again, higher plug loads have largely offset these savings.The
proliferation of mobile devices and consequent battery charging has also
raised plug load energy use, and although many of the smaller consumer
electronic appliances (such as mobile phones) may use small amounts of
energy, their greatest environmental impact will be from manufacturing and
disposal. Electronic waste is therefore an important issue to address, beyond
improving energy efficiency.Although the most efficient products on the
market are sometimes more expensive, this could result from bundling with
other features to give the perception of additional value.Furthermore,
inefficient products are being sold in many unregulated markets. MEPS and
labelling are important policy tools that governments should be using for a
range of appliances in various market . Fortunately, growth in energy demand
for major appliances has been curbed by energy efficiency improvements,
largely owing to MEPS in most major markets (e.g. North America, the
European Union, China and India). MEPS are usually complemented by
mandatory energy labelling, which continues to be rolled out and improved.
For example, as of 1 January 2019, the upgraded EU framework energy
labelling directive required all suppliers to register their products in a new
central product database for energy labelling, providing better consumer
access to reliable information and enabling regulators to manage more
effective compliance regimes. Furthermore, the energy label will revert to the
simple A-to-G scale in March 2021, with A being the most energy-efficient.
Countries with emerging markets are also continuing to adopt and improve
these measures. For example, Viet Nam recently announced that MEPS and
labelling will become mandatory for a range of appliances in 2020, including
refrigerators, washing machines, televisions, rice cookers and fans, and
Rwanda will introduce MEPS for refrigerators in 2021. Overall, 80 countries
now use MEPS and labelling regulations to improve the efficiency of
appliances placed on the market (IEA Policies Database).
Although it is well known that plug-load devices could significantly boost
electricity demand growth, this market (especially for smaller devices) remains
largely unregulated. Standards are not necessarily keeping up with market
trends, and MEPS have not yet been implemented in many emerging markets
where appliance ownership is expected to grow strongly. The most effective
way to get on track with the SDS and improve the efficiency of appliances in
the short term is to apply measures at the point of manufacturing and sale.
For longer-term mass deployment, more efficient appliances and service
solutions need to be developed. 

LESSON 2
INDEPENDENT ASS. 2.2 (write up)

REPORT : HOW GENERATION HAVE CHANGED?

The age differences in political attitudes and voting choices in the past three election
cycles have been driven by three broad social and political trends. The first is the
growing racial and ethnic diversity of the country, reflected in the rising percentage of
non-whites among younger age cohorts. Non-whites have been far more supportive
of the Democratic Party in the last several decades. Among members of the Silent
generation today, 79% are non-Hispanic whites; among the Millennial generation,
just 59% are non-Hispanic whites.
A second factor is the political environment experienced by successive generations
as they have come of age politically. The relative popularity of the president and the
two major political parties at the time an individual turns 18 has clear consequences
for their voting preferences in subsequent elections.
A third factor is the broader societal changes that occur within a generation’s life
cycle. These changes have a bigger impact on the political views of younger people,
who are still in the process of forming opinions. Older people are more likely to reflect
the values prevalent when they were growing up.
INDEPENDENT 3.2 (put it in a survey )

FAST FOOD CHAIN SURVEY

 Do you think the environment would be positively

affected if more people decided to sustain a meat free
lifestyle?
A great deal
A lot
A moderate amount
A little
None at all