Assignment Prompt & Instructions
attached
– 2 years ago
**files (2)**
– ## CriticalResponse2.docx
– ## The_case_for_lo_pro_why_Americ.pdf
**## CriticalResponse2.docx**
Critical Response 2
Top of Form
| | |
| — | — |
| |
| Instructions | |
| **Objective:** In this assignment, you will analyze the rhetorical situation of an assigned article, considering how the author’s choices impact the effectiveness of their message. This response will help you develop critical reading and analytical writing skills by examining how purpose, audience, context, and rhetorical appeals shape communication.<br> <br>**Prep Steps: To prepare for this assignment, be sure that you have** [**practiced the targeted skill**](https://dallascollege.brightspace.com/d2l/common/dialogs/quickLink/quickLink.d2l?ou=250941&type=content&rcode=9BE8DA1D-2E5D-49A2-962E-132F8CB5061D-6593542) **and that you have** [**read the assigned observation texts**](https://dallascollege.brightspace.com/d2l/common/dialogs/quickLink/quickLink.d2l?ou=250941&type=content&rcode=9BE8DA1D-2E5D-49A2-962E-132F8CB5061D-6593541) **for Week 5.**<br>**Instructions:**<br>1. <br>**Read the assigned article carefully.**<br>· <br>[Link: “The Case for Lo Pro” by Maddie Oatman](https://dallascollege.brightspace.com/d2l/common/dialogs/quickLink/quickLink.d2l?ou=250941&type=content&rcode=9BE8DA1D-2E5D-49A2-962E-132F8CB5061D-6593509)<br>· Identify the author’s main argument and key points.<br>· Take notes on how the author supports their claims with evidence, reasoning, and rhetorical strategies.<br>2. <br>**Analyze the Rhetorical Situation**<br>Observe the following elements of the rhetorical situation as you read. Use these observations to form the foundation of your writing. Remember, you can use <br>[your chapter as a guide](https://dallascollege.brightspace.com/d2l/common/dialogs/quickLink/quickLink.d2l?ou=250941&type=content&rcode=9BE8DA1D-2E5D-49A2-962E-132F8CB5061D-6593221) for these observations!<br> <br>· Author & Purpose<br>· Audience<br>· Context<br>· Exigence & Constraints<br>· Effectiveness: Do the author's choices strengthen or weaken their argument? Why or why not?<br>3. <br>**Draft Your Response**<br>· Begin with an introduction that briefly summarizes the article and states your thesis (your overall assessment of the author’s rhetorical effectiveness).<br>· Develop your analysis in well-organized paragraphs, using examples from the article to support your points.<br>· Conclude by reflecting on the impact of the rhetorical strategies this author incorporated.<br>4. <br>**Edit, revise, and submit.**<br>· Review your writing carefully to adjust any unclear language, grammar or spelling errors, or citation formatting.<br>**Formatting & Submission:**<br>· Length: 1-2 pages, double-spaced<br>· Font: Times New Roman, 12pt<br>· MLA citation style<br>· <br>_For support with MLA style, click this link:_ [_Purdue OWL – MLA – General Format_](https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_general_format.html)<br>_Grading Criteria:_<br>_Your response will be evaluated based on:_<br>· <br>_Depth of Analysis: Thoughtful examination of the rhetorical situation and strategies_<br>· <br>_Use of Evidence: Clear, relevant examples from the article to support your points_<br>· <br>_Remember to incorporate in-text citations when quoting. Click this link for support:_ [_MLA In-Text Citations: The Basics_](https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_in_text_citations_the_basics.html)<br>· <br>_Organization & Clarity: Logical structure, clear thesis, and smooth transitions_<br>· <br>_Mechanics & Formatting: Proper grammar, punctuation, and adherence to assignment guidelines_ |
Bottom of Form
**## The_case_for_lo_pro_why_Americ.pdf**
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
[http://www.motherjones.com](http://www.motherjones.com/)
**## The_case_for_lo_pro_why_Americ.pdf**
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
[http://www.motherjones.com](http://www.motherjones.com/)
**## CriticalResponse2.docx**
Critical Response 2
Top of Form
| | |
| — | — |
| |
| Instructions | |
| **Objective:** In this assignment, you will analyze the rhetorical situation of an assigned article, considering how the author’s choices impact the effectiveness of their message. This response will help you develop critical reading and analytical writing skills by examining how purpose, audience, context, and rhetorical appeals shape communication.<br> <br>**Prep Steps: To prepare for this assignment, be sure that you have** [**practiced the targeted skill**](https://dallascollege.brightspace.com/d2l/common/dialogs/quickLink/quickLink.d2l?ou=250941&type=content&rcode=9BE8DA1D-2E5D-49A2-962E-132F8CB5061D-6593542) **and that you have** [**read the assigned observation texts**](https://dallascollege.brightspace.com/d2l/common/dialogs/quickLink/quickLink.d2l?ou=250941&type=content&rcode=9BE8DA1D-2E5D-49A2-962E-132F8CB5061D-6593541) **for Week 5.**<br>**Instructions:**<br>1. <br>**Read the assigned article carefully.**<br>· <br>[Link: “The Case for Lo Pro” by Maddie Oatman](https://dallascollege.brightspace.com/d2l/common/dialogs/quickLink/quickLink.d2l?ou=250941&type=content&rcode=9BE8DA1D-2E5D-49A2-962E-132F8CB5061D-6593509)<br>· Identify the author’s main argument and key points.<br>· Take notes on how the author supports their claims with evidence, reasoning, and rhetorical strategies.<br>2. <br>**Analyze the Rhetorical Situation**<br>Observe the following elements of the rhetorical situation as you read. Use these observations to form the foundation of your writing. Remember, you can use <br>[your chapter as a guide](https://dallascollege.brightspace.com/d2l/common/dialogs/quickLink/quickLink.d2l?ou=250941&type=content&rcode=9BE8DA1D-2E5D-49A2-962E-132F8CB5061D-6593221) for these observations!<br> <br>· Author & Purpose<br>· Audience<br>· Context<br>· Exigence & Constraints<br>· Effectiveness: Do the author's choices strengthen or weaken their argument? Why or why not?<br>3. <br>**Draft Your Response**<br>· Begin with an introduction that briefly summarizes the article and states your thesis (your overall assessment of the author’s rhetorical effectiveness).<br>· Develop your analysis in well-organized paragraphs, using examples from the article to support your points.<br>· Conclude by reflecting on the impact of the rhetorical strategies this author incorporated.<br>4. <br>**Edit, revise, and submit.**<br>· Review your writing carefully to adjust any unclear language, grammar or spelling errors, or citation formatting.<br>**Formatting & Submission:**<br>· Length: 1-2 pages, double-spaced<br>· Font: Times New Roman, 12pt<br>· MLA citation style<br>· <br>_For support with MLA style, click this link:_ [_Purdue OWL – MLA – General Format_](https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_general_format.html)<br>_Grading Criteria:_<br>_Your response will be evaluated based on:_<br>· <br>_Depth of Analysis: Thoughtful examination of the rhetorical situation and strategies_<br>· <br>_Use of Evidence: Clear, relevant examples from the article to support your points_<br>· <br>_Remember to incorporate in-text citations when quoting. Click this link for support:_ [_MLA In-Text Citations: The Basics_](https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_in_text_citations_the_basics.html)<br>· <br>_Organization & Clarity: Logical structure, clear thesis, and smooth transitions_<br>· <br>_Mechanics & Formatting: Proper grammar, punctuation, and adherence to assignment guidelines_ |
Bottom of Form
**## The_case_for_lo_pro_why_Americ.pdf**
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
[http://www.motherjones.com](http://www.motherjones.com/)
**## CriticalResponse2.docx**
Critical Response 2
Top of Form
| | |
| — | — |
| |
| Instructions | |
| **Objective:** In this assignment, you will analyze the rhetorical situation of an assigned article, considering how the author’s choices impact the effectiveness of their message. This response will help you develop critical reading and analytical writing skills by examining how purpose, audience, context, and rhetorical appeals shape communication.<br> <br>**Prep Steps: To prepare for this assignment, be sure that you have** [**practiced the targeted skill**](https://dallascollege.brightspace.com/d2l/common/dialogs/quickLink/quickLink.d2l?ou=250941&type=content&rcode=9BE8DA1D-2E5D-49A2-962E-132F8CB5061D-6593542) **and that you have** [**read the assigned observation texts**](https://dallascollege.brightspace.com/d2l/common/dialogs/quickLink/quickLink.d2l?ou=250941&type=content&rcode=9BE8DA1D-2E5D-49A2-962E-132F8CB5061D-6593541) **for Week 5.**<br>**Instructions:**<br>1. <br>**Read the assigned article carefully.**<br>· <br>[Link: “The Case for Lo Pro” by Maddie Oatman](https://dallascollege.brightspace.com/d2l/common/dialogs/quickLink/quickLink.d2l?ou=250941&type=content&rcode=9BE8DA1D-2E5D-49A2-962E-132F8CB5061D-6593509)<br>· Identify the author’s main argument and key points.<br>· Take notes on how the author supports their claims with evidence, reasoning, and rhetorical strategies.<br>2. <br>**Analyze the Rhetorical Situation**<br>Observe the following elements of the rhetorical situation as you read. Use these observations to form the foundation of your writing. Remember, you can use <br>[your chapter as a guide](https://dallascollege.brightspace.com/d2l/common/dialogs/quickLink/quickLink.d2l?ou=250941&type=content&rcode=9BE8DA1D-2E5D-49A2-962E-132F8CB5061D-6593221) for these observations!<br> <br>· Author & Purpose<br>· Audience<br>· Context<br>· Exigence & Constraints<br>· Effectiveness: Do the author's choices strengthen or weaken their argument? Why or why not?<br>3. <br>**Draft Your Response**<br>· Begin with an introduction that briefly summarizes the article and states your thesis (your overall assessment of the author’s rhetorical effectiveness).<br>· Develop your analysis in well-organized paragraphs, using examples from the article to support your points.<br>· Conclude by reflecting on the impact of the rhetorical strategies this author incorporated.<br>4. <br>**Edit, revise, and submit.**<br>· Review your writing carefully to adjust any unclear language, grammar or spelling errors, or citation formatting.<br>**Formatting & Submission:**<br>· Length: 1-2 pages, double-spaced<br>· Font: Times New Roman, 12pt<br>· MLA citation style<br>· <br>_For support with MLA style, click this link:_ [_Purdue OWL – MLA – General Format_](https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_general_format.html)<br>_Grading Criteria:_<br>_Your response will be evaluated based on:_<br>· <br>_Depth of Analysis: Thoughtful examination of the rhetorical situation and strategies_<br>· <br>_Use of Evidence: Clear, relevant examples from the article to support your points_<br>· <br>_Remember to incorporate in-text citations when quoting. Click this link for support:_ [_MLA In-Text Citations: The Basics_](https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_in_text_citations_the_basics.html)<br>· <br>_Organization & Clarity: Logical structure, clear thesis, and smooth transitions_<br>· <br>_Mechanics & Formatting: Proper grammar, punctuation, and adherence to assignment guidelines_ |
Bottom of Form
**## The_case_for_lo_pro_why_Americ.pdf**
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
[http://www.motherjones.com](http://www.motherjones.com/)