Wednesday, November 03, 2010

Badvertising: Pop Tarts vs. Toaster Strudel - Fight!


Because you know, anything baked is good for you, right?

Tale of the tape for these heavyweights?

In the blue corner we've got Pop Tarts! 47 ingredients including, "THBQ for freshness" (mmmm, THBQ) yielding 200 calories, 0gm trans-fat and 4.25 teaspoons of sugar per baked tart.

In the red corner, Toaster Strudel! 17 ingredients yielding 190 calories, 1gm trans-fat and 2.25 teaspoons of sugar per fried strudel.

And the winner is?

Does it really matter?

Do people really eat this garbage thinking it's good for them? That a frosted, candy sprinkled baked glop of sickly sweet, remotely strawberry flavoured jam is, "the right choice"?

Trying to pick between Pop Tarts and Toaster Strudel in terms of health would be like picking between getting kicked in the groin or being punched in the groin in terms of pain, or between being hit by a car doing 50 or a car doing 40 in terms of injury.

And while I'm sure some folks are savvy enough to see through this intensely stupid ad, and while other will say it helps them pick between two bad choices, I guarantee you there are folks out there who read the ad to mean that Pop Tarts are healthy good for you breakfast choices.

And I bet many of those folks have kids.

Bookmark and Share

6 comments:

  1. Anonymous7:19 am

    Very sad. The constant barrage of advertising has blinded many to just how bad the average diet is. What should be rare "treats" are eaten daily with people believing they are eating OK, if not perfectly, when their diet is a disaster.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's like the ad that Fruit Loops are now "good for you" because they have 2g of fibre! Give you head a shake folks. Yikes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The other day I saw the "highly respected" author of the Eat This, Not That offer as the eat this alternative a Burger King Whopper.

    The rational?

    It had fewer calories and fat than the "bad" burger.

    Using his rational, I should eat a Reese's candy bar (400 calories) and not the Milky Way (460 calories). If I do that, I can lose 6 pounds in a year!

    All's good.

    Ken Leebow
    http://www.HighSatiety.net

    ReplyDelete
  4. On the subject of useless food comparisons, I came across an article yesterday from the Dark Matter science blog on the Ottawa Citizen website yesterday. The article is entitled: "An ordinary egg or a Double Down -- which is worse?" Really?? You actually have to stop and think and write about this one??? Then to my surprise (well not really), the blogger is actually writing about the EGG being worse. This is from the beginning of the article: "It seems automatic to hate the Double Down from KFC. All the fat and calories of a Big Mac, and double Big Mac's level of salt.

    Hold on, say three Canadian doctors. There's worse out there. Not that the Double Down is good, but the ordindary egg beats it for pure cholesterol."

    So all of that other terrible stuff in the Double Down is somehow negated by the higher cholesterol content of an egg yolk enough to classify the egg as being "worse"? You're not going to prevent heart disease by choosing a Double-Down over an egg, and there certainly other factors involved in heart disease, which aren't mentioned in the article. So on top of being useless, the article also downplays the nutritonal faults of the Double Down.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous3:31 pm

    I still wanna know which is healthier!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous6:39 pm

    It kind of depends on which pop tart. Certain kinds are as unhealthy as Toaster Strudel but some, like the sugary chocolate "more-like-dessert" ones, are more unhealthy. Are they really considering ALL of the types of pop tarts breakfast?

    ReplyDelete