Parents Fined For Not Sending Ritz Crackers In Kids' Lunches

It's quite possible that the single stupidest school lunch policy on the planet comes courtesy of a strange interpretation of the Manitoba Government's Early Learning and Child Care lunch regulations (an earlier version of this article incorrectly pointed at the Manitoba Child Care Association as the source of the strangely interpreted policy).

Apparently if a child's lunch is deemed "unbalanced", where "balance" refers to ensuring that a lunch conforms to the proportions of food groups as laid out by Canada's awful Food Guide, then that child's lunch is "supplemented", and their parent is fined.

Blog reader Kristen Bartkiw received just such a fine.

She sent her children to daycare with with lunches containing leftover homemade roast beef and potatoes, carrots, an orange and some milk.

She did not send along any "grains".

As a consequence the school provided her children with, I kid you not, supplemental Ritz Crackers, and her with a $10 fine.

As Kristen writes, had she sent along lunches consisting of, "microwave Kraft Dinner and a hot dog, a package of fruit twists, a Cheestring, and a juice box" those lunches would have sailed right through this idiocy. But her whole food, homemade lunches? They lacked Ritz Crackers.

So what say you? Have you come across a more inane school lunch policy? Because I sure haven't.

[Kristen also updated me that consequent to parents failing to pack "balanced" lunches they've moved to a hot lunch program that she describes as great. So perhaps some good came out of Manitoba's idiocy after all]

Saturday Stories: Tap Water, Death and Football

My friend Andy Bellatti over on Civil Eats exposes Coca-Cola's war on non-revenue generating tap water.

A heart wrenching read from Freakonomics' Steven Levitt's father Michael on the death of his daughter.

ESPN's Rick Reilly on how football is getting harder and harder to watch.

Can You Watch This Without Laughing?

I couldn't.

So for Funny Friday today, see if you can manage not at least grinning while watching this under 1 minute clip.

Have a great weekend!

Help Wanted Ads Highlight True Concerns of the Food Industry

I've been critical before about Health Canada and our government's warm embrace and inclusion of Canadian food industry lobby the Food and Consumer Products of Canada's (FCPC) on governmental panels setting policies or recommendations.

For instance I thought it was beyond obscene that among the 12 members who made up Canada's Food Guide's advisory committee one was Carolyn O'Brien, then the Director of Scientific and Regulatory Affairs at the Food and Consumer Products Manufacturers of Canada. I was horrified to learn that the FCPC had joined Canada's then Minister of Health in rolling out a watered down, worse than nothing, voluntary set of guidelines for the food industry and their predatory practice of targeting children. And I was beyond disappointed to learn that the FCPC Vice Presient Phyllis Tanaka was invited to join Ontario's Healthy Kids Panel as a full voting member.

So why do I have such a hate on for the FCPC? Well I don't actually. I think the food industry needs organizations like the FCPC to represent their interests - it's just that I don't think Health Canada or our government should expect the FCPC to do anything beyond trying to represent their interests. Meaning that give them a vote and that vote's not going to be used to further public health aims, it'll be used to further the aims of FCPC member companies.

And so why this post rehashing everything?

Well the FCPC is hiring an RD to succeed Ms. Tanaka as their Vice President Scientific and Regulatory Affairs, Food and Nutrition. Understandably their responsibilities will include protecting and promoting the interests of member companies and specifically in doing so with both Health Canada and Dietitians of Canada. Here's the job description (highlights mine),

"Reporting to the VP, Public and Regulatory Affairs, the Vice-President, Scientific & Regulatory Affairs – Food and Nutrition is responsible for:

• Maintaining a profile and good relations with Health Canada bureaucrats with responsibilities for files of importance to FCPC member companies. This would include proactively establishing opportunities for Health Canada to meet with members on strategic files.

• Maintaining a communications process between Dietitians of Canada (DC) and FCPC to share positions and perspectives on food and nutrition policy and regulatory issues and facilitating efforts to bring the industry dietitians’ perspective to the fore in DC’s development of policy and positions on issues that affect industry.

Major responsibilities include:

International Level: working with the Grocery Manufacturers Association staff on North American focused issues; working as required in other international fora to represent industry positions and concerns related to technical, regulatory and public health issues

Federal Level: working with member companies to respond to Health Canada consultations on food and nutrition policy and regulatory issues; maintaining a profile and good relations with key stakeholder groups with vested interest in federal level food and nutrition policy and regulatory issues.

Provincial Level: working with VP Provincial Affairs to develop technical input to government relations strategies on provincial based food and nutrition policy and regulatory issues.

Within FCPC providing food and nutrition related technical support to the Regulatory and Public Affairs Team; and acting as an industry spokesperson with media, NGOs and other audiences as required."

So Health Canada and DC, the next time you invite FCPC to the table, remember, they're there, understandably, to protect their members' interests, and if those interests don't coincide with public health, don't expect them to change, instead expect them to work tirelessly and vigorously to try to fight your health improvement efforts.

If You Want Your Kids to Eat Their Veggies, Should You Spike Them with Butter?

Maybe you caught this study when it came out earlier this year, but I only just got around to reading it. It was published in the journal Appetite and it detailed the impact of spiking toddlers' vegetable soups with fats and carbs (sunflower oil and maltodextrin - and in so doing increasing the energy density and palatability of the soup) on the intake of non-spiked vegetable soup 2 and 6 months later.

Not surprisingly the kids preferred the energy dense soups.

Perhaps slightly surprisingly, how much the kids liked their soups from the get go didn't impact on how well they liked the non-spiked soups 6 months later. At that point all that mattered was exposure.

As I've mentioned in the past, my house is part of the "one bite to be polite" community and we've found that over time those bites condition our girls' palates to a wide variety of tastes and foods, while the one bite to be polite prevents those exposures from turning new flavours into battlegrounds.

[And please don't read this post as stating that I'm averse to you putting butter on veggies - that's quite delicious - I just used the study to illustrate the point that exposure is king]

The Two Sides of Coca-Cola's Slippery, Sugary, Mouth

I love these two dueling stories from this past spring - so much so that I'll share them with you here.

Up first is the indignant upset of Joseph Tripodi, Coca-Cola's chief marketer, who along with such gems as,

"If you are sitting on your ass all day then have a Diet Coke."

was quoted in this June 21st piece in the Guardian as rejecting a proposal for a tax on sugary drinks and stating,

"We are easy to demonise as we are the world's largest brand and so people say 'you guys are causing all the problems'"

Up next, just 5 days later is this report from the Associated Press, also based out of the UK, which reports on a Coca-Cola brand strategy document that asks,

"How do we motivate people to make soft drinks, like smoothies, juices and other on-the-go products, part of their morning ritual in the same way as tea or coffee?"

Of course Tripodi's got it wrong. Not in that we shouldn't target Coca-Cola and other sugary drink makers, but rather Tripodi's wrong about why Coca-Cola's easy to demonize. Coca-Cola's easy to demonize not because they're causing all the problems, but rather because they're duplicitously suggesting they're part of the solution when it comes to obesity.

Exercise Does Not Make Coca Cola Healthful

There is no weight at which drinking Coca-Cola (or any other sugar sweetened beverage) is suddenly less bad for you. There's also no amount of exercise that you can do before you drink one that's going to change the fact you're drinking, in the case of one of their ubiquitous 20oz bottles, 16.5 teaspoons of sugar and the calories of a large chocolate bar.

Yet Coca-Cola, go figure, is "Coming Together" to try to convince people that exercise makes drinking Coca-Cola A-OK.

Here's a recent ad coming out of Chile. Coca-Cola rigged up an awesome setup in a taxi that allowed those who pedaled while riding to receive a discount on their fare. The ad's translated copy reads,

"The statistics say that 70% of Chileans sedentary lives. The good thing is to lift a finger, can be the beginning to change this. Coca-Cola presents: Taxi movement. The more you pedal, the lower your fare. Combine Physical activity with moderate and balanced diet to manage weight. How much are you going to move today? Movement is happiness. Happiness is movement."

So there you have it. To paraphrase, if you "Balance" your dietary choices with physical activity - you're golden. Happiness is movement.

And what else is happiness?

Well it's Coca-Cola of course, as just like here in North America, Chile's Coca-Cola campaign involves opening happiness or, "destapa la felicidad"

Now don't get me wrong, if you love Coca-Cola, drink it, but only drink the smallest amount of it you need to enjoy your life. That said, just don't forget that exercise and/or a low body weight certainly won't make that beverage any less unhealthy. And if you think for one moment that Coca-Cola's "Coming Together" to do anything other than sell more Coca-Cola and forestall industry unfriendly regulation, then I think you've let the bubbles go to your head.

Saturday Stories: Sky Blue Pink, Vaccines, and Hackers

A touching story by Brian Anthony Hernandez in Mashable on the colour sky blue pink and one man's death.

Tara Haelle in Red Wine and Applesauce knocks it out of the park busting every vaccine related myth there ever was (with extensive references!)

Adam Penenberg and a chilling piece about what happened after he challenged hackers to investigate him.

Wow! (And Never Would I Have Imagined a Marching Band Would Make Me Say Wow)

While it's not laugh out loud funny, pretty sure that today's Funny Friday video will make you smile.

Amazing.

Have a great weekend!

Badvertising: Go-Gurt Doubles Down on Health Halo Marketing

If I were asked to describe Go-Gurt succinctly the words, "sugary blech" would leap to mind, but if Go-Gurt's new packaging has any influence on consumers' thoughts therein, they may instead think, "healthy snack".

So what has Go-Gurt done aside from repackage? Well they've also reformulated.

Gone is HFCS, and, hold onto your hats, sugar's down by a whole gram per serving.

But what's still there?

A teeny tiny tube that is basically made up of a bit of milk along with a full 2.25 tsp of sugar that in turn delivers a hint of calcium, vitamin D and a measly 2g of protein.

The problem isn't that this stuff exists. The problem is that Yoplait's allowed to stamp Go-Gurt boxes with all sorts of copy that very directly scream to consumers, "HEALTHY", when really it may just be sugary blech.

Do you really want your kids eating sugary blech?

[And if you're so inclined to hear about its taste - have a peek at this laugh out loud review, albeit from a product tasting before that single gram of sugar disappeared.]

Guest Post: An Open Letter to Youth Competitive Dance

Image Source

Today's guest post comes from Lori Leigh Wilson. Lori is a mom of 3, a writer, a voice-over actor and a plant-based foodie. She is passionate about holistic family health, taking time to enjoy the moments (almost always) and learning from her missteps. You can check out her family lifestyle blog (where this piece was originally posted) for veggie recipes, parenting successes and failures, and honest sharing.

Being the dad of 3 little girls, this post spoke to me and I asked Lori if it'd be alright if I shared and she graciously agreed.

Dear Youth Dance Competition Organizers and Judges,

First of all, I would like to start by thanking you for providing a forum for my daughter to express her passion. At 10 years old, she revels in the opportunity to move her body and pour her feelings and creativity into music and movement. Even when she isn’t training, she will most often spend her free time choreographing new routines and practicing the moves that have turned her into a strong and athletic young girl. And make no mistake, she is an athlete. And this is in no small part due to the focused training she undertakes in preparation for competition.

Like any competitive sport, there are things that I don’t love about dance – the incredibly high cost, the countless hours that make family dinners all but a distant memory from September to June and the scant costumes (many of which will come in handy if my daughter ever parlays her dance training into something involving a G-string and a pole). But like all parents who agree to enroll their children into competitive endeavors, I appreciate that I sometimes have to take the good with the bad and these are the issues I will grit my teeth and contend with as long as my daughter continues to love this sport.

There is however one thing I just cannot wrap my brain around. One thing that makes me sad and frustrated at the same time. Here’s my problem – can you please tell me why I am required to plaster my beautiful daughter’s face in layers of gaudy makeup and absurdly long false eyelashes in order for her to compete on stage? And why every dancer from the tender age of 6 must endure hours in front of a mirror layering on powders, blushes and lipsticks only to come out looking like ridiculous overly sexualized young women?

Here is why I have a real issue with this – you are essentially telling a group of young athletes (the vast majority of them girls) that they are not good enough just as they are. That all of the hours of sweat and training are not quite enough to prepare them to compete in front of a panel of judges. Instead of celebrating their natural beauty and athleticism, they must further prepare by slapping on face powder and body glitter and hairspray themselves to within an inch of their lives to make themselves presentable. In order to fulfill the advanced requirements of the sport, they must transform themselves from beautiful innocent young performers into sexy made-up temptresses.

When I’ve asked around, I’ve been informed that the makeup enhances the quality of the performances. And I can understand this point only in relation to particular themes – perhaps a zombie dance would require ghostly white faces and fake scars or a smurf song would lend itself to blue faces and costumes. But I’m talking about the lion’s share of dances that regardless of the theme or music require all female performers to apply obscene amounts of eyeshadow, mascara, foundation, blush and lipstick.

Now I’ve also been told that the thick and often garish makeup is applied to allow the judges to see the girls faces better. But if that were truly the case then why don’t I see bright pink gloss or spidery lashes on the equally talented male performers? Maybe I’m missing something but I’ve yet to see a young man dance across the stage in a belly shirt with rouged cheeks and a head full of laughable attached ringlets.

Can you imagine any other competitive sport where the athletes would have to endure such indignity before competition? Would we send our children who play rep level soccer or hockey or football or lacrosse onto the playing field wearing ruby-red lipstick and purple blush to better appreciate their athleticism? Are gymnasts, swimmers and track stars forced to spend hours in the mirror pre-comp carefully affixing 1-inch lashes to enhance the visual aspect of their performance?

And am I the only one who finds this completely nuts? Because I’m really starting to think I am. I have always been shocked by how few of my friends share my discomfort with this requirement. “Oh Lori” they say “it’s just part of the sport.” “The girls will lose marks if they aren’t wearing makeup” or “My daughter loves getting all made up.” To this last comment I say yes – my sister and I spent many an hour as young girls slopping piles of my mom’s discarded makeup all over ourselves and having a ball. But it wasn’t mandatory to any activity we were participating in. It was simply for fun.

I do not consider myself a dance mom any more than I’m a soccer or hockey mom to my sons. I’m simply one mother stumbling my way through parenthood trying to do what is best for my children. And like most parents I will support them in their choices as long as they are reasonable and not life threatening. But I also want to teach my children to speak up when something feels wrong and to challenge conventions when they are outdated or unreasonable (and you can bet I’ve had many frank discussions with my daughter about my feelings around makeup and dance).

And please don’t misunderstand me – this is not meant to be a dig at any particular person or studio. I happen to love where my daughter dances and her talented teachers and I’ll be the first to admit that I had a blast watching her on stage at each and every one of her competitions last season. I’m only asking that as a collective – moms, dads, kids, studio owners, teachers, competition organizers and judges – that we take a good hard look at this particular requirement and perhaps decide that at least for these young athletes- dance should be appreciated as a sport and an art form that ultimately needs no artificial embellishment.

To the organizers of the competitions and the judges, I can tell you this for sure- if you lose the makeup you might not see bright pink lips or electric blue eye lids but I can guarantee you will have a much better view of the pure and unaltered joy on the dancers faces. You will see natural smiles and cheeks flushed with effort and excitement. You will see their eyes lit up with happiness and passion. And at the end of the day – isn’t that what it’s really all about?

Sincerely,

Lori

Canadian Pharmacies Using Flu Shots To Sell Non-Evidence Based Supplements?

A few years ago the Province of Ontario granted pharmacists the right to administer flu shots. Personally I think that's a great move as it takes a load of our already overburdened doctors' offices and markedly increases the availability of the shots.

But it's not all sunshine.

Last Friday my family went to our local Rexall Pharma Plus to get ours shots. And while the shots went smoothly, and putting aside the fact my children were all offered chocolate bars for their bravery, it was the coupon that came actually attached to my "vaccination record" that gave me pause.

That's it up above. It's for Jamieson Flu Shield with "Polinacea".

What's Polinacea? It's an extract from the roots of the Echinacea angustifolia plant.

So does it work? To answer that question first check out this disclaimer that was printed on the Flu Shield coupon itself,

Do the words, "emerging", "preliminary", "suggests" and "may" instill you with confidence?

Looking to the medical literature the full text of this "preliminary research" is available online, and it turns out it was so preliminary that it didn't in fact study whether or not Polinacea helped to improve the immune system's response after taking the flu vaccine.

It was published in Alternative Medicine Review in 2012 and it involved two "pilot studies". The first followed 38 individuals divided into those receiving the flu shot and Polinacea, those receiving Polinacea and no flu shot, and those receiving both. They then tracked  influenza-type symptoms in the groups. They also looked at various blood based "immune parameter" biomarkers, but only did so in the group receiving Polinacea but no flu shot. Given they didn't actually compare those "immune parameter" biomarkers in the flu shot only group, no conclusion whatsoever can be drawn from the findings as to immune system response in those who also received the flu shot.

The second pilot study involved 34 children who did not in fact receive a flu shot, and so again, no conclusion as to the benefit of Flu Shield following a flu shot can be drawn.

Reflecting on this I need to ask, should publicly funded health care dollars be spent to help pharmacies sell non-evidence based nonsense to Ontarians?

My vote is no.

The Heart and Stroke Foundation Needs International Experts To Tell Them Not to Sell Candy?

The Heart and Stroke Foundation's response to my call to action on their abysmal Health Check program has been something of a train wreck and includes this press release put out by Health Check's program manager Terry Dean.

In it he notes,

"The HSF is currently in the process of developing a comprehensive position on sugar. We will be soliciting national and international experts to provide us advice on the most recent international evidence in this area in order to develop an evidence-based position on intake, which currently does not exist in Canada."

So what exactly do the Heart and Stroke Foundation's Health Check Registered Dietitians do for the Foundation if Health Check needs to ask for outside help to determine whether or not endorsing fruit juice gummis that are themselves 80% sugar by weight with virtually no associated nutrition is a good idea?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if your organization needs international experts to tell them selling candy as a health food is a bad idea, perhaps you might want to consider the possibility that there's something wrong with your organization's own expertise.

Oh, and for the record, it's not like any of this is news to the Heart and Stroke Foundation. I've been calling them out on their candy endorsements since as far back as March 2010.

Regarding fruit juice and fruit? This tweet from RD Bridgette Kidd sums it up quite succinctly,

@HSFHealthCheck @YoniFreedhoff Juice concentrate is as much a fruit as corn syrup is a vegetable. http://t.co/XbLZPi9kwd

— Bridgette Kidd (@edibleprogress) November 1, 2013

The other thing Health Check tried to do on Friday was to suggest that fruit sugar gummis are simply dried fruit. They made that case via Twitter and they even linked to an article by renowned Canadian RD, author, and national columnist Leslie Beck, naming her directly, that speaks to the virtues of dried fruit.

Is dried fruit good or bad for me? http://t.co/X7BkuDFFAP via @LeslieBeckRD

— Health Check (@HSFHealthCheck) November 1, 2013

In turn, that tweet led to this brief exchange,

Good lord! You're not selling dried fruit RT @hsfhealthcheck: Is dried fruit good or bad for me? http://t.co/e0NOKWcOfx via @LeslieBeckRD

— Yoni Freedhoff, M.D. (@YoniFreedhoff) November 1, 2013

Not a chance @LeslieBeckRD considers @HSFHealthCheck'ed SunRype fruitsource bites dried fruit. Nor should anyone. http://t.co/iyRwCFCPTn

— Yoni Freedhoff, M.D. (@YoniFreedhoff) November 1, 2013

You're right! @YoniFreedhoff Not a chance @LeslieBeckRD considers @HSFHealthCheck SunRype fruitsource bites dried fruit. Nor should anyone.

— Leslie Beck (@LeslieBeckRD) November 1, 2013

Saturday Stories: Genetics, "Before Angelina", Bad Science and Gluten

Great piece by David Dobbs in Slates on the promise and failings of genetic research to date.

Time Magazine's Alexandra Sifferlin's photo essay "Before Angelina" in honour of breast cancer awareness month.

Michael Hiltzik with a hard hitting piece in the LA Times on how science has lost its way.

My friend Tim Caulfield and with his newly minted designation as a Trudeau scholar with too many designations to list, on Gwyneth, Miley and Gluten.

[And if you don't follow me on Twitter or Facebook, this week's US News and World Report piece explores Eat Drink Politics' Michele Simon's damning report on "Charity" and McDonald's.]

Did You Catch This Colgate Video on Kids and Halloween Treats?

Today's Friday video is that already famous Halloween Colgate ad for toothpaste and toothbrushes (that I'm betting many of you have already watched given its virality).

But is it funny?

Yoni Levitan reached out to me on Twitter wondering whether or not all this video is doing is reinforcing societal stereotypes and attitudes that suggest healthy foods (fruits and vegetables) are disgusting.

What do you think?

(and remember, Halloween was yesterday, today you can most definitely dial down the treats)



[h/t to Eating Rules' Andrew Wilder for first sending it my way]

The Heart and Stroke Foundation Doubles Down On Its Endorsement of Candy as Fruit

As mind boggling as the Heart and Stroke Foundation extending its official seal of approval to products with more sugar than candy, that contain virtually nothing in the way of vitamins, or minerals, and with health-washed packaging that dupes parents into thinking they're fruit equivalents, more mind boggling is their defense of that practice this morning.

Here are some tweets from both @TheHSF and @HSFHealthCheck to those who have expressed their concern that candy is being sold to parents as fruit.

I'm embedding the tweets so if they disappear, it's because the Heart and Stroke Foundation deleted them - it also means if you're on Twitter you can interact with them directly with replies straight from this blog post.

Before reading the tweets, have a peek up above at the nutritional information for SunRype fruitsource bites which per recommended serving have 6 teaspoons of sugar, bite per bite double the sugar of nibs, and they don't contain the vitamin C of even one lonely actual strawberry.

@MarkJMcGill To clarify:there is NO added sugar,no fat & they are source of vitamins & fibre.Pls look at our criteria http://t.co/uejneLLiPR

— Health Check (@HSFHealthCheck) October 31, 2013

@rebecca_davids Fresh fruit&veg r best. But dried fruit 100% fruit juice fruit bites are one way of getting fruit & veggies in your diet.

— Health Check (@HSFHealthCheck) October 31, 2013

@hynhdvd #SunRype 100% fruit juice snack bites have vitamins, minerals & no added sugar. http://t.co/qqsMGv6bSo

— Health Check (@HSFHealthCheck) October 31, 2013

@rlazzinnaro Fresh fruit&veg are best. But dried fruit 100% fruit juice fruit bites are one way of getting fruit & veggies in your diet.

— Heart and Stroke FDN (@TheHSF) October 31, 2013

RDs, would love for you to weigh in here. Are SunRype fruitsource bites a healthful product? Would you recommend them to parents?

And here again, is my video regarding this inanity.

The Heart and Stroke Foundation Owes Canadians an Apology and Action

There's just no way to sugarcoat this. The Heart and Stroke Foundation, and specifically their Health Check program, in their selling of check marks to so called fruit leathers and fruit gummis, is overtly harming Canadian children's health - a generation which quite literally is the sickest generation of kids in modern history.

In the United States, the Center for Science in the Public Interest sued General Mills for their fruit roll up labeling, and yet here in Canada we see the Heart and Stroke Foundation selling its front-of-package Health Check to products like SunRype fruitsource bites where by weight they're 80% sugar, with sugar being responsible for 96% of their calories.

And who buys these products? Parents for the most part, as consequent both to the Health Check and to the health washed package labeling that explicitly states that a serving of these candies replaces 2 actual servings of fruit, many parents truly believe that they're good for their kids.

A veritable case study in health-washing

It's no surprise that Health Check is trusted. In fact the Heart and Stroke Foundation's own research has shown that consumers interpret their Health Check marks to mean that product is,

"'nutritious', 'healthy', 'good for you' or 'approved by the Heart and Stroke Foundation.'"

And according to Health Check's About Us page,

"The Health Check logo tells you the food or menu item has been reviewed by the Heart and Stroke Foundation’s registered dietitians and can contribute to an overall healthy diet."

You tell me, does this product's nutrition information suggest to you that it contributes to an "overall healthy diet"?

Where's the fruit? All I see is sugar.

And if after peeking at the nutritional information you're still on the fence consider this. I went out and purchased some NIBS for a comparison. Here's a photo of 30g (fruitsource's recommended serving size) of each.

Not only are NIBS lower in sugar, you actually get more of them per 30g

While no one would ever confuse NIBS with health or fruit, consequent to health washed labeling and that Heart and Stroke Foundation Health Check up top, many might confuse fruitsource with actually healthful fruit. I wonder how many of those folks would be surprised to learn that per 30g serving the NIBS have 2.5 teaspoons less sugar than the fruitsource bites, which, bite per bite, contain nearly double the NIBS' sugar.

If you're angry, feel free to click here to send your message of concern to Ms. Bobbe Wood, the President of the Heart and Stroke Foundation.

Please share this post and/or the video above far and wide as this is not ok. The Heart and Stroke Foundation and their dietitians do know better, and we as a nation, and especially our nation's children, deserve better - way, way, better.

Does Drinking Milk Pre-Meals Reduce Appetite?

Certainly that's what this study, Effects of milk as a recovery drink following exercise on subsequent appetite and energy intake in female recreational exercisers seems to conclude,

"In conclusion, the consumption of skimmed milk following 30 minutes of moderate-vigorous cycling exercise resulted in a reduction in subsequent energy intake, in female recreational exercisers."

But the thing is, it probably doesn't, at least not in the broad based way the conclusion is written.

It probably doesn't because what the study explored were the total calories consumed by female recreational exercisers who, an hour prior to an all-you-can-eat meal, drank either 600mL of skim milk or 600mL of orange juice.

Turns out, subjects who had a ginormous pre-load of milk instead of a ginormous pre-load of orange juice consumed 193 fewer calories (where the total included both the beverage's and the meal's calories).

So definitely, if you're planning to down more than half a litre of either juice or milk before your meal, it would seem that you'd be far better off with the milk.

But what about if your preload was water because, after all, 600mL of water has zero calories while 600mL of skim milk has 228 calories? My bet is that you'd consume fewer total calories because studies looking at the impact of caloric beverages vs. water and other zero calorie beverages demonstrate that indeed, we don't fully compensate for liquid calories (meaning drink calories with your meal and you'll consume more in the way of total meal time calories). In this study's case, if the choice had been water rather than milk, those sitting down to their all they can eat pasta meal would have needed to consume more than a cup more pasta to gather up milk's 228 calories.

What also seems impossible to me is that the study's authors weren't aware of the phenomenon of incomplete compensation for liquid calories when consuming a subsequent meal which in turn led me to wonder why their methodology didn't include a water arm, or a zero beverage arm for comparison. Could their omission have been purposeful, where the purpose would be to allow the authors to conclude that milk consumed post exercise is a wise plan for calorie reduction, this despite the very strong likelihood that doing so will almost certainly increase total calorie consumption for the combined meal and beverage?

So I asked one of the authors, Dr. Stevenson (far right in photo up above), on Twitter (@emmajstevenson), why there was no water arm,

@EmmaJStevenson @mackinprof Volumes aside, if hypothesis is milk helps decrease total calories consumed, why no zero calorie beverage arm?
— Yoni Freedhoff, M.D. (@YoniFreedhoff) October 27, 2013

But unfortunately, despite responding to other queries, she did not choose to respond to that one.

On Bribery, RDs, Health-Washing, and Thrive Vitamin Fortified Ice Cream

I almost don't know where to begin, but let's start at square one which is a product called Thrive Ice Cream.

What's Thrive ice cream? Well think actual ice-cream, but fortified with vitamins, protein and pro-biotics.

Now think ice-cream fortified with vitamins, protein and pro-biotics, with voluminous amounts of health washing (including their tag line, "Frozen Nutrition") that suggests what they put into the ice cream somehow changes the fact at its base it's actual ice cream replete with ice cream sized piles of sugar and calories (or more as for instance Thrive Homemade Vanilla has 22% more calories and 2 teaspoons more sugar than an equivalent 6oz serving of Breyer's All Natural Vanilla Ice Cream).

Now think ice-cream fortified with vitamins, protein and pro-biotics with voluminous amounts of health washed ad copy whose parent company buys a booth at the American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 8000 RD strong #FNCE conference and installs in it a money blowing booth in a bid presumably to quite literally buy the goodwill of dietitians.

I'm honestly not kidding. Here are some photos:

Making it rain at #FNCE 2013

According to the tweet, this RD left with $209 in her pocket!

So is Thrive really a bowlful of "Frozen Nutrition"? That's your call, but if you decide that it is and Thrive's not available near you, just go out, pick up some Breyer's and scoop yourself 3/4 of a cup, crush in both a multi-vitamin and an acidophilus tablet, and on the side eat a small 24 gram cube of cheese - because that'll give you pretty much the same "Frozen Nutrition" as Thrive.

Or, here's an idea, if you're worried about your health (or counselling anybody about theirs) don't frickin' pretend that vitamins, pro-biotics and protein make ice-cream a healthy choice!

To be fair, the product's FAQ says Thrive vitamin fortified ice-cream is for people who aren't in fact eating well and might otherwise be drinking Boosts and Ensures,

"Any individual in need of additional nutrition, such as those who are in or recently released from the hospital, skilled nursing, or assisted living facilities. It is especially beneficial to those individuals who are suffering from flavor fatigue or unable to consume adequate nutrition through conventional methods. Children under 12 should consult a physician."

But I don't think that's really their target market given that in one of their videos on YouTube, Thrive's CEO proudly explains,

"Thrive appeals to a very large demographic because 98% of the people in the US love to eat ice cream"

And have a gander at this 16 second video originally published by Thrive on YouTube.

Sure looks like they're marketing it to anyone with a pulse and not just those chugging back Boost....and what do you think the chances are that they contacted those kids' physicians prior to handing out their samples?

At the end of the day there's no doubt that for many ice cream is one of life's simple pleasures, but regardless of what you or anyone else puts in it, it'll never be better or worse for you than ice cream ever was.

[I wonder if it was worrying about shots like those up above, of RDs being showered with actual money at the booth of a questionable product, that led AND to ban photos from #FNCE this year - though they wouldn't have stopped these photos as these photos were taken and shared by Thrive's own RD, Holly Raine who, believe it or not, also just so happens to be the president elect of the Missouri Dietetic Association.]

Public Health, Halloween, and Hershey's

I've regularly stated that parenting, while incredibly challenging, can be boiled down to one straightforward instruction, "Live the life you want your children to live".

And while all of us parents do our bests therein, sometimes I feel that the same can't be said for our proverbial parents in health - public health departments and their kin.

This past weekend saw the City of Ottawa host a Halloween Trick or Treat with the Mayor. Sponsored by Hershey's, here's the description of the week before actual Halloween bash,

"Receive a warm welcome from the Mayor and get sweet treats from some of your favorite costumed characters in Jean Pigott Place, enjoy medieval fun at the Lisgar Street entrance and classic Halloween movies in Andrew S. Haydon Hall. The fun continues outside on Marion Dewar Plaza where you can decorate your very own miniature pumpkin in the outdoor pumpkin patch and enjoy horse-drawn hay rides, where even more treats from our sponsors await you!"

For my non-Ottawan readers, our Mayor, Jim Watson, was formerly Ontario's Minister of Health Promotion and knows well the challenges our current environment poses. No doubt, these days, our children are not lacking in opportunities to be given candy, especially not in October, and from a public health perspective, our children need fewer opportunities for treats, and cities, public health departments, schools, hospitals and the like, need to provide more examples of working with children without leaning on the crutch of candy to make them happy.

I tweeted Mayor Watson my concerns and he let me know that alongside the candy the City was also handing out apples, tooth brushes and glow sticks.

Maybe next year they can ditch the candy (and the tooth brushes, and Hershey's sponsorship), keep the glow sticks, and also pick up some temporary tattoos, stickers and the free passes for swims and skates at City recreation facilities as I'm pretty sure Ottawa's kids won't be lacking in opportunities to be given candy this week.

All of this to say, we can, and should, do better.

For more thoughts herein, if you haven't watched it already, here's the talk I gave last year to the Ontario Public Health Association (which led to their being strong-armed briefly with the threat of a lawsuit from the food industry) where I point out many more contradictions in public health.