Badvertising: Fruitwashed Bacardi Real Jüs - How is this Legal?

Saw these at the checkout aisle of my local liquor store.

They're Bacardi's Real Jüs rum coolers made with, "25% Real Juice"

Simply horrifying, and it honestly surprises me that a front-of-package inferred health claim is something that can legally be placed on alcohol in Canada.

Parental YES! Files: Local Church Edition

Again, battles can be won.

Here's a note I received from a long time reader (who'd prefer to remain anonymous).

I thought you should know the positive influence you have had on our church culture.

You're responsible for me noticing that the Sunday School, Vacation Bible School, and Soccer Camps associated with my church were constantly feeding my kids junk food, "just for this one special event." For about a year, I randomly complained to anyone who would listen. Finally, I wrote to the head pastor, the children's pastor, and a board member. I explained what I had observed and pointed out that unhealthy food choices were constantly being given to the children, even in the same services that we told them to care for the bodies God gave them. The day after they received the letter, there was an announcement in the bulletin for "healthy snacks after the service". Also since that day, I have seen veggies with hummus in Sunday School area for the first time ever. I have had to volunteer to bring 80 healthy snacks to soccer camp on Monday...but I'm good with that!

I don't know how often you're credited with changing things in the church Dr. Freedhoff...but I couldn't resist letting you know!

If you'd like to try to influence positive changes in your community, a ways back I published a brief guide on how to do so. And for readers of yesterday's post you should know I'll be having a run at the camp for next year.

[If you have your own Parental YES! (or No) story, please don't hesitate to send my way. yonifreedhoff at gmail.com]

Parental "No" Files: WTF is a "Cabin Party" for 8 Year Olds?

My oldest girl is spending a week at sleepaway camp this summer.

We received an email last week from the camp that included packing lists and various logistical information. This note was included,

"Campers are encouraged to bring a snack with them to share during their cabin party on the first night."

We called the camp to double check on what we were supposed to send snack wise for this "cabin party" and we were told generally campers bring chips, candies, and chocolates.

It's a junk food fest, and no doubt it's easier than ice breaker games to make kids happy, but is it really necessary, or in our children's best interests, to tie junk food to summer camp with their first experience literally being a candy crush?

And what if we wanted to opt out?

Well I suppose we could not send our daughter to camp in the first place. Or we could encourage our shy 8 year old to say, "No" and in so doing put herself in the spotlight of, "that kid's weird", or we could send her with "healthful" snacks and again risk her peers' childlike judgement.

Or we could sigh, buy her a family sized bag of chips, send her on her way, and further resent the fact that the world doesn't even try anymore to entertain or reward children with anything other than candy and that we feel, as parents, that to resist in this circumstance is not in the best interest of our child.

And 4 hours after this post goes live, that last option is exactly what we'll be doing.

Saturday Stories: Shakeology, Let's Move, and Mice

Pharmadaddy obliterates Shakeology

Great piece from the LA Times on the political pitfalls of Let's Move when it comes to the food industry.

Not only are human beings not simply large mice, but apparently mice research is fraught with bias.

[And if you don't follow me on Twitter or Facebook, my US News and World Report column covered some evidence based provisos and concerns that David Freedman didn't mention in his controversial Atlantic pro junk food piece]

Is the Secret to Happiness Being More Dog?

That's what today's Funny Friday would have you believe.

Have a great weekend!

(email subscribers, head to the blog to watch)

Badvertising: iÖGO Nano Drinkable Yogurt (Might As Well Be Ice Cream)

Clearly aimed at Moms and Dads everywhere, iÖGO Nano drinkable yogurt is billed as,

"Goodness made special for your little ones"

And of course it also packs the healthy inferences of the words "yogurt" and "strawberry".

Hmmmm, let's see.

A 93mL bottle of iÖGO Nano Strawberry Yogurt contains 70 calories, 11g of sugar (1g shy of 3 teaspoons), and not exactly brag worthy quantities of calcium and vitamin D (15% and 8% respectively).

A 93mL serving of Breyer's All Natural Strawberry Ice Cream contains 81 calories and an equivalent 11g of sugar.

Pretty sure if iÖGO Nano drinkable yogurt was billed as melted strawberry ice cream parents wouldn't be fooled into giving it to their kids and believing it to be a healthy choice, but rather perhaps on occasion as a treat.

And yet....

Sigh.

More SunRype Badvertising, This Time SunRype Just Fruit & Grains Bars

Sure seems clear. According to the ad copy SunRype Just Fruit & Grains bars,

"are made with 70% fruit, 30% grains and seeds, and nothing else."

"No fillers.
No added sugar.
No artificial flavour."

So let's take a quick and easy peek at those claims.

Each bar weighs 30g and of course, if the copy is to be believed, is made up purely of 70% fruit and 30% grains.

So presumably, their Summer Berries bar would be 70% mixed berries and 30% grains and seeds.

For the sake of this exercise let's assume of the grains portion 80% are rolled oats and 20% are flax seeds.

That would mean 21 grams of mixed berries, 7.2 grams of rolled oats and 1.8 grams of flax seeds.

Nutritionally that mixture amounts to 59 calories and 1.9g of sugar.

These bars?

Pretty much double those calories and almost ten times the sugar predicted by just fruits and grains.

So what's actually in the bars as clearly they're not simply my concoction of mixed berries, oats, and flax?

Don't you think it'd be great if our government denied the food industry the ability to call concentrated fruit juices and purees "fruit" and forced them instead to label them as the simple sugars that they are?

Oh, and in case you were curious, an equivalent 30g portion of a Mars bar? It has less sugar than this health-washed deception.

If you're looking for fruit and grains, eat fruit and grains.

Badvertising: SunRype Fruit Plus Veggies Plus Fibre!

Sigh.

I was alerted to the existence of this product by an RD who "liked" it on Facebook.

According to its internet copy, it is full of "extra healthy goodness", and no doubt, its front-of-package screams extra healthy (along with the Heart and Stroke Foundation's Health Check for added punch).

Wanna know what the actual ingredients scream?

Sugar water.

Sugar water with 2 lonely grams of fibre added to each glass' 6.75 teaspoons of sugar to be exact, and a health halo that's no doubt duping consumers into believing that they or their kids' consumption of this sugar water is a fair replacement for consuming actual fruits and vegetables.

If only there were such shortcuts.

Guest Post: A Parental YES! and a Battle Won

Long time readers may remember a post from a ways back detailing the goody bag given out to children who completed a "Kids of Steel" triathlon (25m swim, 1km cycle, 200m run) - my calculations had it at 450 calories with 15 teaspoons of sugar.

Well Jennifer Wilson, a reader who'd participated in that original race, decided to do something about it, and this year, instead of M&Ms and candy masquerading as fruit the kids received half a banana and a bubble wand!

Here's her story:

Hi Yoni,

I wanted to send you a parental "we'd had enough" file "so took matters into our own hands" story.

After the 2012 event I had sent a somewhat nasty and true letter to the kids of steel organizers letting them know our feelings on the food provided, the example it set and the impact it could have on kids. After talking to the organizers (who were greatly offended by our comments), they asked "well what are you going to contribute to change it"? Although this question was annoying (IE why is it my job to make sure an active organization promoting kids activity has healthy food choices), I also realized that if I didn't offer to help nothing would get done and I'd be angry again at the race this year. So in August of last year I said I'd like to be on the committee to help with ensuring healthy food choices were there for the kids and help with some of the logistics (i.e. handcuffs) at the race venue/hosting site due to contracts/agreements etc. (Why a city would choose to host a kids event at a facility that charges literally hundreds of dollars for the smallest of healthy platters is beyond me, but that's another story, another battle for another day). They graciously accepted my help and said they would start meeting around November.

As November, December passed by and I had not been contacted, I was continually sending emails to try to connect. I knew if I didn't pursue, it wouldn’t happen. Finally in the spring (after many attempts to contact) I received a response and they agreed to meet me to discuss options.

Basically I was told they had no money, uphill battle with the location to have outside food, it's only one day (I know you love that one!) etc. etc. However when I asked the question of "If I can get a sponsor for the healthy food" will you work with me? They agreed!

The sponsor I was talking about was my husband's company (as we had previously discussed this option as I anticipated their response) and of course they loved to be involved. When I proposed what was needed … I would get all the food (and bubbles for fun!; again a concept lost on the organizers "why would they get bubbles?"), if they provide the volunteers for day of and man the station. After all my son was racing, and I'm not missing that! Agreed.

I can't describe the feeling of satisfaction when I saw kids running around at the finish line chasing bubbles (yes, they were moving and running instead of sitting eating junk food, yeah movement!), eating their bananas, laughing and having fun. What kid doesn't want a bubble stick when they cross the finish line of a race…it was great! Compared to 2012 it was night and day. I'm not saying this works in all cases, nor should we as parents have to FIGHT with the organizers or facilities or camps or whatever to have healthy food. But the satisfaction for us as parents came in knowing that simply having healthy food (and only healthy food) at the finish line of a triathlon can help kids know what to eat and that healthy food is what you should be given post activity, should you be hungry - NOT rewarded with junk food for finishing an event, the feeling was great!

Sorry for the ramble - but a good update is always good! Love your blog - thanks for writing it!

There is hope … However we do start kindergarten in the fall. We are expecting that to be an adventure…will keep you updated!

Have a great weekend!
Jenn

Saturday Stories: Snakes, Tooth Fairies and a Terrorist

Somewhere not to put on your bucket list - Ilha de Queimada Grande

Did you know there are plans afoot to brand and commercialize the tooth fairy?

Don't get put off by the cover, that Rolling Stone piece on the Boston bomber is tremendous journalism.

[And if you don't follow me on Twitter or Facebook, here's this week's US News and World Report piece on whether or not it'd be wiser to cut out boxes rather than sodium, and below there's a bonus video from Tanya Fields, one of my fellow presenters at the University of Vermont's Food Systems Summit and one heckuva speaker as she discusses her work with the Bronx' BLK ProjeK]

Some Dogs Are Quite Simply Fearless Hunters

Today's Funny Friday is a rivalry as old as time itself between dog and ..... dandelion.

Have a great weekend!

(Email subscribers, head to the blog to watch)

Normalizing the Abnormal - My Talk From University of Vermont's Food Systems Summit

I called it, "The World is a Candy Store", but it might just as well have been called, "Normalizing That Which Should Not Be Normal".

It's 17 or so minutes long.

Thanks to the organizers for both inviting me, and sharing the video.

(Note, one slip of the tongue. When I spoke of the London Children's Hospital I meant the London Children's Museum)

Badvertising: Dairy Queen's Triple Berry Julius - More Sugar Than a GALLON of Berries!

Good lord!

Looking at the nutrition breakdown of Dairy Queen's new "Julius Original" smoothies that the ad up above suggests are fruits I couldn't help but make some comparisons.

Their large "Triple Berry" Julius Original smoothie? At 920 calories (with no "boosts") it has the caloric equivalent of nearly two large Dairy Queen  chocolate sundaes and with 48 teaspoons of sugar (a full cup), it packs the sugar equivalent of more than a gallon of actual mixed berries (and nearly 3.5x their calories).

So no Dairy Queen, your smoothies don't give you a "fruit" department, but they do give you a badvertising one.

What the Tiny Archipelago of Vanuatu Can Teach Us About Obesity's Causes

Vanuatu is an archipelago in the South Pacific made up of 68 inhabited islands with 255,737 residents (as of early 2012). The islands are all in various stages of economic development and given the uniformity of the population (98% are Melenasian) the islands and their inhabitants in a sense can be considered a natural experiment of health transition consequent to progress which allows researchers to try to determine which elements of change are responsible for increasing rates of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) like obesity.

And that's exactly what researchers did.

In a study published in the journal Obesity, researchers assessed body composition and behavioural patterns including diet, physical activity and substance use on three islands that varied in their degree of economic development. They then analyzed relationships among their measures. One of the islands was characterized by small rural villages made up of subsistence farmers. The other was also rural but their main economy was tourism. The third was Vanuatu's urban capital city.

Researchers asked questions about: Ancestry, family history of NCDs, occupation, education, subsistence related activities, 24 hour dietary recall, frequency of sports and sedentary behaviours and substance use. The researchers measured: BMI, body fat percentage (both by means of bioimpedance analysis and multiple skin folds), waist circumference, and waist to hip ratio.

The findings weren't all that surprising, yet still are worth reviewing. Risk of obesity, increased body fat percentage, increase waist circumferences and waist to hip ratios all went up in lock step with degree of economic development.

And the biggest predictor of weight change? Processed food consumption - in this case tinned fish canned in oil or sauce served with instant noodles or rice (versus the more traditional fresh fish with root crops and vegetables).

As would be expected, physical activity and sedentary behaviour had much weaker associations with weight change than did diet.

Unfortunately convenience foods aren't particularly convenient for health.

Guest Post: What Reading That Artificial Sweeteners "Study" Actually Told Me

Today's guest post comes from Colby Vorland. You can always count on Colby to carefully read source articles before weighing in on them. Like me, Colby has no vested interest in whether or not artificial sweeteners are risky or beneficial, but also like me, Colby prefers to rely on evidence to inform his opinions rather than conjecture or gut beliefs. So when I saw him wading into the fray on this irresponsibly published piece (you'll understand what I mean when you read Colby's post), I invited him to summarize his concerns here (and he's also done so in even greater and fully referenced detail on his excellent blog, Nutritional Blogma)

An opinion article in the journal Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism by Dr. Susan Swithers about artificial sweeteners made for scary articles last week. Here is a small sampling:

• "Do Diet Drinks Mess Up Metabolisms?" at NPR's The Salt
• "Diet soda may do more harm than good" at CNN 
• "Artificial sweeteners could lead to obesity, diabetes" at CBS News
• "Study: Diet soda doesn't help you lose weight" at USA Today
• Dr. Swithers even appeared on NPR's Science Friday last week.

And many, many more. Her message reached millions.

These news pieces were largely based on a press release from the journal publisher (Cell Press) titled "The dark side of artificial sweeteners". The press release and article argue that artificial sweeteners increase risk of obesity, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome (and therefore heart disease). It is true that some research associates artificial sweeteners with these outcomes, but it is also true that some research does not. With a look at the article, there are a number of mistakes and/or misleading things about it, and it does not reflect all the evidence. Below I review the article's sections on artificial sweeteners and obesity, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and heart disease. Dr. Swithers and others have done interesting neuroscientific rodent work with artificial sweeteners which is the second half of her article which I do not review here.

Here is what is missing from media stories about this publication:

• This was not a systematic review of all research. In fact, the oldest paper on artificial sweeteners cited was published in 2007. There are a lot of studies published prior to 2007 on this topic.
• All of the cited studies were trying to support a view that artificial sweeteners are harmful, and all studies suggesting artificial sweeteners have no relationship with disease were ignored as you can see below.
• Strangely, these are not the fault of Dr. Swithers, but the requirements of the journal: "Opinions should present a personal viewpoint on a research-related topic, rather than a balanced review of this topic." They also note that you should not cite meta-analyses, and there is a reference limit.

So to summarize - the journal specifically requests non-balanced articles of only recent research, then puts out hyped press releases without saying this, and as a consequence, frightens millions of people. To me, scientific "opinions" should be based on a dispassionate analysis of the whole relevant evidence-base, whereas this is simply irresponsible, and it should change.

Weight

• Swithers cites 2 observational studies that purportedly show a relationship between artificial sweeteners and weight gain.
• The first made no statistical adjustments for any dietary variables.
• The second found a cross-sectional relationship but not a longitudinal relationship, the latter being a stronger study design. 
• There are stronger designs not cited (for example Mozaffarian et al. (2011) and de Koning et al. (2011)) that found associations between lower weight and higher artificially sweetened beverage intake.
• A review not cited Anderson et al. (2012) concludes "there is no evidence that low-calorie sweeteners can be claimed to be a cause of higher body weights in adults."

Metabolic Syndrome

• Next Swithers discusses observational studies associating artificial sweeteners with metabolic syndrome, citing 4 studies.
• The first I blogged about and I would not say it shows there is an association.
• The other 3 did find positive associations between diet soda and metabolic syndrome, but all of the papers caution about interpretation and suggest that diet soda could be a marker of poor diet/lifestyle habits or be the result of associations with other dietary variables.
• Diabetics consume 3 times more diet soda per day than non-diabetics (Mackenzie et al. (2006)), so it may be that many of these associations are simply the result of people with new disease diagnoses switching to diet soda, rather than diet soda promoting disease.

Diabetes

• The first study that Swithers cites to support an association between artificial sweeteners and diabetes actually showed no associations after all statistical adjustments. This is incorrectly described in the article.
• In the second study cited, Swithers discussed only 1 of 2 cohorts within the study and ignored the other (which found no association).
• The third citation is the only one that appears correctly described.
• This last study is cited as supporting a positive association between at least 1 artificially sweetened beverage per day and diabetes, but there was no overall relationship with full statistical adjustments. Swithers then notes that in participants of normal weight at baseline there was a positive association, however she doesn't note that there was no relationship in those with overweight or obesity.

Cardiovascular Disease

• Finally, 4 studies are cited that purportedly associate artificial sweeteners with hypertension and cardiovascular disease.
• For the first and second, Swithers notes a positive association in the "age-adjusted model" but doesn't note that there is no longer an association all statistical adjustments are made.
• The third does support a positive association, and indeed in 3 large cohorts. But we don't have good reason for why this is.
• The last one I also blogged about here, which paradoxically found that sugar-sweetened beverages do not increase heart attack and stroke risk but artificially-sweetened beverages do. This study has a small number of participants and therefore a small number of cardiovascular events in each group and therefore I am not sure it is appropriate to draw conclusions without more studies.

Human Trials

• Swithers only looks at human trials in the past 5 years (2 of them).
• The first suggests that children consuming artificial sweeteners don't gain as much weight as those drinking sugary beverages, but there is no water group so it is dismissed.
• The second is oversimplified and therefore misrepresented, as there were some beneficial effects from using diet drinks compared to water.
• Swithers does not cite a meta-analysis (because the journal requirements wouldn't let her anyway) by de la Hunty and colleagues (2006) of short-term human trials that suggests substitution of sugar with aspartame/other sweeteners reduces total calories.

When all evidence is considered, it is a much more nuanced story. In my opinion, the evidence is weighted toward artificial sweeteners being fine. I would recommend the scientific statement by the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association published last year for a good review of human research on the subject. We do need more long-term human studies on metabolic outcomes and weight, but it seems like substituting sugar with artificial sweeteners does generally result in a small reduction in calorie intake.

Colby Vorland is a nutritional science graduate student. He blogs about various research topics in nutrition at http://www.nutsci.org and is on Twitter @nutsci.

Saturday Stories: Heaven, Old Age, and Popeye

Esquire's Luke Dittrich wonders whether or not there really is "Proof of Heaven".

One of our time's greatest thinkers (Oliver Sacks) on what it means to him to be turning 80.

Maria Popova talks spinach, decimal places and Popeye.

[And if you don't follow me on Twitter or Facebook this week's US News column of mine is on whether or not there are "healthier" processed foods, and here's an interview I did on NPR's Air Talk with Larry Mantle on juice cleanses]

Forget Rube Goldberg Machines, The World Needs More Dog Goldberg Ones

Today's Funny Friday is a brilliant example of taking a tired old idea and making it very, very new again.....with dogs.

Have a great weekend!

(email subscribers head to the blog to watch)

So What Happens to Employee Health After a Year of Treadmill Desk Walking?

Not as much as one might hope or guess.

This month's Obesity journal details a year long study conducted at a financial services corporation in Minneapolis where 36 sedentary office workers had their desks swapped with treadmill desks.

The treadmill desks cost roughly $126,000 ($3,500 or so a piece - that's a photo of one up above from Steelcase) so no doubt any company considering making this switch will want to evaluate the outcomes.

So what were they?

Well it isn't about to help folks lose piles of weight, but maybe a teeny tiny bit. As far as statistically significant differences go there were four. A 3lb weight loss, a 7% rise in HDL, a 1.6 inch decrease in waist circumference and a 3 point drop in systolic blood pressure.

As far as impact on activity and sedentary time goes - a $3,500 treadmill desk led workers to take on average 852 more steps a day and decrease their sedentary time by 43 minutes a day.

The desks weren't found to lead to any changes in workplace performance (for the better or for the worse).

The questions I can't answer are:

1. Would these extremely modest improvements lead to sufficient health care savings so as to be cost effective enough for a corporation to consider the desks' capital cost outlay?

2. How/why did having a treadmill desk in place of a sitting one only lead participants to be 43 minutes less sedentary and increase their daily steps by just 852?

Former Biggest Loser Contestant Sued For Weight Regain

That I'm not a fan of The Biggest Loser won't come as a shock to anyone. I think it's a hideous spectacle of every toxic attitude society has ever had regarding weight that teaches a nation that self worth is measured in pounds and that people who struggle with obesity are truly just lazy gluttons who don't want it badly enough.

Regarding those Biggest Losers who do manage to keep off their weight (and according to the former contestants I've interviewed that's a very small number) I've always said that the Losers who keep it off may well do so consequent to having translated their weight losses into careers as product spokespeople, celebrity trainers and motivational speakers.

Well maybe even that's not enough to help maintain the severity of a Biggest Loser lifestyle as one such Loser, Tara Costa, is apparently being sued because she'd gained back enough weight (according to news reports she had regained 29% of her Biggest Loser losses) that one of the companies for who she was a paid spokesperson felt that they could no longer use her in their advertising and that her weight gain in turn was in breach of her contract which specified that she needed to, "maintain her current level of fitness and conditioning".

Washington State Dairy Council Serving Kids Dessert for Breakfast

And not only serving it to them, but encouraging them to eat it so that they get entered into a contest to win an iPad as you can see from this poster that was up in a Bethel, Washington elementary school (and kindly, anonymously, punted my way).

This dairy industry funded scheme leads me to ask two questions: 1. Is dessert for breakfast a better plan than no breakfast? 2. Is advertising breakfast dessert to elementary school kids as being something that will improve their grades, give them more energy and make them more friends wise?

Not saying I know the answers, but certainly I have to believe that someone who actually cared about kids' nutrition could have found a non-dessert offering that would have fit the bill.

BTW - this contest/promotion conducted in Washington's Bethel school district - one I've covered before when their district's actual child nutrition staff literally sold fundraising fast food pizzas - clearly the "nutrition" folks over in Bethel's school district are in the ends-justify-the-means camp of selling out health for dollars.

[And in case you're interested, here's this dessert's nutritional breakdown....it's basically a bowl of sugar]