Category: Nutrition
Cut Back the Sugar
| October 19, 2011 | Posted by Lauren under Nutrition |
If you live in RI, you might have have noticed the subtle new health campaign that was launched by the Rhode Island Department of Health on Monday.

I know – who am I kidding? You can’t really miss these Mountain Dew colored buses. Just for a fun comparison, here is what the RIPTA buses normally look like:
(Source)
If the huge spoonful of sugar on the side of the bus doesn’t make a statement, the lime green color certainly will.
The new campaign, which will run for 3 months, is aimed at raising awareness in parents of young children. But even though sugar sweetened beverages like soda are devoid of any nutritional value and have been linked to overweight and obesity, particularly in children (sources here and here), the campaign isn’t asking people to give them up altogether. Instead, the main message is to simply “cut back the sugar, one drink at a time.” Which, in my opinion, is at least a start.
For more information about sugar-sweetened beverages and Rhode Island’s campaign, please click here.
You wouldn’t let your kids eat this much sugar. So why let them drink it?
I am not a soda drinker, and I don’t really like soda companies (I have other vices when it comes to sugar. Particularly when it’s combined with butter and chcolate). I’ve written my thoughts about soda and the way soda companies weasel advertise their way into our everyday lives before, and if anything, my feelings have only grown more negative since then.
I get that soda tastes good. And that lemonade is refreshing. And that you might actually need Gatorade to keep you hydrated/fueled during a long, hot run. But do kids really need to drink this stuff? There’s a big difference between 100% juice and a Capri Sun – which contains a lot of sugar. In an age of over-stimulation, do children really need another substance to make it worse?
I know what you may be thinking – I don’t know what it’s like to be a parent. And maybe if I was one, I wouldn’t think there was anything wrong with giving my children these drinks. Maybe.
But the point is that I don’t think people (myself included) often realize just how much sugar they’re drinking. It’s easy to guess with soda. We all know it isn’t good for us. But juice and other flavored drinks? Sometimes it’s deceptive.
Did you know a 24 oz can has 72 grams of sugar – and 270 calories, all from sugar?
(Source)
Which is why I think that a campaign that raises awareness about these sugary drinks is important. And compared to the very graphic “Pouring on the Pounds” campaign launched in New York City a couple of years ago, these ads seem kind of tame.

In case you haven’t seen the NYC ads before, they basically show fat being poured from drink containers into glasses. Some ads I’ve seen have gone so far as to show a person actually drinking the disgusting fat globs. You can watch that lovely display here. It definitely leaves an impression. But is it believable?
I work in the field of public health. I’m bombarded on a daily basis with these types of messages. I know the risk factors for obesity and other chronic conditions like diabetes. And I know that the situation in this country is pretty serious.
So I’m biased. I like seeing things like this because the message is ingrained in me. In fact, I would actually like it if the ads went further. But I know not everyone feels the same. And the majority of people probably don’t think that a bus with a huge spoonful of sugar on the side is all that exciting. It’s okay – I know I’m a public health nerd.

Which is why I really want to know what you think of the advertisements and the campaign’s overall message. Like? Dislike? Do you think it could be effective? Or does it not really leave a lasting impression? Thoughts about how useful something like this is? Please share!
Out With the Pyramid, In With the Plate: USDA’s New Food Guide
| June 3, 2011 | Posted by Lauren under Nutrition |
Remember way back when this used to be a running and a public health blog? I know, the memories are fading for me too. Although it may not have seemed like it over the past few months, I assure you the public health nerd in me is still alive and well. So if you come here to read my rambles about all things running, stay tuned for my next post. Because today I want to talk about something a little different…
In case you missed it, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has done away with the traditional food pyramid. And in its place, a new icon has been released. Yesterday, Michelle Obama and the USDA revealed a new food guide that’s based on something a little easier for most of us to understand – a plate. (To read the press release, click here.)
![]()
This new graphic, which was released along with the website ChooseMyPlate.gov, is meant to be a “new generation icon with the intent to prompt consumers to think about building a healthy plate at meal times.” The plate is the prompt; if you want more information, you are encouraged to visit the Choose My Plate website, which has basic recommendations (including to “eat less” and reduce sodium and fat), examples of foods that are inlcuded in each group, and interactive tools to give Americans even more guidance in planning a healthy diet.
MyPlate is completely different than the past food pyramids. But before I talk anymore about that, let’s take a very brief tour through the food guides of the ages.
{*Please note, I am not a registered dietician. I work in the field of public health. So when I discuss these food guides, it is from a public health perspective.*}
The USDA Food Pyramids Past
Remember this guide from the 90s? This 1992 pyramid is the one I grew up with:
Although the original pyramid tried to clearly show us how much we should eat from each food group, it was thrown out and revamped in 2005 because of all the criticism it received. Apparently the food industry didn’t really like the fact that people were being told to eat less meat and dairy than grains, fruits, and vegetables (It doesn’t matter that doing so is actually the healthier choice, because we all know that the food industry always has our best interests at heart…{please note the dripping sarcasm}) But even beyond that, nutritionists also voiced concern because the pyramid encouraged Americans to eat too many grains.
So in 2005, USDA released MyPyramid – a new graphic that was supposed to be an improvement. But this one didn’t stick around nearly as long as the first. And I can’t really say I’m surprised. Does anyone really know what this means?

It made the food industry happy, and apparently tried to show the “whole” picture by throwing in a little stick figure being active. But I’ll be honest – when I looked at that little guy walking up the stairs, my mind never jumped to “physical activity is important!” Instead I always wondered what the heck stairs had to do with the food groups…and why this was all still in the shape of a pyramid anyway. Were we supposed to eat less food when we got to the top of the stairs??
Personally, I think this version was worse than the original. Even though it made some adjustments to the recommendations, the whole thing was just way too complicated.
MyPlate
It seems like the federal government has taken all those criticisms to heart. This new version is incredibly simple. It is meant to convey information quickly, in a way that most people can relate to and understand. Instead of giving foods a hierarchy or breaking them down into a specific number of recommended servings, it just simply shows you – this is what a balanced plate should look like.
The graphic is based on the 2010 Dietary Guidelines that were released in January, which encouraged us to eat less salt and fat, and more produce.
Major Differences in Recommendations
- Fruit and vegetables make up half of the plate
- This is a huge increase from previous recommendations
- The “Meat & Beans” group has been changed to just “Protein”
- Meat isn’t even named on the pyramid. This shows an understanding that there are more ways to get protein than just by eating meat. The new guidelines even reflect the various forms of soy protein that are available and encourage Americans to eat lean meats only.
- Protein is clearly recommended to be a smaller portion of the overall diet
- Hopefully this will encourage a change in the standard American diet. It would be great if the standard meal shifts from a huge piece of meat and a small side of vegetables to the opposite – a huge plate of produce with a small side of meat (or other protein).
- “Milk & Cheese” has been changed to “Dairy,” and it’s shown on the side of the plate
- The new graphic shows dairy as a side, which seems to de-emphasize it.
Overall Thoughts
Overall, I think the new MyPlate icon is a huge improvement over the previous food pyramids. It un-complicates things and serves as an easy visual reminder for the average family. Once you know what the colors mean, you don’t even need to be able to read to understand it. Kids can follow the colors to build their plate. The campaign as a whole also emphasizes choice – Choose My Plate gives recommendations and guidelines, with the overall goal to make “the healthy choice the easy choice” (this is a phrase you hear a lot in the public health world).
I do find it interesting, however, that the administration didn’t really address that there are other ways to get calcium, etc than by eating dairy (like they did with the protein group). Especially in light of the increasing popularity of the vegan diet. I would be interested to see how vegans feel about this.
Additionally (without going off on too much of a tangent), I think the huge issue of conflict of interest within the USDA needs to be addressed. The same agency that is giving us recommendations about what to eat also supports the very things it tells us to eat less of. There are large subsidies to farmers for things like dairy, sugar, and feed grains (for livestock). And that’s not all. Remember this New York Times article from back in November about Dairy Management - a marketing creation of USDA that teamed up with Domino’s to create new pizzas with 40% more cheese? So while telling us to eat less fat, USDA had also created a marketing group to promote it. The article is a clear example of the competing interests of money and the protection of public health that exist within the agency. And until those are removed or another agency is put in charge of the health guidelines, the health crises in this country will not be fixed.
Finally, I think it is important to call the new graphic what it is – an educational tool. Although I don’t think the administration is touting it as such, I believe it needs to be said – MyPlate is not the solution to the obesity problems in this country. Yes, it is a very useful graphic to help people make smarter food choices. But unfortunately, that graphic alone is not going to fix what years of bad habits and unhealthy environments have created. We can recommend that people do all sorts of different things. I can preach the value of a plant-based diet and regular physical activity all I want. But until we change the environment, we aren’t going to make any sort of lasting change in this country. People aren’t going to eat more fruits and vegetables because you tell them to. They will start eating more if they become affordable, and easily accessible. They will start exercising more if we make it easier and safer for them to be physically active where they live. And our health as a nation will only improve when we start subsidizing things other than corn and soybeans, when we make fresh food cheaper than fast food, and when federal agencies don’t answer to food lobbyists.
–
And with that, it’s time to get off my soapbox. Now I want to know – what do you think of MyPlate? A huge improvement, or another useless guide? Is it easy to read? And will it really guide people’s decisions when in the grocery store or when cooking meals for their families?
The IQ of a Twinkie
| November 12, 2010 | Posted by Lauren under Health News, Nutrition |
I’m sure by now you’ve all heard the story about the nutrition professor who ate only junk food for 10 weeks and managed to lose 27 pounds in the process. Referred to as the “twinkie diet” or the “convenience store diet,” Mark Haub ate less than 1,800 calories worth of hostess snacks per day (which amounted to about 1 twinkie every 3 hours), rounding out his diet with doritos, oreos, and, for good measure, a can of green beans or three to four celery stalks. At the end of the month, not only did he lose weight, but he also lowered his bad cholesterol (LDL) and upped the levels of good cholesterol (HDL).

(Source)
Sounds like the experiment was a huge success, right? Here is living proof that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It doesn’t matter what you eat. As long as you restrict your caloric intake and maintain a regular exercise regimen, you can eat whatever the heck you want and still lose weight. Great news for junk food enthusiasts everywhere!
Not so much. The problem with this situation is not the fact that he lost weight and improved his cholesterol by eating crap. The guy supposedly ate around 2,600 calories a day before starting the experiment (FDA recommends 2,000 for the average adult). Which means that he cut his calorie intake by at least 800 calories a day for 10 weeks. On top of that, he reports maintaining a regular exercise regimen, so was burning off a good chunk of those calories everyday. Basic math and science says that when calories in are less than calories out, weight loss will result. No big mystery there.
No, the problem with this situation is the message that it sends. Not only is Haub a professor of nutrition, but he conducted an experiment that basically perpetuates the warped thinking of our culture. Thinking that equates weight with health and glorifies extreme diets as a means to a weight loss end. In a society obsessed with quick fixes and easy solutions, what could be a better way to lose weight than eating sugar to your heart’s content?
Frankly the entire thing makes me sad. Regardless of Haub’s original intentions for this experiment, the reality is that the media is having a field day with it. Special interest groups are using this as fuel to their fires of opposition against public health officials (those evil people) who want to tax soda, ban junk food in schools, and do whatever they can to “control” the foods that people eat. Because really, why do all that when we have living proof that you can eat whatever you want in moderation? When even Twinkies, the epitome of all junk food, can help a person lose weight?
Ever since the results of this little experiment have been announced, I’ve seen things popping up all over the media that focus only on the fact that a man has lost weight by eating twinkies alone. Articles and tv personalities that bash public health efforts to regulate food in schools and help encourage more access to healthy food options.

Rush Limbaugh has been pretty vocal about his diet advice — and feelings about Michelle Obama
Articles such as this one in the Boston Herald that proclaim: Obesity Not by Twinkies Alone.
**It should be noted that this article was written by someone from the Center for Consumer Freedom, a coalition supported by restaurants & food companies.**
The article states:
“But in their extremes, they both prove the same point: Taking responsibility by watching what you eat and exercising is the best way to keep your weight down.
But responsibility is anathema to the cadre of public health busybodies, like the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which has convinced legislators that food, not lack of self control or exercise, is responsible for obesity.”
And
”But no matter what food they’re in, calories are just energy. Weight gain or loss is due to an imbalance between calories in and calories out. And more and more evidence is pointing to increasingly sedentary lifestyles as a big, fat reason our waistlines have expanded.”
And finally concludes:
“The next time anti-food activists propose we limit or ban foods for the public good, we should remind them that there are no good or bad foods, but there are fat-headed notions of how to fight obesity.”
The obesity epidemic in America is no joke. More than 1/3 of US adults and 17% of children are obese (source). Obviously we need to find ways to help Americans lose weight in a safe and effective manner in order to improve the health and wellbeing of our nation. But to suggest that simply losing the pounds in whatever way possible automatically makes a person healthier is ludicrous. Weight is not the only indicator of health — obesity is a health risk because of all the conditions that are associated with it. Filling your body with sugar and processed chemicals may help you lose the pounds, but will it really result in good health over the long term?
Eating well is about more than just weight loss. When you eat well, you are fueling your body; giving it energy to enjoy all the many great things in life. An extreme diet may help you quickly lose weight, but what about other indicators of health? Diabetes and cancer, cavities and vitamin deficiencies. Or even the unknown long-term effects of loading your body entirely with chemicals for months? (To see a cool photography project that deconstructs the Twinkie into all its 37+ individual ingredients, click here).
Furthermore, there are many Americans that live in food deserts — places that don’t have affordable fresh whole foods like fruits, veggies, whole grains, etc. Like Haub, they could live on the twinkie diet, and maybe even lose weight doing it. But unlike Haub, they don’t have the option to just drop the diet after a few months when they get sick of all the junk. The reality is that these individuals face a lifetime of poor access to nutritional foods. What sort of effect will this have on them over the course of many decades? And don’t we, as a nation — as fellow people — have a responsibility to do everything that we can to ensure that everyone has an equal chance to buy fresh foods for themselves and their families?
I think so. Personally, I’m thankful for Michelle Obama and other efforts to help improve access to healthy foods for all people. Because it’s my hope that one day I will live in a nation where every person has a fair chance to eat healthy foods and live an active life.
The Meat-eater’s Guide To Vegetarians
| September 10, 2010 | Posted by Lauren under Nutrition |
Did you know? This week was Vegetarian Awareness Week! To be honest, I don’t really know what that means (was I supposed to give my non-vegetarian friends a speech about how great giving up meat can be?? Plaster signs on my cube? Or wear my No Meat Athlete shirt to work?), but I figure it’s as good a time as any to address all you meat-eaters out there. Because if it hasn’t happened already, there may come a time when you have to dine with/cook for/talk to your first vegetarian. And I know how overwhelming that can be. So to ease your fears and discomfort, here’s some basic words of wisdom to survive that first encounter*.
But first things first – we’ve gotta talk terminology. Most people who say they’re a vegetarian are what we call a lacto-ovo-vegetarian. These are people who don’t eat meat, but will eat eggs and dairy. Similarly, you may run across a lacto-vegetarian (someone who doesn’t eat meat or eggs but eats dairy) or an ovo-vegetarian (no meat or dairy, but does eat eggs).
Confused yet? Believe me, so are we! We don’t really like being put into all these boxes either. But we’re all human. And humans like to wrap things up into neat little boxes with a pretty little bow on top as a way to make sense of the world. So boxes is what we get.
(Source)
Anyway, here are a few more terms for you:
- A Vegan does not eat any animal products – no meat, no cheese, dairy, or eggs. Vegans also avoid foods that have been made with animal-derived products (like the gelatin in jello and marshmallows), or foods that are made with any sort of animal product, even though they may not actually contain animal products in the end (some wines, beers, sugar, etc).
- A Pescatarian does not eat any type of meat except for fish.
- A Flexitarian doesn’t eat meat most of the time. This is also called semi-vegetarian, and basically means that the person considers himself mostly vegetarian, but still wants to be able to enjoy that delicious piece of chicken/Thanksgiving turkey/steak once in awhile.
So now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, here are the answers to all your most burning questions – before you even ask them!
(Source)
1.) No, vegetarians do not eat chicken. I don’t care how white or supposedly healthy it is, meat is meat is meat. Same goes for fish. If confused, please refer to definitions above.
2.) Making a dish that contains meat and then picking all the meat out before you serve it does not make it vegetarian. Just because I can’t see the meat, doesn’t mean it’s no longer there. This is also true for soups. Making a vegetable soup with chicken or beef stock means that the soup isn’t vegetarian, even if it doesn’t actually have chunks of meat in it.
3.) Vegetarians don’t get all picky about Numbers 1 and 2 above just to make your life more difficult. Honest. Besides the fact that we just don’t want to eat meat (for whatever reason) is the fact that eating it can actually make us sick. After awhile, your body stops being able to digest meat – and so when a vegetarian unknowingly eats some, it’s not such a pretty picture.
(Source)
4.) Vegetarianism is a lifestyle choice, not a religion. I follow the Gospel of Jesus, not the gospel of vegetables, thank you very much. I promise that we don’t all want to preach to you, judge you, or convert you to our abstaining ways. Believe it or not, my friends and boyfriend are still happily eating meat – and I’m fine with that. As a matter of fact, we co-exist quite peacefully. Now, if at some point during our relationship you approach me and tell me that you’re thinking of eating less meat, I’m not going to lie — I’ll be thrilled. In fact, at that point I’ll be so excited that I may or may not start talking really fast about all the benefits of going meat-free and all the fun, delicious things you can make. But you’ll have to forgive me for that.
(Source)
5.) Because of #4, you don’t have to feel guilty when you eat meat in front of us. Go ahead, eat your steak. I promise I’m not shooting silent daggers at you as you chew. Most of us are just so happy we’ve found a delicious vegetarian option on the menu that we can’t stop thinking about it long enough to even focus on what you’re eating over there.
6.) You also don’t have to apologize for eating meat in front of us, or hide it from us because you think the very sight of it will make us sick. While I don’t particularly enjoy the look/smell of raw meat, I’m going to be honest with you – that bacon you’re eating actually smells pretty darn delicious. In fact, I may just lean over and breathe it in a few times if you don’t mind. But no, I don’t want to try it! I just want to experience the smell. Just like I inhale really deeply when I pass by a BBQ. Or if you found a really pretty flower or a delicious smelling candle. It’s not like meat becomes this repulsive thing the instant you decide to give it up. It’s just that after awhile, it stops being classified in your mind as something edible. Think of it as like a candle. You don’t want to eat it, you just want to appreciate it for its smell.
(Source)
7.) Believe it or not, vegetarians tend to have pretty hearty appetites. We didn’t decide to give up eating good food, just meat. So that plate with lettuce and carrots that you’re calling a salad isn’t going to fill us up. Sorry, but we need substance in our meals too. Similarly, just because a dish is made from a bunch of vegetables that have been stewed together, it doesn’t mean we have to like it. Do you like every single dish that’s put in front of you just because it contains meat?
(Source)
8.) Vegetarianism does not equal activism. Although some vegetarians (and vegans) use their food choices as a platform for activism, not all of us do. Giving up meat and being political don’t necessarily go hand in hand. So just like we’re not going to preach to you, we’re also not going to start picketing on your front lawn equipped with “Save the cows!” signs.
9.) I know you’re trying to make us a meal we can enjoy, but sometimes we actually feel more guilty if you go out of your way. I realize it can be overwhelming to cook vegetarian dinners. I get nervous when non-vegetarians are coming over and I need to make something everyone can enjoy. And I really do appreciate the effort. But if you’re coordinating a huge meal and I’m the only vegetarian guest, please do not make me a special dish, or fret that I don’t have anything to eat. To be honest, we’re sort of used to being flexible in these situations. And I know I said above that a bed of lettuce doesn’t make a meal, but if I have to make it work, I will. Just make sure you serve some bread and dessert with dinner and I’ll be a happy camper.
10.) All that being said, we sometimes may seem like walking contradictions. Food choices don’t always make sense. We may say we eat dairy, but then tell you we don’t drink milk. Or be totally okay with picking around meat in a dish. And you better believe that if there’s a campfire and you’re making s’mores, I’m going to want in, gelatin and all.
But aren’t we all walking contradictions in some way? I mean, we’re only human after all. And we’re doing the best we can.
–
*The fine print: I probably shouldn’t have to say this, but I will…just in case. This post is meant to be tongue-in-cheek and not to offend any of you carnivores out there. Obviously I know meat eater does not equal idiot. But I also didn’t just make these things up. Just sayin…
Could Soda Make The World a Better Place?
| July 6, 2010 | Posted by Lauren under Health News, Nutrition |
We drink a lot of soda in this country. On average, each person drinks about 190 calories a day worth of soda and other sugar sweetened beverages, and (even though we know it’s not good for us) today we drink twice as much soda as people did in 1971. Our habits have fueled a $72 billion industry; an industry that will do whatever it can to keep you sipping that carbonated liquid candy.
(Source)
Each year, soda companies spend millions of dollars on marketing, trying to frame their products in a positive light … and making sure their brands are everywhere you look. They write catchy jingles, give away fabulous prizes, and sponsor schools and get their names plastered on scoreboards. Anyone who has watched an episode of American Idol has probably seen the Coca-Cola logos all over the place — they’ve been a major sponsor of the show for every season.
The entire food industry spends a lot of money on marketing. But carbonated beverages make up a huge portion of that. Just how huge? Well, according to a recent report on media spending in 2006:
- Carbonated beverages had the highest marketing expenses related to children (ages 2 – 11) and adolescents (ages 12 – 17) compared to other industries — $492 million in just one year. The next highest was restaurant foods, which came in at $294 million.
- Carbonated beverage companies spend a lot of money on “new media” (i.e. the web, digital ads, word-of-mouth, viral marketing, etc) – more than any other food or beverage category, in fact. In 2006, they spent $21 million on these forms of marketing.
- That year, $117 million was spent marketing these beverages using product placements before or in video games and movies watched at home/in theaters, sponsoring athletes/sports teams, celebrity endorsements, and “product branding in conjunction with philanthropic endeavors.”
Soda has become so much a part of our everyday lives that we barely even stop to think about it anymore.
But recently, there have been two pretty major developments in the soda-PR world that have got me thinking – just how far will these companies go?
The company behind both initiatives – Pepsi.
Pepsi Refresh
Forget fancy giveaways for new “stuff.” Pepsi has now taken it a step further with their Pepsi Refresh Project, a campaign that encourages you to submit (and vote on) grant proposals in the fields of health, culture, food & shelter, the planet, neighborhoods, and education. Their promise in return? Awarding millions of dollars to projects that will make a positive impact in the world.
The campaign asks, “Could a soda really make the world a better place?” And when you take a look at the list of funded and proposed projects, it’s hard to argue. Many of the currently funded initiatives sound amazing – saving babies from spinal muscular atrophy; building a new playground and community garden for a boys & girls club; bringing youth together to help build a cottage for severely abused foster children; helping to save dogs at a no-kill shelter by building a new indoor shelter – and the list goes on and on.
Honestly, I’m not sure how to react to this campaign. On the one hand, I think it’s great that Pepsi has promised so much money to so many worthy causes. But on the other hand – this is a company that is contributing to a rise in obesity and chronic disease across the country (more about this below). Obviously each and every one of us have a choice about whether or not we want to drink soda, but Pepsi isn’t exactly an innocent bystander in all of this. Their marketing techniques are getting more creative (and more pushy) by the minute.
Case in point –
Pepsi Funds Obesity and Nutrition Research
Apparently PepsiCo recently announced funding for a graduate fellowship at Yale School of Medicine’s MD-PhD program. The topic of this fellowship? Nutritional Science Research. Or, more specifically, work that focuses on metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and obesity (ironic, no?). Not only that, but the company has just opened a research lab in Science Park (i.e. right next to Yale) to develop “healthier food and beverage products.”
The Dean of the School of Medicine, Dr. Robert Alpern, has been quoted as saying:
PepsiCo’s commitment to improving health through proper nutrition is of great importance to the well-being of people in this country and throughout the world.
Excuse me — what?? I’m sorry, I must have missed something. You say Pepsi is committed to improving health through proper nutrition?? I understand that they are doing a commendable thing by donating millions of dollars to various organizations, but to say that a soda company supports proper nutrition is stretching it a little too much. Especially when the latest data clearly shows that soda consumption is very very bad for our health. So should we really be happy to have Pepsi’s money funding nutrition research? Is that truly a recipe for honest science?
The {Negative} Impact of Sugar Sweetened Beverages on Health
I’m sure you’ve all heard someone say that lost “x” amount of pounds, just by cutting soda out of their diet. Well the evidence for this is more than anecdotal. There have been many studies that connect soda consumption with weight gain and poor health. For example, a recent article published by scientists at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity (at Yale University, no less – which makes me even more uncomfortable about this new Pepsi-Yale partnership, since this center has been a leader in nutrition research for some time) reviewed 88 different studies that looked at the connection between soda consumption and nutrition and health outcomes. The results of this analysis were pretty clear. Not only did they find that soda drinkers consumed more calories overall (meaning people don’t compensate for the calories they drink by eating less), but they also found a connection between drinking soda and increased body weight, drinking less milk, consuming less calcium and other important nutrients, and a higher risk for developing diabetes.
Another study found that the increased consumption of sugar sweetened beverages in this country has contributed to an estimated 130,000 new cases of diabetes, 14,000 new cases of coronary heart disease, and 50,000 additional life-years burdened by coronary heart disease in the US – just between the years of 1990 and 2000. This has led to at least 6,000 excess deaths from any cause and 21,000 life years lost.
Pretty scary stuff, if you ask me.
Ok…great…so the point is…
So what exactly is my point in ranting writing about all of this? I’m not trying to paint soda as the scapegoat for all the world’s health problems. And I’m certainly not saying that drinking a soda every once in awhile is going to kill you – or even have any long term consequences. Even though I don’t drink it on a regular basis, I have to admit – sometimes a Coke sounds really refreshing (especially when it’s mixed with a little coconut rum!
).
My goal is to point out that these companies are trying new angles when it comes to advertising – angles that make them look really good on the surface, but upon closer examination, seem a bit more sinister. I think that corporate responsibility and giving back to the community are great things. In this case, however, it just makes me a little uncomfortable.
But — I’m interested to hear your thoughts. What do you think of the Pepsi Refresh project? And of soda company-funded research? Does it outweigh the health problems caused by drinking soda? And is it really the company’s responsibility to care?
—
For further reading:
PepsiCo Opens New Haven Research Lab To Develop Healthier Products
Sugar Water Gets a Facelift: What Marketing Does for Soda
The Food Industry Follows Big Tobacco’s Playbook
Effects of Soft Drink Consumption on Nutrition and Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
















Recent Comments