HuckleB
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-09-05 01:26 PM
Original message |
The more TV kids watch, the more confused they get about which food to eat |
|
I know. It's shocking. I couldn't believe it myself. The more TV kids watch, the more confused they get about which foods to eathttp://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=25872"A study has found that the more television kids watch, the more confused they are about which foods are -- and which aren't -- going to help them grow up strong and healthy.
Increased television viewing had, in fact, a double-negative effect on the children in the study. Regardless of their initial nutritional knowledge, the more television they watched, the less able they also were "to provide sound nutritional reasons for their food choices," said the author of the study, Kristen Harrison, a professor of speech communication at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Foods marketed as aiding weight-loss were particularly problematical for the kids in the study. They equated the words "diet" and "fat-free" with being nutritious.
"When they were presented with choices like Diet Coke vs. orange juice and fat-free ice cream vs. cottage cheese, they were more likely to pick the wrong answer -- the diet and fat-free foods -- than when they were presented with choices without these labels, for example, spinach vs. lettuce.
..."
|
AspenRose
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-09-05 01:32 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Go to www.commercialfreechildhood.org. Saw these folks on CSPAN in March and I think they're doing good work.
|
HuckleB
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-09-05 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. Awesome! Thanks for the link! |
flygal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-09-05 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
7. Excellent link - thank you!! |
wallwriter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-09-05 01:37 PM
Response to Original message |
2. This is no surpise at all |
|
The better food is for you, the less likely it is to be advertised on television. If it's on TV, it's processed, chemically treated and mass-marketed to make a profit, it's full of chemicals made by some industrial giant who doesn't want people to know what's in it or what its effects are.
How 'bout some plain, fresh produce for crying out loud.
|
HuckleB
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-09-05 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
Strawberries.
Two days until The Farmer's Market feeds my hungry palate again.
|
KurtNYC
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-09-05 01:38 PM
Response to Original message |
|
This is a game for marketers. If you have something that is pure fat -- label it "low carb" or "sugar-free". If it is pure sugar -- "Low cholestrol" or "0% Fat!"
I think the design of the study ignores the business of television. Most people think that the audience is the customer of broadcaster. Actually the audience is what is being sold. The advertisers are the customer. Advertisers buy your attention by the minute and fill your head with crap. So all that this study has proved (again) is that advertising works.
The answer to getting kids better informed about nutrition (and politics btw) lies outside of television.
I'm waiting for someone to do a story on how people now think that "organic" means healthy/nutritious. It may but I went to Whole Foods last week and they had replaced some of their slow selling items with a brand new "Chicken Wing Bar" and another bar which had been vegetarian items is now an organic "Dessert Bar".
|
HuckleB
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-09-05 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
And your last comment is very telling. I have know more than my share of vegans who eat a whole lot of crap. Health can't be found in a label, and it's not necessarily found in a specific food philosophy either.
Salud.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 19th 2024, 04:58 AM
Response to Original message |