<![CDATA[Consumerist: Diet]]> http://cache.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/consumerist.com.png <![CDATA[Consumerist: Diet]]> http://consumerist.com/tag/diet http://consumerist.com/tag/diet <![CDATA[ Which Restaurants Are Making Your Kids Fat? ]]> Unless your kid is named Hansel, he probably doesn't need to be fattened up like a juicy Christmas goose every time you go out to eat. That's not what some of the biggest restaurants think, though: Chili's has a kids' meal that comes in at 1,020 calories, while Burger King and KFC both offer meals that are over 900 calories. Your healthiest option, says the Center for Science in the Public Interest, is Subway. Here are what some other restaurants are offering, as well as tips on how to make the best of a bad meal when your kid is eating out.

For children between 4 and 8 years of age, the recommended amount of calories per meal, assuming three meals a day, is 430. If the child is active, the amount goes up to 565. Using these numbers as a guide, the CSPI looked at the biggest restaurant chains in the country, then whittled their list down to the ones that offer dedicated kids' menus and provide nutritional info. This meant the following were left out of the study because they won't provide nutritional info:

    We don't need no stinkin' nutrition
  • Applebee's
  • T.G.I. Friday's
  • Outback Steakhouse
  • Olive Garden
  • Red Lobster
  • IHOP

Here's what the CSPI has to say about those restaurants that do provide nutritional info:

Chili's has 700 possible kids’ meal combinations, but 658, or 94 percent, of those are too high in calories, including one comprised of country-fried chicken crispers, cinnamon apples, and chocolate milk (1,020 calories) and another comprised of cheese pizza, homestyle fries, and lemonade (1,000 calories).

Burger King has a “Big Kids” meal with a double cheeseburger, fries, and chocolate milk (910 calories)

Sonic has a “Wacky Pack” with 830 calories worth of grilled cheese, fries, and a slushie.

KFC has a wide variety of side items, but there are few meal combinations that keep a reasonable ceiling on calories, according to the study. One example of a high-cal combo KFC kid’s meal (the chain calls them “Laptop Meals”) has popcorn chicken, baked beans, biscuit, Teddy Grahams, and fruit punch, which has 940 calories. (KFC has since dropped Baked Cheetos from its kids’ meals, and some outlets vary the number of chicken strips or sides.)

Most of the kids’meals (93 percent) at McDonald’s and Wendy’s are too high in calories, as are the possibilities at Burger King (92 percent), Dairy Queen (89 percent), Arby’s (69 percent), and Denny’s (60 percent—though its kids’ meals don’t include drinks). (Since CSPI’s study was completed, Burger King has introduced one new children’s meal with macaroni and cheese, apple “fries,” and 1 percent milk, which has a reasonable 420 calories.)

Subway’s kids’ meals came out on top. Only a third of its Fresh Fit for Kids meals, which include a mini-sub, juice box, and one of several healthful side items (apple slices, raisins, or yogurt), exceed the 430-calorie threshold. Subway is the only chain that doesn’t offer soft drinks with kids’ meals.

So how do you improve the nutrition of your kid's meal the next time you eat at a restaurant? A spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association gave the following advice:

"Don't be too alarmed even when [studies] come out and seem hopeless," said Dawn Jackson Blatner, an American Dietetic Ass>ociation spokeswoman. "With a few swaps and switches, people really can make healthier choices at these fast-food joints, especially when the decisions are made before going in.

"Many of these restaurants have the nutrition information online that you can print out and go over with your kids even before you go, so that everybody is on the same page before they pull up to the drive-through or [head] to the counter," Blatner said.

She also suggested that "instead of getting the fries, go with the apple slices. Many [restaurants] offer carrot sticks or apple slices or no-sugar-added applesauce or oranges, which make a big difference over deep-fried fries."

And pay attention to how food is cooked. "Instead of the deep-fried nuggets, go for something like the grilled chicken, and you will save fat grams and calories," Blatner said. You'll also save calories by switching the soda, she added: "You can't go wrong with unsweetened iced tea, water or a skim milk."

As for the restaurants that refuse to provide nutritional info, maybe you should just eat elsewhere.

Click here for some specific replacement suggestions from the Chicago Tribune.

You can download a copy of the full CSPI report here.
(Photo: Getty)

]]>
Consumerist-5033531 Wed, 06 Aug 2008 09:39:10 EDT Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5033531&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Taco Bell Offers Free Tacos To Dieters ]]> Someone in Taco Bell's marketing department is unclear on the concept of "losing weight," or else just completely amoral (hence the marketing job), because the company is "sponsoring" Oklahoma City residents who have taken part in a weight loss challenge by giving away free tacos. To be fair, these "fresco crunchy tacos" are less than 200 calories each (the company says 150 calories, 8 grams of fat, but this independent analysis puts it slightly higher). But still—tacos? Free tacos to people who are trying to lose weight?

Oklahoma City Mayor Mick Cornett says, "[Taco Bell] got on board really early and we helped them promote those items hoping people would take advantage of it."

He goes on to say, "They said when you get 100,000 pounds, we have a special prize for everybody in Oklahoma City and sure enough here it is. Everybody in Oklahoma City gets a free fresco taco."

Taco Bell promotes its "Fresco menu" as having 9 items under 9 grams of fat, but somehow we don't see fast food tacos with mystery meat as part of a healthy diet. Probably some angry reader will say we're being restaurant elitists for assuming that just because a food is cheap it's worthless, and at least Taco Bell is offering something healthy to eat. But considering that 45-50% of the Fresco taco's calories come from fat, we have a hard time equating "Taco Bell" with "nutritious diet."

Update—a reader sent in the following:

As many commenters in that story pointed out, meat grading is entirely optional, and has absolutely nothing to do with it's fitness for human consumption. (Indeed, the optional grading takes place after the required approval for human consumption.) Meat is largely graded by the degree of fat marbling throughout the meat. Given that ground beef would chop any fat up into tiny little bits, no matter how nicely marbled, it would be kind of silly for a ground beef producer to pay extra to have the meat graded.

So, of couse Taco Bell doesn't know the grade of their meat, as it likely doesn't have one. If you went to your local grocer, you would discover that almost all of the ground beef there was ungraded also. To imply that Taco Bell uses "Mystery Meat" simply because they use ungraded beef is really quite unfair to Taco Bell. There are a lot of things you could point out when arguing against eating at Taco Bell, but their use of ungraded beef is not one of them.

"Taco Bell Rewards Metro Residents" [KSBI-TV]

]]>
Consumerist-5030959 Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:40:16 EDT Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5030959&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ 100 Calorie Packs Makes You Fat ]]> Smaller-sized 100-calorie snack packs are supposed to help with weight loss, but the problem is they don't work. In an experiment published in the Journal of Consumer Research, subjects were primed to think about their body shape and then given bags of potato chips and placed in front of a TV. The group that was given nine small bags ate much more than those given two large bags, 46.1 grams vs 23.5. What's going on? It appears that the smaller size tricks people into thinking they're eating less, so they feel fine about chowing down more. Consumers may merrily consume the innocently small packages of Little Pleasures at an even higher pace,” wrote the study's authors, “leading to over-consumption.”

Overindulgence in Small Packages [NYT]

RELATED:
100 Calorie Packs Are Still A Scam, Cost More For Less Food
Like Those 100 Calorie Packs? You're Paying Twice As Much

]]>
Consumerist-5020805 Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:46:01 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5020805&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Man Loses 86 lbs Eating 1,200-1,400 Calories Per Day Of McDonald's Food ]]> Chris Coleson, a businessman from Richmond, VA told his wife he could lose weight by eating anywhere — even McDonald's.

"I told her I could lose weight eating anywhere," he said. "I told her I could do it eating at McDonald's."

So he did. By eating two meals a day (and only two meals) consisting of "wraps, apple-walnut salads and the occasional cheeseburger" Chris has lost 86 lbs since December.

Coleson told AdAge that he's not interested in being the next "Jared," but would like to encourage McDonald's to build playgrounds where parents with disabilities can play with their children.

"I wasn't disabled when I weighed 300 pounds, but it made me think about parents who are," said Mr. Coleson. He currently "works closely with his local YMCA and the Wounded Warrior Project, which provides services to disabled veterans," says AdAge.

Has McDonald's Found Its Jared? [AdAge]
(Photo: meghannmarco )

]]>
Consumerist-5017690 Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:58:35 EDT Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5017690&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ 10 Food Additives You Should Try To Avoid ]]> Most people are familiar with the basics of good nutrition but many aren't aware of the thousands of food additives found in popular foods which if consumed in excess could create health risks. MSN Health has put together a list of 10 additives you should try to avoid. Let's be clear, we don't expect you to avoid all of these additives altogether, although, it certainly is possible. The key is being aware of them so you can effectively limit their intake. The list of additives, inside...

10. Sodium Nitrate, Sodium Nitrite
Found in: bacon, ham, hot dogs, luncheon meats, smoked fish, and corned beef.
Used to stabilize food color and add flavor. When grilled it transforms into a reactive compound that has been linked to cancer.

9. BHA and BHT
Found in: many foods such as cereals, chewing gum, potato chips, and vegetable oils.
It prevents fats and oils from going rancid. For some people it can increase their cancer risk.

8. Propyl Gallate

Found in: meat products, chicken soup base, and chewing gum.
Also prevents fats and oils from spoiling. While not proven to cause cancer in humans, it is linked to cancer in animals.

7. Monosodium Glutamate
Found in: soups, salad dressings, chips, frozen entrees, and restaurant food. The infamous MSG, associated with Asian food can cause headaches and nausea for some people. Try using a moderate amount of salt as a healthier alternative.

6. Trans Fats

Found in: numerous foods, fast food.
Too much trans fat has been proven to cause heart disease and other serious health conditions. Experts recommend consuming no more than 2 grams per day.

5. Aspartame
Found in: low-calorie desserts, gelatins, drink mixes, and soft drinks.
Studies have shown that lifelong consumption may increase risk of cancer or other neurological problems.

4. Acesulfame-K

Found in: baked goods, chewing gum, and gelatin desserts.
Not proven to be unhealthy, but studies on this additive have been scant. If that concerns you, then you may want to avoid this sweetener.

3. Food Colorings: Blue 1, 2; Red 3; Green 3; Yellow 6

Found in: products too numerous to mention.
These colorings have been linked to cancer in animals, while Yellow 6 has been linked to bladder cancer in humans.

2. Olestra
Found in: reduced fat snack chips.
Olestra blocks fat absorption but blocks vitamin absorption as well. It can also cause severe diarrhea, cramps and gas.

1. Potassium Bromate
Found in: white flour, breads, and rolls.
Most bromate breaks down into a harmless form, however, small amounts can create a risk for people. California requires a cancer warning on products with this ingredient.

12 Food Additives to Avoid [MSN Health]
(Photo: ableman)

]]>
Consumerist-5013288 Fri, 06 Jun 2008 08:56:45 EDT Jay Slatkin http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5013288&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Panera Bread Employees Now Offer Nutritional Advice, Insults Instead Of Soup ]]> Rude Chicken First it was breast reduction advice, now it's weight management tips, this time from a rude Panera Bread employee who didn't like being confronted by an angry customer. Here's what happened to Jeff's wife when she tried to buy some chicken noodle soup the other day:


Here is the comment I just sent through Panera Bread's automated website. It explains the situation. In all honesty, it's all I can do not to go down there, and kick some major ass.
 
My wife went into the store, as she wasn't feeling well, and I suggested soup. She waited 25 minutes on line, and ordered her chicken noodle soup. After paying, and waiting 5 minutes, she was then told that they were out of Chicken Noodle, and had, in fact been out of it all day! When she complained that a sign should have been posted, she was told "You could stand to skip a meal or twenty anyway"

It's bad enough that you can't keep your menus up to date, but to abuse someone when they call you out on it is unconscionable.


(Photo: protohiro)

]]>
Consumerist-358576 Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:41:28 EST Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=358576&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Rise In Gout Blamed On Fructose In Soft Drinks ]]> It's goutalicious! Gout sounds like something characters in Dickens novels get, but apparently it's a modern affliction as well—at least in the U.S. where the number of cases has doubled in the past few decades. Now researchers are saying that "Men who consume two or more sugary soft drinks a day have an 85% higher risk of gout compared with those who drink less than one a month."

To look in more detail, the team carried out a 12-year study of 46,000 men aged 40 years and over with no history of gout, asking them regular questionnaires about their diet.

Over the period, 755 newly diagnosed cases of gout were reported.

The risk of developing the condition was significantly increased with an intake level of five to six servings of sugary soft drink per week.

This link was independent of other risk factors for gout such as body mass index, age, high blood pressure and alcohol intake.

Diet soft drinks did not increase the risk of gout but fruit juice and fructose rich fruits (apples and oranges) were associated with a higher risk, the researchers said.

Until now, most anti-gout advice consisted of having men cut back on foods rich in purine like beer and meat, and asking them to not live in Victorian times. But now those with "severe treatment failure gout" may want to consider limiting how much soda they drink.

"Gout surge blamed on sweet drinks" [BBC News]
(Photo: Getty)

]]>
Consumerist-351494 Fri, 01 Feb 2008 08:05:18 EST Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=351494&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Poverty Makes You Healthier! ]]> castrodiet.jpgThe decreased caloric intake and increase in non-motorized modes of transportation following Cuba's economic crisis from 1989-2000 lead to a decrease in heart disease and diabetes, a University of Michigan study finds.

Until its collapse, the Soviet Union provided Cuba with cheap oil and fuel. These resources gone, Cubans ate an average of 1,063 few calories, drove less, and walked and biked more. Obesity dropped from 14% to 7%. Deaths related to diabetes, heart disease, and stroke fell.

In other words, eat less, burn more.

Move over South Beach, here comes The Castro Diet! All it requires is 11 years of economic deprivation.

[Study Abstract]
Economic crisis in Cuba leads to dramatic health improvements [University of Michigan]
(Photo: The Real Cuba)

]]>
Consumerist-308644 Tue, 09 Oct 2007 10:44:27 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=308644&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ 10 Popular Diets Ranked According To Healthiness ]]> con_maneatingsausageonstick.jpg A new report in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association ranks ten diets according to nutritional quality and potential effects on heart health. The best of the ten is the Ornish diet, while the least healthy is the Atkins plan. Dieters, begin fighting.

While all of the diets emphasize fruits, veggies, and fiber, the Atkins lost points "because of its more liberal attitude toward red meat, saturated fat and trans fats."

The study used the Alternate Healthy Eating Index (AHEI), which has a maximum score of 70, and is determined by averaging each diet's individual score for the evening gown, swimsuit, and personal interview sections of the study. Below are the diets along with their scores:

  • Ornish (score 64.6)
  • Weight Watchers high-carbohydrate (score 57.4)
  • New Glucose Revolution (score 57.2)
  • South Beach/Phase 2 (score 50.7)
  • Zone (score 49.8)
  • 2005 Food Guide Pyramid (score 48.7)
  • Weight Watchers high-protein (score 47.3)
  • Atkins/100-g carbohydrate (score 46)
  • South Beach/Phase 3 (score 45.6)
  • Atkins/45-g carbohydrate (score 42.3).
  • "Dietary quality of popular diets varies: study" [Reuters]
    abstract of published study [ADA Journal - registration required]

    ]]>
    Consumerist-305822 Mon, 01 Oct 2007 17:10:42 EDT Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=305822&view=rss&microfeed=true
    <![CDATA[ 30 Code Words For Sugar ]]> It's yesterday's news that you can eat healthier by avoiding foods full of unnecessary sugars, and that sugars appear on labels under different names, but you might be surprised to see just how many different guises sugar and sugar-related substances can assume.

    Inside, 30 of them.

    Brown-rice syrup
    Corn sweetener
    Corn syrup, or corn syrup solids
    Cane Juice
    Dehydrated cane juice
    Dextrin
    Dextrose
    Fructose
    Fruit juice concentrate
    Glucose
    High-fructose corn syrup
    Honey
    Invert sugar
    Lactose
    Maltodextrin
    Malt syrup
    Maltose
    Mannitol
    Maple syrup
    Molasses
    Raw sugar
    Rice Syrup
    Saccharose
    Sorbitol
    Sorghum or sorghum syrup
    Sucrose
    Syrup
    Treacle
    Turbinado Sugar
    Xylose

    Things ending in "ose" or "ol" are probably sugars.

    Not all sugars are created equal, some of these are sugar alcohols which are not absorbed as fully by the body as regular sugar. It all depends on how an item falls on the glycemic index.

    Sugar's Many Disguises [About.com]
    RELATED: The Earlier Ingredients Are On A Label, The More There Is Inside

    ]]>
    Consumerist-300988 Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:05:19 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=300988&view=rss&microfeed=true
    <![CDATA[ How I Lost 14.6 Pounds Sitting In Front Of A Computer ]]> After a year-and-a-half of blogging out of the comfort of my apartment, I was out of shape and overweight. I'm 5'11" and I weighed 220 lbs. Pants weren't fitting. I learned that buttons popping off pants didn't just happen in the cartoons. My family noticed my doublechins, my dad worried I had diabetes.

    Something had to be done, and I was going to use what made me fat, computers and the internet, to help me do it.

    I decided to put all my diet and workouts online to make me feel publicly accountable. I also figured that the idea that I was doing an internet project makes it seem less of a chore.

    I figured it would make a good Consumerist post because there's no better way to cut down on future health care costs, and never have to do battle with the insurance company in the first place, than if you are fit and healthy. Not to mention, considering how bombarded we are with ads and marketing for weight loss programs, pills, videos, bizzare equipment, etc, it's nice to know the path to loosing fat can be simple and inexpensive.

    METHODS

    Cameraphone & Flickr
    I took pictures of what I ate, when I worked out, and my weight scale results and uploaded them to Flickr, a free photo sharing site.
    flickrshot.jpg

    Traineo.com
    I entered my weight and workouts into Traineo, a free diet and fitness social networking site. Check out my profile here.
    traineshot.jpg

    Shangri-la Diet
    I implemented the principles of the Shangri-la Diet, which mainly involves supplementing your diet with oil and sugar water. Reduced appetite is the result.
    oilandsugar.jpg

    Gym
    I began working out every other day, tracking my results on a sheet of paper I brought with me.
    workoutjuice.jpg

    TOOLS
    Gym membership
    Flickr.com
    Traineo.com
    Stopwatch
    Scale (the Tanita BF679W Duo Scale Plus Body Fat Monitor with Body Water)
    Canola oil
    Sugar
    Water
    Tablespoon
    Internet
    computer
    Cameraphone
    Pen
    Paper
    Soccerball
    Gym shorts
    New tshirts

    SCHEDULE
    Drink 1 tablespoon of canola oil around 11am
    Drink 4-6 glasses of water with 1 tablespoon of dissolved pure sugar
    Throw in some playing with the soccerball on in-between days
    Eat meals as normal
    Workout every other day. My workout includes 20 min stationary cycle, walking to and from the gym, and the following weight machines (3 sets of 10 reps each):

    • dual action chest press
    • seated leg curl
    • rotary calf
    • fly
    • abs
    • arm curl
    • leg extension
    • triceps
    • prone leg curl
    • leg press
    • glutes

    RESULTS
    In two months, I went from 218 lbs to 205.4 lbs, and from 25.5% to 20% body fat.

    The Shangri la Diet (SLD) actually does reduce my appetite. I used to always clean my plate. Now I have leftovers and doggie bags. I will always have the ability to be a great eater, to scarf everything down, but now I feel full a lot earlier. The key is to listen to my stomach and stop eating. SLD takes care of the physiology, some of it is still up to me and my brain.

    The taking and uploading of photos helps keep me honest. I know that if I fall behind, I have to announce it. Not many people are watching it but just seeing a few views here and there helps reinforce the idea that I'm being monitored. Uploading has an additional benefit: by looking at my "sent" cellphone messages I can see when I last ate and what.

    Traineo is pretty and user friendly and provides good ways to track progress. I'm not really using the social aspect of it at this point. Frankly, watching strangers try to lose weight is kind of an odd idea to me, even though I'm putting myself on display so that others might do the same. Guess you've got your exhibitionists and your voyeurs.

    flickrfilmstrip.jpg

    LITTLE THINGS THAT HELP MAKE IT WORK FOR ME

    • I mentioned the workout program and website addresses in emails and IMs with friends and family to help gather a few supporters.

    • Save your Flickr upload email address (located under account/upload by email) as the first contact in your cellphone. Preface its name with @ symbols (or any symbol) to make it show up first. Not having to scroll through contacts makes doing the cameraphone thing a lot easier.

    • I take a picture during my workout, but only upload it after I leave the gym. This gives me something to look forward to and amplifies the sense of completion.

    • My gym has a bowl of candy by the front door. I eat one peppermint hard candy on the way in, and one on the way out, as a little reward.

    • Don't pose your food or pose with it. Just whip out the cam and snap a quick shot and upload it. Otherwise it ends up being a pain in the ass and will undermine your will to keep taking pictures.

    • I take a photo of the weight scale right after I get out of the shower after a workout. Keeping the "feedback reward" as close to the completion of the task help motivate me.

    • For the same reason, I enter the data for the workout right after I get out of the shower and get dressed.

    CONCLUSIONS
    The single best way to reduce future health care costs is to be fit, healthy, and not overweight. Using a mix of calorie control, increased exercise, and a few tools on the internet, you lose weight, get fit, have fun and not starve.

    By diligently identifying and amplifying the little things that motivate, and identifying and mitigating or eliminating the things that demotivate, it's possible for to significantly alter one's behavior in a new, positive direction.

    My Profile Pages
    Traineo or follow with RSS
    Flickr or follow with RSS

    ]]>
    Consumerist-297860 Sun, 09 Sep 2007 10:53:49 EDT Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=297860&view=rss&microfeed=true
    <![CDATA[ Obesity Is Out Of Control ]]> obese.jpgA CNN map shows the American obesity epidemic since 1985, and it's freaky. Why is it happening? High fructose corn syrup? Fast food? Cheap carbohydrates? Lack of moral fiber?

    Tell us what you think in the comments. What has changed since 1985?

    Obesity in the US [CNN via Digg]

    ]]>
    Consumerist-282307 Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:11:53 EDT Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=282307&view=rss&microfeed=true
    <![CDATA[ New Cancer Worries For Diet Soda Drinkers ]]> equal.jpgA new study on the effects of low daily doses of the artificial sweetener aspartame shows a statistically significant increase in leukemia, lymphoma and breast cancer in rats. Consumer advocates are calling for the FDA to take another look at the safety of aspartame in light of the study, but the FDA seems uninterested.

    "Because aspartame is so widely consumed, it is urgent that the FDA evaluate whether aspartame still poses a 'reasonable certainty of no harm,' the standard used for gauging the safety of food additives," said CSPI executive director Michael F. Jacobson. "But consumers, particularly parents, shouldn't wait for the FDA to act. People shouldn't panic, but they should stop buying beverages and foods containing aspartame."
    The study, which can be read here, followed a group of 4,000 rats who were given low daily doses of aspartame (comparable to what a dedicated human diet soda drinker might consume, were he/she a rat) beginning during "prenatal" life. The rats were dissected after natural death and the effects of the aspartame calculated. From the study:
    The results of this carcinogenicity bioassay not only confirm, but also reinforce the first experimental demonstration of APM's multipotential carcinogenicity at a dose level close to the acceptable daily intake (ADI) for humans. Furthermore, the study demonstrates that when lifespan exposure to [aspartame] begins during fetal life, its carcinogenic effects are increased
    The authors of the study claim that current research on the effects of aspartame are based on studies that did not use a large enough sample of animals and did not allow the animals to live out their natural lifespan.The authors also took issue with a study conducted by the US National Institutes of Health and the American Association of Retired Persons, in which a number of Americans responded to self-administered questionnaires about what they ate and the results compared to their rate of brain cancer.

    The FDA responded to the CSPI in an email to Reuters, claiming not to have reviewed the study:

    "However, the conclusions from this second European Ramazzini Foundation are not consistent with those from the large number of studies on aspartame that have been evaluated by FDA, including five previously conducted negative chronic carcinogenicity studies," Herndon said in an e-mail.

    "Therefore, at this time, FDA finds no reason to alter its previous conclusion that aspartame is safe as a general purpose sweetener in food."

    The CSPI has downgraded aspartame to "everyone should avoid," and recommends choosing drinks that contain Splenda instead. CSPI regards Splenda as safe. If you drink a lot of aspartame, or you have kids who do, you might want to read the study and decide for yourself.

    FDA Should Reconsider Aspartame Cancer Risk, Say Experts [CSPI]
    FDA says unmoved by aspartame/cancer report [Reuters]
    Lifespan Exposure to Low Doses of Aspartame Beginning During Prenatal Life Increases Cancer Effects in Rats [Environmental Health Perspectives]

    ]]>
    Consumerist-272491 Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:24:36 EDT Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=272491&view=rss&microfeed=true
    <![CDATA[ Some Supplements Could Harm You? ]]> From the Seattle Times:
    Supplements that millions of Americans take to stave off disease and slow the aging process do not boost longevity and appear to actually increase the risk of dying, according to the most comprehensive study of whether popular "antioxidants" help users live longer.

    The analysis, which pooled data from 68 studies involving more than 232,000 people, found no evidence that taking beta-carotene, Vitamin A or Vitamin E extends life span. In fact, the analysis indicated that the supplements increase the likelihood of dying by about 5 percent. Vitamin C and selenium appeared to have no impact — either way — on longevity.

    The study does not address the question of multivitamins.

    If you're loading up on Vitamin A or E, you might want to back off. The vitamin industry's response to the study was sort of scary and callous sounding:
    "The message to the average consumer is: Don't pay attention to this. This doesn't apply to you. You can go ahead and continue taking your antioxidant supplements in addition to the other things you do in your life to stay healthy," said Andrew Shao of the Council for Responsible Nutrition, an industry group.
    Wow, thanks. That's comforting. —MEGHANN MARCO

    Supplement use doesn't help and may harm, study finds [Seattle Times]

    ]]>
    Consumerist-240590 Wed, 28 Feb 2007 22:38:00 EST Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=240590&view=rss&microfeed=true
    <![CDATA[ Special K Diet Is Bullshit ]]>

    Alright, we've sent Guest Blogger Meg Marco's ass packing. But was that ass any less plump and spectacular after her two week Special K diet, in which she ate only one real meal and two bowls of Special K a day in order to drop a jean size?

    Uh. No. "There is absolutely no change in my body. The diet was a complete and total failure."

    Worse yet, there were side effects!

    Several times during the "diet" my friends asked me if I was feeling ok. They urged me to get off the diet, saying that I didn't look well, but I promised to do this. They told me to just eat something, but if I had then I couldn't say with full confidence whether the diet worked or not. I felt light-headed going up the stairs to my apartment. On the 15th day, as I was working on a project for www.consumerist.com, I fainted. I had tea boiling in the other room, and by the time I woke up, it had all boiled away. I'm lucky I didn't burn the house down.

    We can personally confirm that Meg passed out, because it took her forever to get up her posts that day, the slacker.

    Conclusion: Special K Challenge is Bullshit [MeghannMarco.com]

    ]]>
    Consumerist-202877 Mon, 25 Sep 2006 05:24:43 EDT consumerist.com http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=202877&view=rss&microfeed=true
    <![CDATA[ Put Down the Bag of Chips, and Drink From the Bottle of Oil ]]> chugchugchug.jpgWe're not sure what's more horrifying: The fact that half of British schoolchildren eat a pack of potato chips (or crisps, if you prefer) every single day, or the fact that such a rate of chip consumption means you're ingesting more than a gallon of vegetable oil every year.

    That's a lot of oil, but split it up over 365 days, and it's not quite as scary. What's worse? How about eating a Hardee's 1,420-calorie Monster Thickburger, which gives you the privilege of ingesting 107 grams of fat in one sitting. Americans aren't shying away from the mega-calorie foods, according to new reports. Hopefully no one does THAT every day.

    But telling you that fast food is bad for you and that fried slices of potato are full of fat is not exactly surprising. And there's no way that awareness of oil in food is going to stop us from eating the occasional bag of chips. In reality, we just wanted to use this photo in a post.

    A packet of crisps a day? That's 5 litres of cooking oil in a year [Times Online]

    ]]>
    Consumerist-202703 Fri, 22 Sep 2006 17:48:15 EDT consumerist.com http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=202703&view=rss&microfeed=true
    <![CDATA[ Waiter, There's a Lack of Disclosure in My Soup ]]> peas.jpg

    A reader is mad that many restaurants won't give you the dietary information about the menu. So she wrote a letter to Bertuccis, an Italian place, and sent it to us as well.

    Dear Bertuccis,

    While I understand the cost that goes into preparing nutritional content for your menu, I think that it would be money well spent.

    Obesity in this country has become an epidemic and restaurants are partly to blame. Certainly consumers are responsible for what they eat, but it's difficult to manage this when restaurants like yourselves neglect to post your nutritional information.

    I have read on this site that you suggest that customers inquire with the local restaurants for a list of ingredients as each meal is prepared fresh daily. I have found that the menu at every Bertuccis is exactly the same, and would hazzard to assume that the main ingredients are basically the same.

    Given this, I don't believe that it would be a financial hardship for Bertuccis to compile and provide this information, and you would be doing your part, as a restaurant, to allow your patrons to make educated decisions about what they consume.

    Thank you for your time.
    Megan G.

    ]]>
    Consumerist-174757 Thu, 18 May 2006 13:50:47 EDT popkin http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=174757&view=rss&microfeed=true