Diabetes News

Pity our poor, TV-watching kids. Just about every time they turn on the tube to watch their favorite shows, they're accosted by ads pushing one sugary food after another.

If they're not tormented by commercials trumpeting the scrumptious flavors of certain candies, then they're being nudged to become a fan of the newest sugary cereal.

And if they don't see ads for candies or cereals, then they're teased into submission to chomp some processed-carb crap snacks.

• Children aged 8 to 12 (they call them "tweens") see the most food ads on TV, an average of 21 ads a day, or more than 7,600 a year.
• Teens see slightly fewer ads, about 17 a day, or more than 6,000 a year.
• And children ages 2 to 7 see about 12 food ads a day, or 4,400 a year."

Not suprisingly, the study found that food was the top product advertised. Sure enough, of the food ads that target children or teens:

• 34% are for candy and snacks.
• 28% are for cereal.
• 10% are for fast foods.

And we wonder why our kids are becoming moody, depressed, tired, irritable and fat?

Then, the Kaiser Foundation study found that:

• A mere 4% are for dairy products and
• 1% for fruit juices.

And get this: Of the 8,854 ads reviewed in the study, not one sinle ad targeting children or teens urged them to eat fruits or vegetables.

Duh! Small wonder that why our nation's kids aren't getting enough nutrient-rich fruits and vegetables.

"Children of all ages see thousands of food ads a year, but tweens see more than any other age group,” said Vicky Rideout, vice president and director of the Program for the Study of Entertainment Media and Health at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “Since tweens are at an age where they’re just becoming independent consumers, understanding what type of advertising they are exposed to is especially important.”

This a follow-up to yesterday's item about the Kaiser Family Foundation's study on how kids are bombarded with TV ads that peddle junk food.

As I've stated here before, such massive marketing to kids is one that offends me greatly, because our innocent, defenseless children are basically being almost brainwashed to eat their culprit carb foods. Not only could all this junk food lead to obesity, but it could trigger many other health and emotional problems.

Kids eating lots of junk food could have difficulty concentrating, get headaches, be excessively exhausted, anxious, depressed, moody, and even get bad grades.

Anyhow, see this thoughtful, thorough New York Times article from Elizabeth Olson today about the new study.

She writes:

"For years, health officials have warned that bombarding children with junk food commercials has contributed to the problem of childhood obesity. Food conglomerates, eager to fend off federal regulation, have made various commitments to improve, including a pledge in December to meet goals for promoting fitness and healthier foods.

"The Kaiser Family Foundation{cq} released a study yesterday that it said provides a way to measure the companies’ progress. The foundation, a nonprofit group that focuses on health care issues, found that 50 percent of ad time on children’s shows is devoted to food. Among the ads aimed at children and teenagers, 72 percent are for candy, snacks, sugary cereals or fast food."

The repoter continues:

"These advertisements `are largely for products that children should be eating less of, not more of, if we’re going to get a handle on childhood obesity,' said Victoria J. Rideout, director of the foundation’s program for the study of entertainment media and health.

Of the food ads that the study examined, 34 percent were for candy and snacks, 28 percent for cereal and 10 percent for fast food. Ms. Rideout said that almost 100 percent of the cereals were sugared."

Do take time to read Elizabeth Olson's entire New York Times story. It's a great overview about the situation and the food industry's defensive, "I've changed!" reaction.

Since quickly posting my item yesterday about sugar-fueled batteries (I was home very sick), a few more mentions have popped up on the Internet about this development such as in a United Press International story and a Times Online in the U.K piece.

To briefly recap, researchers -- headed up by Shelley D. Minteer, Ph.D., an assistant professor of chemistry at Saint Louis University -- have invented the sugar-powered battery, which is made from biodegradable materials.

What's more, Dr. Minteer and her colleagues envision the battery being able to be refuelled from whatever sweet liquids are handy. In fact, they've already tried sugared water, flat soft drinks, glucose, sweetened drink mixes and tree saps.

Just imagine: In the not-too-distant future -- like five years from now -- you'll want to quickly charge up your iPod, laptop or mobile phone. Well, just grab a sugary drink and pour it into the battery.

Scientists contend that these new batteries may be able to operate for three to four times longer than your conventional lithium ion batteries, which are typically used in laptops, cell phones, MP3 palyers and many other charge, and other portable electronic devices.

"By bridging biology and chemistry, we can build a better battery that's also cleaner for the environment," Dr. Minteer said in a prepared statement.

So how does sugar do it? Essentially, Dr. Minteer and her colleagues adapted enzymes from nature that can strip charges from sugar to generate electricity in fuel cells.

Now that I'm learning more about this sugar-fueled battery, it sounds even more attractive. Better to put the sugary stuff in your portable electronic gizmos than your body!

My blogging colleague Mark over at the often-fascinating site, Calorie Lab, wanted my thoughts about this article, "Sugar-Powered Fuel Cells Are Totally Sweet."

Hmm. Sugar to run fuel cells -- not burn out our bodies? You've got my attention!

Actually, one of my very first reactions to this article about Sugar-Powered Fuel Cells had to do with the funding source. Isn't this intriguing that the Department of Defense backed this study? Hmm, what does that say?

Anyhow, of course, in some universities, they've already been researching the use of sugar to run cars -- and it's even operational in some areas so it certainly makes sense that sugar could be used for fuel cells, too. If they're biodegradable to boot, that's a plus.

But I still have pressing concerns. First off, if you can power gadgets and gizmos with sugar, what does putting the stuff into your body do? Of course, we know -- too many sweets and simple carbs could lead to a host of emotional and physical ailments.

Secondly, what would obtaining and processing all that sugar do to the environment? You have to bear in mind that somehow the sugar canes need to be grown and then chopped down. (Who would do that? Would low paid laborers do the work, and would they be living in conditions reminiscent of slavery? In fact, one recent report on Anderson Cooper 360 on CNN focused on just this very problem, as I pointed out here recently.)

And would processing sugar in large quantities harm the environment? Seriously, how much sugar is out there to get these fuel cells going.

In fact, one expert had much the same worries. "It's a finite system; once the sugar runs out, so do the the batteries," says Russ Bianchi, managing director of Adept Solutions, Inc, a global product development firm based in Soquel, California.

When I have some time, I'm eager to learn more though. Is there a way to make environmentally safe fuel cells out of sugar and keep the sugar industry afoot in the meantime? Just a thought.

I'm really excited to learn about a small study, which found that you can derive even more benefits from chocolate without having to down sugar at the same time.

You see, we keep hearing about all the benefits of dark chocolate or cacao, which contain a large amount of antioxidants or flavinoids -- perhaps even more so than green tea, red wine or blueberries -- but usually no one focuses on how adding sugar into the equation can offset any benefits you obtain.

But now Yale University researchers conducted a small study, which revealed that unsweetened cocoa improves blood vessels (helps with your heart function) better than sugary cocoa for overweight patients. (For those of you who understand medical lingo, it improved "endothelial function.")

The findings, which were reported at the American College of Cardiology meeting in New Orleans, according to MedPageToday.com, Valentine Yanchou Njike, of Yale University’s Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center, and fellow researchers looked at 45 people for six weeks, and they found that giving 8 ounces (227 grams) of unsweetened cocoa worked better than 8 ounces of sweetened cocoa or 8 ounces of a placebo, after fasting 8 to 12 hours.

Now, as I often mention here, when you're looking at research study results, you always need to know the funding source. So, in this case, as MedPageToday.com's staff writer Crystal Phendit points out, it was Hershey's (as in the chocolate company), along with the CDC. That said, if the results are true, they are promising. (Couldn't a larger study be done without being funded by a chocolate company with a vested interest in the outcome?)

Anyhow, the 39 subjects who completed the study had the following results:

• Unsweetened cocoa improved the function of blood vessels by 2.4%.
• Sweetened cocoa improved blood vessel function by 1.5%.
• The placebo decreased function by 0.8%.

Thanks to MedPageToday.com and itwire.com, for alerting me to fascinating research.

By the way, make sure to turn here to listen to the video on MedPageToday.com with Robert S. Rosenson, M.D. of Northwestern University. (Yeah, my grad school.)

Well, I'm off to have some quinoa with a little bit of sprinkled cacao on it -- without sugar, of course.

FYI, MedPageToday is thorough. Staff writer Crystal PhendIt not only cites the funding sources upfront, but she explains that ""...the study was small and would need to be confirmed by larger studies assessing clinical outcomes before chocolate could be recommended for cardiovascular risk reduction.". In addition, it pointed out that the study was "published as an abstract and presented orally at a conference. These data and conclusions should be considered to be preliminary as they have not yet been reviewed and published in a peer-reviewed publication."

This is about as off topic as you can get for what's supposed to be a blog about sugar news and tidbits.

Did you hear about the Maine man, whose resident mouse "taunted" him and scurried off with his dentures? Seriously, folks.

Thanks to MSNBC, I heard about this news story, which amuses me -- sorry Bill Exner of Waterville, Maine, I mean you no harm. It sure sounds like it must be challenging to hang onto your dentures with that pesky mouse around!

By the way, have you thought of putting these dentures in a case with a lid and then gluing the case to the surface of your nightstand? The rodent won't get to them that way. Or maybe you could just leave the darn dentures in your mouth?

Also, I'm just wondering, did I miss something? Why do you let this rodent stick around? Can't you take it to the nearby zoo if you don't want to hurt it?

Oh wait, incidentally, how can a mouse taunt you?

Now, sugary foods can taunt you and tempt you and torture you, right, sugar addicts out there?

OK, so much for my acting silly this afternoon.

Here are a couple more remarks from readers of SUGAR SHOCK!

From Charletta, a long-time member of my free, online KickSugar group:

"I finished your book and it was fantastic. You did a great job, girl!!!"

Then Trudy wrote to say:

"Yes, I did get the shopping list...many thanks! And I have my copy and two more copies of Sugar Shock for family members. Blessings on you for having the courage to take a stand on this sugar epidemic."

Wow! What kind words.

Readers, I love hearing from you. Write away!