If you’ve had a TV on at all in the past week, you’ve probably seen the new Taco Bell commercial with the woman claiming to have lost 54 pounds on her Taco Bell “drive-thru diet.”
An ABCNews.com story did a good job taking a critical look at campaigns like this one or its forerunner – the guy who claims to have lost a lot of weight on a Subway sandwich diet. Excerpts:
“But dieticians are on the fence about whether these campaigns ultimately hurt or help a nation where more than a third of meals are eaten in restaurants and more than a third of the population is obese. …
Dr. David Katz, director of Medical Studies in Public Health at Yale University: “I also suspect that most people hoping to ‘be’ Christine will be very disappointed, just as most Jared wannabes are. These are likely people who made a dramatic commitment to lifestyle change, and simply relied on a particular source of convenience food as part of their strategy. That doesn’t make that source of convenience food the solution!” …
“This is preposterous. This is the same Taco Bell that has the Volcano Nachos (almost 1,000 calories), that boasts about the 1/2 pound cheesy potato burrito, that has systematically encouraged people to eat between meals with their 4th meal campaign,” said Kelly D. Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University. …
Bonnie Taub-Dix, spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association, pointed out that the Fresco Crunchy Taco, for example, “barely has protein” and that “half of the calories in that meal are coming from fat. If someone had this for lunch alone, I’d say it’s an inadequate lunch.”
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
Comments (6)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
A. Childers
December 31, 2009 at 12:19 amI do not think we will escape convenience foods anytime soon. So long as it takes two working parents to support a household (two tired parents with diminished time and energy to cook meals at home), and convenience food calories remain priced far lower than whole food calories, Americans will continue to forage among fast food restaurants and in processed food isles. At the risk of sounding like Cassandra, I predict future costs in terms of health care to treat the side effects of these foods (diabetes, heart disease, stroke, liver disease, etc.) will gouge America’s pocketbook in ways we cannot yet imagine.
We must get educated on the issues of food, where it comes from, and what foods are actually good for us. We must vote with our forks to preserve our health and the health of our nation. And we must let our representatives know what we think about this issue so vital to our very existence, food.
Ken Leebow
January 1, 2010 at 7:18 amIt would probably be a good idea to watch these spoofs from The Onion and Saturday Night Live — about the above and the American food system. Yes, there’s a lot of truth in humor. Enjoy.
Ken Leebow
January 1, 2010 at 7:19 amForgot, here’s the Web site . . .
http://www.feedyourheaddiet.com/lets-laugh.html
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like