Kids who watch more TV eat fewer vegetables-study

Another goofy "study." One fewer serving of veggies over 6 days (60
fewer servings a year)? Gimme a break! I think it's a
big--huge--assumption that kids who watch more TV eat less vegetables
because vegetables, unlike "junk foods," aren't advertised. IMO, kids
who spend more time watching TV might be doing so largely because
there's no parent around to prevent (or at least discourage) them from
doing so.

www.reutershealth.com; Health eLine, 12/8/03

Kids who watch more TV eat fewer vegetables-study

Last Updated: 2003-12-08 9:45:15 -0400 (Reuters Health)

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The more television children watch the less fruit
and vegetables they eat, probably because the advertising they see
leaves them craving junk food instead, according to a study released
Monday.

Children surveyed for the study who spent more time watching television
ate 0.16 fewer servings of fruit and vegetables for every extra hour
watched. That additional hour a day of TV watching added up to one less
nutritional serving every six days.

Heavy television viewing by children has been linked to eating more junk
food, getting less exercise and obesity, but this was the first study to
show that TV watching led to lower consumption of nutritious fruit and
vegetables, said the report, which was published in the journal
Pediatrics.

At the start of the survey in 1995, the children, who averaged 12 years
of age, ate an average of 4.23 servings of fruit and vegetables per day,
which was below the government-recommended five daily servings.

The rising epidemic of childhood obesity in the United States and other
industrialized nations has been linked to cardiovascular disease in even
young children, and to an accumulation of health problems later in life.

American children spend more time watching television than engaging in
any other activity except sleeping, averaging 22 hours of viewing a
week, the report said. They are exposed to 20,000 TV commercials a year,
or 150 to 200 hours worth.

Study author Renee Boynton-Jarrett of the Harvard School of Public
Health said most food advertising aired during children's shows conflict
with healthy eating habits.

"Little of this marketing is aimed at fruit and vegetables," the report
said.

Children surveyed for the study who spent more time watching television
ate 0.16 fewer servings of fruit and vegetables for every extra hour
watched. That additional hour a day of TV watching added up to one less
nutritional serving every six days.

Note the assumption that only fruits and vegetables are nutritious.

Counting servings is bogus anyway. Some people eat big servings.

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
t...
Children surveyed for the study who spent more time watching television
ate 0.16 fewer servings of fruit and vegetables for every extra hour
watched. That additional hour a day of TV watching added up to one less
nutritional serving every six days.

Note the assumption that only fruits and vegetables are nutritious.

I don't see that assumption. I beleive the assumption is that not eating
enough fruits and vegetables is not as healthy as eating enough fruits and
vegetables.

Counting servings is bogus anyway. Some people eat big servings.

I disagree. The serving size will average out over study population.

I think it is equally important that kids are eating other things, like
candy and potatoe chips.

Jeff

"Jeff" wrote
Children surveyed for the study who spent more time watching
television
ate 0.16 fewer servings of fruit and vegetables for every extra hour
watched. That additional hour a day of TV watching added up to one
less
nutritional serving every six days.
Note the assumption that only fruits and vegetables are nutritious.
I don't see that assumption. I beleive the assumption is that not eating
enough fruits and vegetables is not as healthy as eating enough fruits and
vegetables.

It didn't look at whether they were eating enough fruits and vegetables.
The assumption is that one less serving of fruit and vegetables implies
that there is one less nutritional serving. But the kids may have replaced
the serving with a nutritional serving of something other than a fruit or
a vegetable.

Or maybe they just eat larger servings.

I think it is equally important that kids are eating other things, like
candy and potatoe chips.

My guess is that a bag of potato chips qualifies as a serving of
vegetables, but that candy does not.

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message et...
Children surveyed for the study who spent more time watching television
ate 0.16 fewer servings of fruit and vegetables for every extra hour
watched. That additional hour a day of TV watching added up to one less
nutritional serving every six days.

Note the assumption that only fruits and vegetables are nutritious.

Counting servings is bogus anyway. Some people eat big servings.

TV kids often have parents who think junk food is real food

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
...
"Jeff" wrote
Children surveyed for the study who spent more time watching
television
ate 0.16 fewer servings of fruit and vegetables for every extra hour
watched. That additional hour a day of TV watching added up to one
less
nutritional serving every six days.
Note the assumption that only fruits and vegetables are nutritious.
I don't see that assumption. I beleive the assumption is that not eating
enough fruits and vegetables is not as healthy as eating enough fruits
and
vegetables.

It didn't look at whether they were eating enough fruits and vegetables.
The assumption is that one less serving of fruit and vegetables implies
that there is one less nutritional serving.

Actually, the assumption is that eating one less serving of fruit and
vegetables implies eating one less serving of fruit and vegetables.

But the kids may have replaced
the serving with a nutritional serving of something other than a fruit or
a vegetable.

May have? Really good for a "scientist."

I believe the assumption is that the a diet rich in fruits and vegetables is
healthier diet than one poor in fruit and vegetables.

The study people clearly assumed that kids replaced servings of fruit and
vegetables with fat food advertised on TV. I do question this assumption.

Or maybe they just eat larger servings.

What evidence do you have to back this up?

I think it is equally important that kids are eating other things, like
candy and potatoe chips.

My guess is that a bag of potato chips qualifies as a serving of
vegetables, but that candy does not.

I doubt it. What about Peanut M&M's? Are peanuts like vegetables?

Jeff

"JG" wrote in message et...
Another goofy "study." One fewer serving of veggies over 6 days (60
fewer servings a year)? Gimme a break! I think it's a
big--huge--assumption that kids who watch more TV eat less vegetables
because vegetables, unlike "junk foods," aren't advertised. IMO, kids
who spend more time watching TV might be doing so largely because
there's no parent around to prevent (or at least discourage) them from
doing so.

I'm not sure why you've put 'study' in quotes - it's a study,
albeit one with flawed conclusions. It could also be that
increased weight leads to more TV watching, so that eating less
nutritious food is an earlier link in the chain and not an
effect, so establishing a relationship between these
variables is not particularly interesting by itself.

Have you read the study itself? I'd like to hope that the
researchers invovled at least paid lip service to the idea
that a correlation does not a causal relationship prove, but
maybe not.

Beth

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
t...

Children surveyed for the study who spent more time watching
television
ate 0.16 fewer servings of fruit and vegetables for every extra hour
watched. That additional hour a day of TV watching added up to one
less
nutritional serving every six days.

Note the assumption that only fruits and vegetables are nutritious.

Counting servings is bogus anyway. Some people eat big servings.

Yes. The whole "study" seems (based on the Reuter's article) to have
been little more than a survey ("How many times did you eat vegetables
and/or fruits last week"?).

I think this is a classic case of "have objective (agenda), will now
create/conduct a goofy survey/'study' to support it." I'm betting the
researcher (and I'm using the term loosely!) harbored a fair amount of
animosity towards "junk"-food manufacturers/marketers *before*
conducting her survey. It's nuts to say kids are overweight because of
the junk-food commercials they view; it would likewise be/is ridiculous
to assert that kids would be healthier (slimmer) if they viewed, say,
ads for Birdseye vegetables or Dole fruits. Advertisements do not
*make* anyone do, or refrain from doing, anything! (A message that the
"this is your brain on drugs" and "buying drugs supports terrorism"
folks STILL don't get...) I don't watch many programs aimed at kids,
but it seems to me that most of the commercials for "junk"
foods/beverages show active (or even EXTREMELY active--ever see a
Mountain Dew commercial?) kids. If the author asserts that these
commercials "make" kids consume the products advertised, why don't they
also "make" kids get off their butts and engage in the activity(ies)
being portrayed?

"Elizabeth Reid" wrote in message
om...
"JG" wrote in message
et...

Another goofy "study." One fewer serving of veggies over 6 days (60
fewer servings a year)? Gimme a break! I think it's a
big--huge--assumption that kids who watch more TV eat less
vegetables
because vegetables, unlike "junk foods," aren't advertised. IMO,
kids
who spend more time watching TV might be doing so largely because
there's no parent around to prevent (or at least discourage) them
from
doing so.

I'm not sure why you've put 'study' in quotes - it's a study,
albeit one with flawed conclusions.

I'm hypercritical when it comes to social/behavioral sciences. (In
fact, I'm doing all I can to refrain from putting quotation marks around
"sciences" in the previous sentence! g) So much of the
stuff--research--that comes from social "scientists" (dang--the urge won
out!) is, IMO, based solely on surveys of behavior. (There's nothing
wrong with the word "survey," btw.) Compiling statistics and drawing
conclusions from surveys--and even going further to make
suggestions/recommendations based upon them--doesn't amount to a
"study." (YMMV) If the statistics-compiler in question wanted to conduct
a bona fide study, why didn't she, say, take four groups of kids--two
groups of "normal"-weight kids and two groups of overweight kids--and
control their TV viewing for an extended period (a year?). All the kids
could view the same progamming, but half of them (one of the groups of
"normal"-weight kids + one of the groups of overweight kids) would see
commercials for fruits and vegetables while the other half would see
currently running ("junk") food ads. She could then *better* (there'd
still, of course, be a tremendous number of uncontrolled variables)
assess whether the types of food commercials kids viewed had an impact
on their weight.

It could also be that
increased weight leads to more TV watching, so that eating less
nutritious food is an earlier link in the chain and not an
effect, so establishing a relationship between these
variables is not particularly interesting by itself.

True.

Have you read the study itself? I'd like to hope that the
researchers invovled at least paid lip service to the idea
that a correlation does not a causal relationship prove, but
maybe not.

I haven't read it (yet). I'd like to know what, if any, recommendations
she made. ("Ban "junk" food advertising!" "More PSAs regarding
"healthy" eating!" "More commercials for fruits and vegetables!") I
have a strong feeling the author does believe there's a causal
relationship between the types of foods (whether "good" or "bad")
advertised and kids' food selections.

"Elizabeth Reid" wrote
Have you read the study itself? I'd like to hope that the
researchers invovled at least paid lip service to the idea
that a correlation does not a causal relationship prove, but
maybe not.

I don't see it online anywhere. The Harvard web site just has
a link to a CNN story!
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/

An abstract is he

Findings. For each additional hour of television viewed per day, fruit and
vegetable servings per day decreased (-0.14) after adjustment for
anthropometric, demographic, dietary variables (including baseline percent
energy from fat, sit-down dinner frequency, and baseline energy-adjusted
fruit and vegetable intake), and physical activity. Baseline hours of
television viewed per day was also independently associated with change in
fruit and vegetable servings (-0.16).

Conclusions. Television viewing is inversely associated with intake of fruit
and vegetables among adolescents. These associations may be a result of the
replacement of fruits and vegetables in youths' diets by foods highly
advertised on television.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...act/112/6/1321