The Life Ledger

Fitness is a way of life.

photo credit: thelifeledger

I recently received this e-mail from someone at Fleishman-Hillard, who apparently represents Gatorade in PR matters:

Great post on calorie disclosure. Did you know that you would have to take 2,640 more steps to burn off the calories in vitamin waters? Propel has one-fifth of the calories and punches up water. With that said, we would like to invite you and your readers to view our channel on YouTube at http://youtube.com/PropelFitWater…

I’ve long been fascinated with the growing fitness water trend and the marketing games they play. For instance, as Mark’s Daily Apple points out, most fitness water manufacturers will market a calorie claim on the label (only 10 calories!), but the bottle holds more than one serving. Does anyone here measure out their serving size when drinking water from a bottle? I don’t either.

At any rate, after reading the e-mail, I was interested in what people have to say about Propel. However, I couldn’t find any articles comparing Propel to other products - beyond short articles like the one at Trying Fitness, there doesn’t seem to be much info. To satisfy my curiosity, I bought several enhanced water products, tried them myself, and put together a comparison.

My personal takeaway? Fitness waters are nothing more than “dietary supplements” with bottled water from unknown sources thrown in. Drink regular water and eat varied colors of fruits and vegetables to get the same nutrient naturally. If you need some tips on drinking more water, Diet-Blog lists a couple to get you started.

photo credit: thelifeledger

Bot (www.botbeverages.com)

Flavor Tried
Berry Bot; refreshing, clean, only slight aftertaste; tastes like water with a little flavoring.

My Take
The clean taste isn’t the only thing that’s refreshing about Bot - it’s also the only product whose label reflects the calorie count of the entire bottle. While technically accurate, it’s still purposefully misleading to market one bottle of fitness water as 2.5 servings, then place in bold letters “Only 10 calories!” It’s also nice to see only ingredients I recognize, including pure cane sugar. Definitely top of my list.

Nutrition Information
Serving Size: 12 fl oz, 1 per container
Calories: 40 per serving (40 per container)
Sugar: 9g per serving (9g per container)
Vitamins per serving: B3 10%; B12 10%; B5 10%; B6 10%

Ingredients
filtered, deionized water, pure cane sugar, natural flavors, citric acid, niacinamide (vit. B3), calcium D pantothenate (vit. B5), pyridoxine hydrochloride (vit. B6), cyanocobalamine (vit. B12)

photo credit: thelifeledger

Vitamin Water (www.vitaminwater.com)

Flavor Tried
XXX (Acai, Blueberry, Pomegranate): too sweet, no aftertaste, good flavor; tastes like fruit punch, not water.

My Take
Vitamin Water gets a lot of rave reviews. As long as you’re expecting fruit punch as opposed to a clean water taste, you’re in for a treat. In my opinion, it also gets high marks for using real sugar and no preservatives - it could stand to be less sweet, but at least it’s not using sugar alternatives or HFCS. I would treat this as a soda alternative, something I drank maybe once a day - it’s not as healthy as water, but it’s a good lot better than a Coke.

Nutrition Information
Serving Size: 8 fl oz, 2.5 per container
Calories: 50 per serving (125 per container)
Sugar: 13g per serving (33g per container)
Vitamins per serving: C 100%; B3 10%; B12 10%; B5 10%; B6 10%

Ingredients
vapor distilled, deionized, and/or reverse osmosis water, crystalline fructose, cane sugar, citric acid, vegetable juice (color), ascorbic acid (vit c), natural flavor, berry and fruit extracts (acai, blueberry, pomegranate and apple), magnesium lactate (electrolyte), calcium lactate (electrolyte), monopotassium phosphate (electrolyte), niacin (B3), pantothenic acid (B5), pyridoxine hydrochloride (B6), cyanocobalamin (B12)

photo credit: thelifeledger

Voosh (www.drinkvoosh.com)

Flavor Tried
Acai, Blueberry, Pomegranate: refreshing, clean taste; good balance between sweetness/flavoring and clean water.

My Take
I’ve never heard of Voosh, but I’m glad I tried it - with a pleasant, clean taste, the flavoring complements the water without overpowering that refreshing, quenched taste I get from water. It’s got more junk than Bot, including electrolytes which I tend to steer clear of, but many people like. In my opinion, this is a fantastic alternative to Propel or Gatorade - what you lose in some “repleneshment” and nutritional additives from Gatorade products, you gain in lack of sucralose and preservatives. Voosh is second to Bot on my list.

Nutrition Information
Serving Size: 8 fl oz, 2.5 per container
Calories: 50 per serving (125 per container)
Sugar: 13g per serving (33g per container)
Vitamins per serving: C 100%; niacin 10%; B12 15%; pantothenic acid 10%; B6 10%

Ingredients:

water, crystalline fructose, citric acid, vitamin blend (ascorbic acid, grape seed extract, niacinamide, d-calcium pantothenate, vitamin b12, pyridoxine hcl), fruit and vegetable juices for color, natural flavors, magnesium lactate, calcium lactate, potassium phosphate

photo credit: thelifeledger

LifeWater (www.sobelifewater.com)

Flavor Tried
Blackberry Grape: too sweet, slight aftertaste, good flavor; tastes like syrup-based beverage, not water.

My Take
I had high hopes for LifeWater. I like many other Sobe beverages, and expected this to be no different. And to be honest, if I hadn’t gone to the local whole foods grocery store (Earth Fare in my area) and discovered Bot and Voosh, LifeWater would have been my favorite pick. While not as overpoweringly sweet as Vitamin Water, it’s still obviously not water, and doesn’t quench my thirst like water should. It also lists things like food starch and gum arabic that I expect from more processed products - perhaps that’s the reason Sobe markets LifeWater as a “Vitamin Enhanced Water Beverage” instead of a fitness water or something similar. All in all, it’s not a bad drink, and like any of these I’d drink LifeWater over any soda, but there are definitely better ones out there.

Nutrition Information
Serving Size: 8 fl oz, 2.5 per container
Calories: 40 per serving (100 per container)
Sugar: 10g per serving (25g per container)
Vitamins per serving: C 100%; E 20%; niacin 10%; pantothenic acid 10%; B12 10%; B6 10%

Ingredients
filtered water, sugar, natural flavor, citric acid, ascorbic acid (C), grape skin extract (color), sodium citrate, modified food starch, l-theanine, vitamin e acetate, calcium phosphate, gum arabic, calcium pantothenate, yerba mate exctract, niacinamide, pyridoxine hydrochloride (B6), cyanocobalamin (b12)

photo credit: thelifeledger

Propel (www.propelwater.com)

Flavor Tried
Kiwi-Strawberry: bitter aftertaste, doesn’t quench thirst, tastes unnatural.

My Take
Here we go, the drink that started this whole article. I tell you what, I don’t like soda, but I think I’d drink a Sprite over this stuff. It tastes bitter and doesn’t slake my thirst, probably due to the sucralose (Splenda) used to sweeten the drink. Also, the “natural kiwi and strawberry flavors” listed in the ingredients taste anything but natural - I can’t tell what it tastes like. Sorry Gatorade, but I’ll pass on this drink - I’d rather have the higher calorie count of one of the other drinks than sucralose, sucrose syrup and bad taste. Or, just drink water.

Nutrition Information
Serving Size: 8 fl oz, 2 per container
Calories: 10 per serving (25 per container) (yes, I know mathematically this shouldn’t be the case, but that’s what’s listed on the bottle)
Sugar: 2g per serving (4g per container)
Vitamins per serving: C 10%; E 10%; niacin 25%; B12 4%; pantothenic acid 25%; B6 25%

Ingredients:
water, sucrose syrup, citric acid, natural kiwi and strawberry flavors with other natural flavors, sodium citrate, potassium citrate, sucralose, vit c (ascorbic acid), vit e acetate, niacinamide (b3), calcium disodium edta (protects freshness), calcium pantothenate (vit b5), pyridoxine hydrochloride (b6), acesulfame potassium, vit b12

How about you - did I dis or skip your favorite fitness water drink?

Thank you for visiting The Life Ledger. If you enjoyed this article, check out the related posts below and subscribe to our feed.

photo credit: thelifeledger

Childhood obesity is becoming such an epidemic that many schools are taking steps to increase the nutrition and exercise awareness of both their students and their students’ parents. Take, for example, this article covering changes recently instituted by five Philadelphia schools:

Five Philadelphia elementary schools replaced sodas with fruit juice. They scaled back snacks and banished candy. They handed out raffle tickets for wise food choices. They spent hours teaching kids, their parents and teachers about good nutrition.

As a result, “the number of kids who got fat during the two-year experiment was half the number of kids who got fat in schools that didn’t make those efforts.” Which is great, but of course not nearly enough. What we need is more education and awareness about what we feed our children. For instance, the cereal we feed them.

A recent article on Medical News Today about children’s cereal caught my eye. The article cites a recent study conducted by Yale’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, which concluded that children’s cereals are higher in calories, sugar and salt than adult cereals, despite marketing claims to the contrary. The article goes on to summarize the study:

[Marlene] Schwartz and her colleagues examined 161 breakfast cereals from four leading manufacturers and compared nutritional values of children’s and nonchildren’s cereals to national guidelines. They found that when comparing nutrients per gram, children’s cereals were higher in calories, sodium, carbohydrate, and sugar, but significantly lower in fiber and protein. They also found that the majority of children’s cereals, 66 percent, failed to meet national recommended nutritional standards for foods sold in schools.

I couldn’t find a copy of the study itself, so I thought I’d conduct a spot-check myself. When selecting children’s cereal and adult cereal, I concentrated on marketing and shelf placement in the grocery store, as one Yale Rudd Center study points out that

Children are exposed to an estimated 10 000 advertisements for food per year, 95% of which are for fast foods, candy, sugared cereal and soft drinks (13). By pre-school, the child begins to have preferences for certain products and, according to McNeal, is a ‘consumer by influence’ (14). Advertisers place cereal boxes at child eye level because they know that toddlers can recognize brands of cereal and request them from their seat in the grocery cart.

Based on ads and shelf placement, I selected three cereals marketed as “healthy” children’s cereals and two “healthy” adult cereals, because let’s face it - comparing Trix to Allbran is just a tad unfair, and you shouldn’t be feeding your child that un-food anyway. Let’s see how they stack up.

Children’s Cereals

Cheerios

photo credit: Z(-_-)F

Nutrition Facts
Serving Size: 1 cup (28 grams)
Calories, without milk: 100
Sodium: 190mg
Sugar: 1g

Ingredients
Whole grain oats, modified corn starch, sugar, oat bran, salt, calcium carbonate, oat fiber, potassium phosphate, corn starch, wheat starch, vitamin E

Kix

photo credit: sajrow

Nutrition Facts
Serving Size: 1 1/4 cup (30 grams)
Calories, without milk: 110
Sodium: 210mg
Sugar: 3g

Ingredients
corn (whole grain corn, meal), whole grain oats, ugar, corn bran, modified corn starch, corn syrup, salt, calcium carbonate, trisodium phosphate, vitamin E, misc vitamins

Wheaties

photo credit: tape

Nutrition Facts
Serving Size: 3/4 cup (27 grams)
Calories, without milk: 100
Sodium: 190mg
Sugar: 4g

Ingredients
whole grain wheat, sugar, salt, corn syrup, trisodium phosphate, BHT, misc vitamins

Adult Cereals

All-bran

photo credit: davekellam

Nutrition Facts
Serving Size: 1/2 cup (31 grams)
Calories, without milk: 80
Sodium: 80mg
Sugar: 6g

Ingredients
wheat bran, sugar, high fructose corn syrup, malt flavoring, calcium phosphate, calcium carbonate, salt, sodium ascorbate and ascorbic acid (vitamin c), misc vitamins

Special K

photo credit: Paul Cheek

Nutrition Facts
Serving Size: 1 cup (31 grams)
Calories, without milk: 120
Sodium: 220mg
Sugar: 4g

Ingredients
rice, wheat gluten, sugar, defatted wheat germ, salt, high fructose corn syrup, dried whey, malt flavoring, calcium caseinate, misc vitamins

The Comparison

I think visually, so I’ve created a table with what I think are the most important comparisons to draw between the five cereals. *I’ve changed the serving size to make the numbers directly comparable.

The takeaway I get? Eat fruit, not cereal. If you need to serve cereal, Cheerios looks like the least evil. The other takeaway? I need to find a new recipe for my bran muffins.

photo credit: jon.nelson

Consumerist turned me to the latest battle in the war on the restaurant industry - making calorie information readily available. San Francisco’s new ordinance requires any restaurant with more than 20 locations to display calorie information on menus or posters, and carries a $500 fine for each violation. This is great news, since bills requiring restaurants to display calorie information, which common sense tells me is a necessary part of treating the obesity epidemic, has historically been fraught with resistance. As the article on Consumerist points out,

San Francisco joins New York City and Washington’s King County in the battle to protect consumers with information, a fight that has not gone well for municipalities. California Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger recently vetoed a bill that would require nutrition labeling throughout the state, and New York City was barred by a judge from enforcing its regulations until April 15, when the plan may be tossed altogether.

The CPSI is serious about this issue. In a press release marking the San Francisco bill, the CPSI outlines their vision of the future:

No one expects to learn the price of your restaurant meal by checking online in advance or by finding out only after you’ve ordered. And at chain restaurants, where menu items are so carefully calibrated and standardized, it would be easy for chains to put calories right on menu boards and even more nutrition information on printed menus.

…It’s hard to imagine that not many years ago, packaged foods in the supermarket did not have to bear the standardized, easy-to-read Nutrition Facts labels. We’re optimistic that twenty years from now, it will be hard to believe that calorie counts were confined to web sites and tray liners, and absent from menus and menu boards.

In order to empower all of us to assist in the fight for what seems like common sense legislation, the CPSI maintains a “Menu Labeling” resource site at http://www.cspinet.org/menulabeling/. Information offered includes a template for requesting menu labeling legislation from your governor, up-to-date news on menu labeling legislation and PDF documents on different related topics. For example, the PDF document on “Myth vs. Reality: Nutrition Labeling at Fast-Food and Other Chain Restaurants” lists and refutes commonly-used responses to requests for calorie information, like the one I received from Disney recently:

Myth: Special orders are common, and it would be impossible for a menu to list nutrition information for all possible different food preparation options and combinations.

Reality: Restaurants only would have to provide nutrition information for standard menu items as “offered for sale.”

• Menu labelling does not apply to customized orders or to daily specials (neither are standard menu items).
• If restaurants can provide nutrition information on websites and brochures, they should be able to put those numbers on menus where people can see them and use them when ordering.

For my part, I’ll be sending an e-mail to my governor and continuing to write about calorie information in restaurants. What about you - would you like to see your municipality or state adopt legislation requiring restaurants to list calorie information in the restaurant?

photo credit: ex.libris

Recently, Medical News Today ran an article about a study conducted in Sweden on the effects of a vegan diet on indicators of cardiovascular disease. Researchers are looking for alternative methods for treating cardiovascular disease indicators, like high cholesterol, for people suffering from rheumatoid arthritis. While the study only included 66 participants, 38 of which were assigned to the gluten-free vegan diet, there was some indication the participants on the gluten-free diet dropped cholesterol and weight:

The study found that there were reductions in weight and ‘bad’ cholesterol for those on the vegan diet. However, it did not involve enough people or last long enough to look at the effects of the vegan diet on cardiovascular events, such as heart attacks or strokes. Furthermore, the long-term effects of the gluten-free vegan diet are uncertain. Many of the people assigned to the vegan diet [almost half] did not keep it up for the entire year, and it may be difficult for people used to a non-vegan diet to make such a big change in their eating habits.

It is not clear from this study whether the gluten-free vegan diet offers any specific advantages over other healthy diets aimed at reducing bad cholesterol or weight loss. All individuals who wish to reduce their chances of cardiovascular disease should aim to eat a healthy diet, maintain a healthy weight, stop smoking and do an appropriate level of exercise.

It’s easy to see why half the participants on the gluten-free diet dropped out - their diet consisted solely of “vegetables, nuts, fruits, buckwheat, millet, rice, corn, sunflower and sesame seeds.” It’s unclear, of course, how creative the study conductors were with assembling the ingredients into meals. I imagine, no matter what, it must be hard to take people who are used to meat and cheese diets and remove everything familiar in favor of gluten-free food. It will be interesting to see if this study inspires another specifically designed to study the health benefits of a gluten-free vegan diet versus other diets.

The article ends with this tidbit:

Sir Muir Gray adds… The evidence is mounting; if you want to stay healthy and save the planet - eat less, eat more plants and eat only food that your great grandmother would recognise if she were alive today.

Of course, it’s not that easy any more. The foods my great grandmother would recognize, like chicken and beef, may look the same, but are now full of corn, calories and chemicals that have changed the health value beyond recognition. Healthy eaters are once again relegated to foraging for food, but the landscape has changed - no longer are we hunting and gathering in the wild jungles, but instead grocery stores and restaurant chains.

photo credit: Zervas

Is your coffee creamer the silent killer in your diet? CPSI thinks so, writing a news release stating that

The nutrition label on the powdered Coffee-mate in your office kitchen might list 10 calories and just a half a gram of saturated fat. Those sound like reassuringly low levels of both. But use a more realistic tablespoon-size serving instead of the miserly teaspoon the Food and Drug Administration allows—and unround the rounded down numbers on the label—and you’re looking at 45 calories and three grams of heart-harmful saturated fat. Have three of four servings of your office coffee thusly “creamed” and you’ve stealthily consumed half a day’s saturated fat.

But the liquid version of Coffee-mate—flavored or Original—is worse. Instead of using the coconut and palm kernel oils Nestlé employs in the powdered version, the liquid versions use partially hydrogenated soybean or cottonseed oil. Three mugs of coffee with that (and without Nestlé’s innovative arithmetic) delivers 1.86 grams of saturated fat , not to mention the 2.76 grams of trans fat—which is more than an entire day’s worth of the kind of fat that raises your bad cholesterol and lowers your good cholesterol.

CPSI also released a brochure worth looking at, comparing coffee creamers and listing related nutrition facts.

Interestingly enough, Nestle’s nutrition facts label lists 0g of trans fat per tablespoon, despite the fact “partially hydrogenated soybean and/or cottonseed oil” is listed as the third ingredient. Nestle appears to be following the growing trend for nutrition labels, which they describe on their FAQ pages:

COFFEE-MATE Liquid flavors contain less than 0.5g of trans fat per serving. Although the ingredient statement lists partially hydrogenated oil, the amount is trivial. Therefore, it can be listed as 0 (per FDA guidelines) on the nutritional statement.

Even more alarming is Nestle’s “Concentrate” products, like the French Vanilla Concentrate, which lists .5g saturated fat and 1g trans fat per serving. Assuming the 2tsp serving size is correct, that’s 3g of trans fat per day, just from your coffee!

Personally, I made the switch to using agave and silk when I’m of a mind to drink my coffee with cream and sugar. How about you - after reading about the hidden health cost in using cream in your coffee, will you change your habits?