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: Crissy Teena

I don’t know about you, but often business and vacation travel is an excuse to take a hit from the hamburger pipe, and extended travel means weight gain. In recent years, I’ve actually sought out hotel exercise rooms, which usually constitutes one treadmill, three TVs and eight people packed into a closet. However, it appears hotel food and exercise offerings are about to get a major uplift. According to a press release, Sheraton Hotels and Resorts has signed an exclusive deal with Core Performance to develop a training and nutrition program for guests that includes

new state-of-the-art fitness centers; healthier dining options; training programs offered on-demand in guest rooms; access to Core Performance’s customized on-line training programs; and a unique Conventions and Meetings program that enables enhanced performance. Sheraton properties around the world will begin to roll out Core Performance programming this summer and continue throughout 2008.

Hopefully, this move signifies a societal shift in exercise and nutrition. A Sheraton VP states “Our guests have told us that health and fitness are a priority and that they value tools to help them balance this aspect of their lives while traveling.” It’s exciting to see Sheraton use health and nutrition as a way to redesign its image and stand out from the rest of the hotel chains - hopefully Sheraton’s numbers rise and other hotel chains get on the nutrition bandwagon.

photo credit: chiodachic

Trans fats take one more step to earning the infamy associated with drugs, alcohol and cigarettes. A study recently conducted on Wistar rats shows pregnant or nursing mothers fed a diet enriched with hydrogenated vegetable fat causes symptoms associated with obesity, even when the offspring never consumes that same diet. Scientists split the rats into four groups, and the results were striking:

Pregnant and lactating Wistar rats were fed with either a control diet (C group) or one enriched with hydrogenated vegetable fat (T group). Upon weaning, the male pups were sorted in four groups: CC a mothers were receiving C, and pups were kept on C; CT - mothers were receiving C, and pups were fed with T; TT a mothers were receiving T, and pups were kept on T; TC a mothers were receiving T, and pups were fed with C.

… Offspring of TT and TC rats had increased white adipose tissue PAI-1 gene expression. Insulin receptor was higher in TT than other groups. Ingestion of hydrogenated vegetable fat by the mother during gestation and lactation could promote deleterious consequences, even after the withdrawal of the causal factor.

That result bears repeating: offspring that never ate the high-trans-fat diet still exhibited symptoms of obesity, including insulin resistance, which leads to diabetes. Science Daily’s article includes this explanation of the study’s results:

“We know that foetal growth is influenced by the mother’s nutritional status,” explained Brazilian nutritionist Luciana Pisani. “Fats play a fundamental role in foetal development and changes in dietary fatty acids has important implications for foetal and postnatal development. Heavy ingestion of very hydrogenated fats rich in trans fatty acids increases risk of cardiovascular diseases and reduces insulin sensitivity and so leads to type 2 diabetes. We need to investigate this further as this has important implications for people’s own diets, especially pregnant women.”

Interestingly enough, Science Daily’s article also linked to a similar study on junk foodconducted in 2007:

Mothers who eat junk food during pregnancy and breastfeeding may be putting their children at risk of overeating and developing obesity, according to a study funded by the Wellcome Trust and carried out at the Royal Veterinary College, London. The research suggests that pregnant and breastfeeding women should not indulge in fatty, sugary and salty foods under the misguided assumption that they are “eating for two”.

The study*, published in the British Journal of Nutrition, found that rats fed a diet of processed junk food such as doughnuts, muffins, biscuits, crisps and sweets during pregnancy and lactation gave birth to offspring which overate and had a preference for junk foods rich in fat, sugar and salt when compared to the offspring of rats given regular feed. The research team behind the study believe the findings have implications for humans.

The more we study HFCS and hydrogenated fat, the more obvious it becomes we are killing ourselves by replacing food with man-made substances. I’m betting Michael Pollan’s non-scientific claims may eventually be backed with scientific studies - the more natural food and less man-made “food” in our diets, the healthier overall we’ll be.

The takeaway? Stop eating fried peeps. Yes, in case you were wondering, the picture above is someone’s fried peeps. Gross.

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?