I just had the TV on and the above commercial ran. I about choked on my glass of water when I read the fine print:

• Results Not Typical. Clinical studies have shown average caloric intake was reduced by 12.5 percent to 30 percent.
• Cartoon Dramatization. Results not typical. Real people require diet and exercise to lose body fat.
  

Bummer. I'm a real person so I guess I can't expect to lose weight as quickly as that cartoon did.

A recent study theorized that banning fast food commercials would have a positive impact on childhood obesity. After all, most kids watch an awful lot of television -- being tempted by burgers and fries (not to mention the toys they're packaged with) can be a big draw. Pair that with the potential sleep problems and loss of physical activity due to TV watching and you've got a recipe for childhood obesity. Or do you?

I asked That's Fit readers what they thought about banning fast food commercials. Here are the results:

• 56.6 percent think banning fast food commercials is a good idea. Remove the temptation and maybe kids would beg and plead for fast food less often.
• 34.5 percent of you think kids will still want fast food, whether they see it on commercials or not.
  
• 8.7 percent of you voted for other. Many comments focused on the fact that it shouldn't matter whether kids see commercials or not -- parents should determine the types of food that their family is eating. Kids shouldn't be the ones who dictate what they eat.

Do you think you're up on knowledge about childhood obesity? Take this AOL Health childhood obesity quiz and find out.

Most fast food meals make me feel a little ill -- yet often, when I catch a fast food commercial running on TV, the food looks so good I salivate like Pavlov's dog. That's exactly what those commercials are designed to do -- make you crave a trip to your nearest fast food joint for whatever triple-decker, bacon-packed, artery-clogging burger they're advertising this week.

A recent study reviewed data on nearly 13,000 children to determine how many advertising commercials most children view on TV each week. Researchers believe the commercials have a big impact on the amount of children who eat fast food. They estimate that banning fast food commercials from TV would reduce obesity in children ages 3-11 by 18 percent and by 14 percent in adolescents ages 12-18.

Source

In the San Francisco Bay Area, residents are being treated to a billboard-sized healthy message: "Beat Obesity with a Stick," says the ad, atop a background of celery sticks. Sponsored by Kaiser Permanente, the mega-corp and HMO to many, it's raising more than a few eyebrows.



Sure, we can all accept that obesity is an issue of critical importance -- the health of a nation is at stake here, after all. But the ad gives off a very distinct impression: That obese people don't eat celery, and that a few sticks can solve the problem.

What do you think of this ad? It's clever, yes, but does it cross the line?

Source

When it comes to eating, we all could use a little reminder now and then about what we're putting in our stomachs -- and bodies. The NYC Department of Health thinks so, anyway. They've launched a series of posters that will be appearing in Subway cars all over the metropolis. Read 'em before you eat 'em is the theme of the campaign -- click on the thumbnails below to see the ads:

What do you think of the posters? Personally, I think this is a fantastic idea -- right up there with calorie counts on menus. Realizing how bad (or good) your favourite fast foods meals are is the first step towards making healthy choices every day.

Source

Over the in UK, rules were recently placed on child-targeted advertising, prohibiting them from running junk food ads during popular kids programming. But according to recent reports from the BBC, the rules are not working. The reason? They're not strict enough. In fact, it turns out that only four of the top 20 children's shows are required to adhere to these rules. So some shows, like The Simpsons, are not allowed to run junk food ads during commercial breaks, while other like Beat the Star (which attracts half a million children!) can.

However, it's still estimated that the amount of junk food ads that children see on British TV has been reduced by around 50%. It's a start, but I'm still hoping for 100%.

What do you think about kid-targeted advertising? Is it a parent's responsibility to restrict what their kids see on TV? Or should advertising companies back off and stop aiming at impressionable minds?

(via Calorie Lab)

Source

Think about it: What form of technology has made the single biggest impact in the lives of children over the past 100 years? Computers have revolutionized the world, but I suspect television has made the biggest impact on young people, particularly because they are a captive audience subjected to clever and manipulative advertising that is targeted specifically at them. As such, it's believed that TV advertising is one of the top causes of ever-rising childhood obesity.

This revelation has caused Mark Scott, the Managing Director of the Australian Broadcasting Corp, to push back against kid-targeted advertising, and he's calling for a commercial-free Children's channel to be developed down under.

Source

Last Wednesday, French fashion houses, advertising firms, and media houses banded together to declare super-skinny models out of style. With the support of the Minister of Health, they signed an agreement to stop using models whose appearance could contribute to an unhealthy body image for girls. The agreement doesn't exactly restrict the use of too-thin models, but it's a show of good faith.

France's National Assembly is also reviewing a project that could make the promotion of unhealthy body images punishable by law.

Young girls in particular are susceptible to low self-esteem and a flawed body image. The number of pro-anorexia web sites on the Internet is proof that body image is an ever increasing concern. It's high time we all learn to love ourselves a little more -- bumps and flaws included. Fitness and nutrition is for health and wellness -- super-skinny may look good in pair of size 0 jeans but it's far from healthy.

Source

Surveys say 21-to 35-year-olds prefer wine to beer. They just don't know much about the wine they prefer and have no strong loyalties to any specific brands. A good thing for advertisers who can tempt just about any palate.

Enter viral advertising, a technique that uses existing social networks to create brand awareness and sales. Forget billboards, TV, and print ads. This approach uses video clips, video games, e-mail blasts, and advertising at music events and other gatherings.

Sacre Bleu, a 45,000-bottle-a-year elite operation, is jumping at the chance to win over young drinkers with this method. Websites, podcasts, and MySpace pages will hopefully hook this population. Another selling point: Sacre Bleu wine is as natural as it can be -- with no added sugar or acids.

So wine isn't all that bad. It's healthy in fact if consumed moderately. But I tend to think advertisers wish for more than moderate sales. What do you think? A healthy endeavor or not?

Source

Should people be able to sue tobacco companies for unfair and deceptive advertising regarding "low tar," "ultra light" or "mild" cigarettes? That's the question Supreme Court justices will have to address soon. Three Maine residents filed suit for misleading them on cigarettes which were supposed to have lower tar and nicotine. The original case was thrown out, but the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals brought it back to life.

Now cigarette makers want the Supreme Court to put a stop to lawsuits like this. The court will have to decide whether or not claims about advertising can be used against the tobacco industry. After using these so-called light smokes for 15 years, the Maine plaintiffs allege Philip Morris and Altria Group had research showing that people smoking "low tar" cigarettes had to inhale more to get the same effect as regular cigarettes.

Of course, this isn't the first time a similar disagreement was thrown out of court. But appeals have a way of dragging on, so it will be some time before this is settled. It's hard to point fingers when someone knowingly puts toxic chemicals in their body for a decade and a half. Should tobacco companies be liable? That's something for the court to decide.

Source

Everytime I glance at a cigarette pack, I'm greeted with a disturbing image of black lungs and rotting teeth. Whenever I turn on the TV, I witness an upsetting commercial on the dangers of drinking or drugs. But though its effects are just as deadly, I never see any sort of ad explaining the harmful effects of being obese. Rather, it's the complete opposite -- all ads highly exalt fattening foods with carefully crafted ads aimed at the gullible consumer. Do you see something wrong here?

The author of this article thinks so -- advertising is tailored to obesity, and with the exception of ads for weight-loss pills and products, there are few ads on TV that will make us consider the destructive effects that living on a diet of junk food will have on our health.

No one is advocating ads that make fun of those overweight, but something needs to be done, don't you think? A Surgeon General's warning of the effects of obesity printed on to French fry containers, soda cans and cheeseburger wrappers, perhaps? What do you think?

Source

Now here are some kids who aren't messing around. They are mad. They want us to know about it. And here's what they have to say:

We're tired of being the fattest, most unfit generation ever. "Big industries" spend $12 billion a year advertising junk to us. Why? We influence tens of billions in spending. Health care costs will exceed $4 trillion just when we'll be raising our families, we're freaking out. We've got digital, communication, and tech-expertise no other generation's ever had. Join us sharing energy, creativity and social action that'll change the world. To junk food & big marketing -- "Get outta my face!"

A recent Kaiser Family Foundation study found food is the number one product advertised to kids, and this motivated bunch wants it to stop. Visit their blog here. Then check out this PBS Commentary. And this Washington Post story too.

Now tell us: What do you think?

Source

I remember taking a class in university where we discussed the history of marketing products to children. Giants like Disney and McDonald's got in the business early, convincing kids that their toys and burgers were must-haves. Since the start, many other companies have gotten on board, realizing the money-making potential that lies in advertising products to easily-influenced and hard-to-ignore (by weary parents anyway) kids.

Is it ethical? I suppose it depends on your personal point of view. At the very least I can understand why a company like Disney, whose brand focuses on kid-friendly products, would market to children. I'm not so sure what to think though when a company like Starbucks admits that kids and teens are a part of their client base.

As Heather Craven at ParentDish points out, most Starbucks beverages are chock full of sugar and caffeine, neither of which need to be ingested by kids on a regular basis. It may be hard to refuse your children when they're begging for a giant-sized white chocolate beverage, but Craven pledges to save her money and deny her children.

What would you do? Do you thi it's unethical of Starbucks to market caffeine-filled drinks to kids?

Source

Until recently, Apple computers had a new campaign for their iMac that said "You can't be too thin, or too powerful." but it caused so much controversy they ended up changing it. The Alliance for Eating Disorders Awareness called on Apple to rethink the message they were sending, stating "What kind of message is Apple sending our youth with an ad campaign of this nature?"

What do you think, was Apple's slogan in bad taste? I hate the stigma of today's media pressuring young people to be ultra-thin as much as the next person, but electronics are another story. Can't we separate the two?

I can see the point of how a message like that could easily be misconstrued, but if the modeling and fashion industries were promoting healthy images this wouldn't even be an issue -- the slogan would be about computers and that's it. Seems like people are getting all bent out of shape over side issues instead of the real problem.

Source

Food Labels can be confusing, but it's important to know what you're putting into your body. Glee Magazine has come up with a handy list of things to consider when you're reading the labels on your favourite food items:

• Look at how many servings are in a package. The calorie count might be low because it lists a serving that is only a quarter of what you might eat from the package.
  
• Look beyond the front label -- Just because it says 'low fat' in bold letters, doesn't mean it's healthy.
• Remember that labels are ads and food manufacturers will say anything to get you to buy their product
• Don't be influenced by empty names. Anything that promises it's 'natural' could be lying
• Don't allow yourself to be swayed by the pictures. They don't mean anything.
  

What do you look for in labels? I look for honest advertising, and I always look at the ingredients. Remember that the first few things on the ingredients list are the things that are most prominent in the food.

Source