If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sun Sentinel)   According to a new study conducted by the Irish branch of the Romero Institute, children recognize unhealthy foods more than they recognize healthy foods   (sun-sentinel.com) divider line 22
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

799 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Jun 2014 at 6:05 AM (6 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



22 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-06-08 06:09:01 AM
Yep, this is why 'muricans are so fat. It starts with childhood and goes downhill from there.
 
2014-06-08 06:13:16 AM
No, the article says young kids recognize unhealthy food brands more than healthy ones. This is a relation not obvious to even the casual observer.


So you misrepresent details the headline, and you fail to properly invoke Rick Romero meme.
 
2014-06-08 06:25:23 AM
Kids’

Do they have some strange copyright on kids over there?
 
2014-06-08 06:50:25 AM
Frosted Artichokes, they're magically delicious!

Yep I can see why that just doesn't work......
 
2014-06-08 06:54:09 AM

fusillade762: Kids’

Do they have some strange copyright on kids over there?


They're irish, you try listening to some yam slurring every second word and having that translate to text.
 
2014-06-08 06:58:27 AM

fusillade762: Kids’

Do they have some strange copyright on kids over there?


Article was full of that. Didn't make it easier to read.

"Fat and sugar are inherently appealing to the human palate..." This here is why it is always going to be a struggle to get people to only eat greens and beans.
 
2014-06-08 07:10:01 AM

Nidiot: "Fat and sugar are inherently appealing to the human palate..." This here is why it is always going to be a struggle to get people to only eat greens and beans.


Funny, we managed to do it for thousands of years.  I wonder what's changed in the last 150 years that could make such a huge impact on what we think is "healthy"?
 
2014-06-08 07:19:49 AM

Dwight_Yeast: Nidiot: "Fat and sugar are inherently appealing to the human palate..." This here is why it is always going to be a struggle to get people to only eat greens and beans.

Funny, we managed to do it for thousands of years.  I wonder what's changed in the last 150 years that could make such a huge impact on what we think is "healthy"?


Someone living off the land needs about 200 calories per 10 lbs body weight.

Someone working in a cubicle needs 100 calories per 10 lbs body weight.

So your stomach is evolved to want double the calories we actually need now.
 
2014-06-08 07:29:56 AM
"...the Irish branch of the Romero Institute"

www.lunchboxbrain.com
 
2014-06-08 07:46:08 AM
"€™" is the new apostrophe.
 
2014-06-08 07:56:05 AM
In truth they recognize the delicious food or the cheap food
 
2014-06-08 08:32:24 AM
So kids recognized logos for brands like McDonalds and Coke but not Mrs. Evergreen's Organic Watercress Salad...

Who funds this crap?
 
2014-06-08 08:54:24 AM

Oldiron_79: Dwight_Yeast: Nidiot: "Fat and sugar are inherently appealing to the human palate..." This here is why it is always going to be a struggle to get people to only eat greens and beans.

Funny, we managed to do it for thousands of years.  I wonder what's changed in the last 150 years that could make such a huge impact on what we think is "healthy"?

Someone living off the land needs about 200 calories per 10 lbs body weight.

Someone working in a cubicle needs 100 calories per 10 lbs body weight.

So your stomach is evolved to want double the calories we actually need now.


That, but the big one is  availability.

We have evolved to love fat and sugar (salt also) because they were hard to come by thousands of years ago. If you are a hunter gatherer it is rare to find a bee hive or some sweet fruits to harvest. Meat takes a lot of effort to bring home. Our bodies do need it, but we also needed to be genetically programmed to really like the stuff in order to go to the extra effort required to get it.

Even a hundred years ago sugar was a luxury item only the very rich could have any quantity of. When it comes to the sorts of food people used to eat in the past, it had a lot less to do with how healthy they thought it was, than it being all they could afford. Just look at very poor countries today, the people eat very little meat, and very little sugar, not because of any concern for their arteries, but because that is all they can afford to eat.

Not so anymore. In the first world, fat and sugar (and salt) is cheap and there is lots available. We were smart enough to figure out how to get large quantities of the things we like the most. We eat too much of the stuff we love to eat, because we can. We didn't before, because we couldn't.
 
2014-06-08 09:11:18 AM
In Ireland unhealthy and healthy foods get about equal advertising airtime on TV, she said, though there are many other avenues of advertising and ways kids are exposed to brands.

I'm not in Ireland, but in the US 2/3rd of the TV adds are for unhealthy foods, and most of the other 3rd is for foods that claim to be health, but aren't.
 
2014-06-08 09:22:18 AM
They took Camel Joe out because they said it was aimed at kids, maybe they need to take a look at the advertising on Nick, Cartoon, Disney etc.
 
2014-06-08 09:34:27 AM

Nidiot: Oldiron_79: Dwight_Yeast: Nidiot: "Fat and sugar are inherently appealing to the human palate..." This here is why it is always going to be a struggle to get people to only eat greens and beans.

Funny, we managed to do it for thousands of years.  I wonder what's changed in the last 150 years that could make such a huge impact on what we think is "healthy"?

Someone living off the land needs about 200 calories per 10 lbs body weight.

Someone working in a cubicle needs 100 calories per 10 lbs body weight.

So your stomach is evolved to want double the calories we actually need now.

That, but the big one is  availability.

We have evolved to love fat and sugar (salt also) because they were hard to come by thousands of years ago. If you are a hunter gatherer it is rare to find a bee hive or some sweet fruits to harvest. Meat takes a lot of effort to bring home. Our bodies do need it, but we also needed to be genetically programmed to really like the stuff in order to go to the extra effort required to get it.

Even a hundred years ago sugar was a luxury item only the very rich could have any quantity of. When it comes to the sorts of food people used to eat in the past, it had a lot less to do with how healthy they thought it was, than it being all they could afford. Just look at very poor countries today, the people eat very little meat, and very little sugar, not because of any concern for their arteries, but because that is all they can afford to eat.

Not so anymore. In the first world, fat and sugar (and salt) is cheap and there is lots available. We were smart enough to figure out how to get large quantities of the things we like the most. We eat too much of the stuff we love to eat, because we can. We didn't before, because we couldn't.


Throughout most of recorded history salt was literally worth it's weight in gold.
 
2014-06-08 10:21:19 AM
You do know there is a real Romero Institute
... no, don't bother.
 
2014-06-08 11:03:37 AM
www.polymva.com
 
2014-06-08 11:12:10 AM
No one advertises arugula and carrots with cartoon characters and fancy packaging. Junk food? Yeah, they do that.

Advertising works on kids. Just ask mine. They've quit asking for junk food since we cut the cable.
 
2014-06-08 11:18:02 AM

Nidiot: fusillade762: Kids’

Do they have some strange copyright on kids over there?

Article was full of that. Didn't make it easier to read.

"Fat and sugar are inherently appealing to the human palate..." This here is why it is always going to be a struggle to get people to only eat greens and beans.


It's caused by a mismatched web page encoding. They likely copied the text from a source that used UTF8 encoding (which is the standard for international and multilingual sites), and pasted it onto a web page that uses the Latin-1 (US and Western Europe) encoding.

The 3-byte character code which producesʉ۪ in Latin-1, is the UTF8 code for an apostrophe which curls down and to the left. The regular apostrophe on US keyboards is an apostrophe which does not curl to the left or right.
 
2014-06-08 12:17:50 PM

NakedDrummer: So kids recognized logos for brands like McDonalds and Coke but not Mrs. Evergreen's Organic Watercress Salad...

Who funds this crap?


Nailed it. They specifically mention a few brands that were recognized (Cadbury, Coca Cola, McDonald's - stuff everyone has heard of). Then they mention some specialty healthy niche products that I'm completely unfamiliar with. They acknowledge this weakness right there in the article.
 
2014-06-08 05:36:11 PM
Snickers advertises, broccoli doesn't come with a happy meal toy and parents are still to blame even though children are stupid.
 
Displayed 22 of 22 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report