News, sports, politics, blogs and forums for Shakopee, Minnesota • (952) 445-3333 •  Follow us on Twitter

Shakopee Resident's GuideLocal Worship DirectoryShakopee Foreclosure Data

Shakopee, Minnesota

Keep up with Shakopee News! Sign up for email newsletters and RSS feeds.
Click to Login
No account? Sign up!

Advertising

Advertising

'U' study: Is TV a feeding tube?


» Read similar stories filed under:

By Deane Morrison
U of M News Wire

For the first time, researchers have found an association between TV viewing and future eating habits in older adolescents.

High school kids who watched a lot more television than their peers at age 16 were likely to have worse eating habits five years later, a new University of Minnesota study indicates.

But this isn't to say that those who watched the least TV had nutritionally terrific eating habits, said study leader Daheia Barr-Anderson, an assistant professor in the University's School of Kinesiology.
 
"Children and adults in general aren't eating well," Barr-Anderson said. "There are lots of individual, social and environmental variables at work. But even though the intake of fruits and vegetables was suboptimal for all adolescents in the study to start with, they were even lower for those watching a lot of TV."

Barr-Anderson and her colleagues surveyed 1,366 Twin Cities-area adolescents on their TV viewing habits at the average age of 15.9 and then reviewed their eating habits five years later, when the average age was 20.5. The researchers divided them into three groups: limited viewers, who watched less than two hours a day; moderately high, two to five hours; and heavy viewers, at least five hours.

Five years later, there was a significant downward trend in the quality of diet as TV watching increased. For example, the total daily servings of fruits and vegetables ranged from 3.41 among limited viewers to 2.53 for heavy viewers.

In contrast, the U.S. departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services recommend nine servings for a person consuming 2,000 calories a day (recommended servings rise and fall depending on caloric needs).

The intake of not-so-healthy foods ranged in the opposite direction: weekly visits to fast food outlets from 2.03 to 2.33, daily servings of snack foods from 1.93 to 2.20 and daily servings of sugar-sweetened beverages from 1.14 to 1.33.

The study could not identify the reason for a correlation between TV watching and future diet, but several possibilities exist. For one, some people may have a general disposition toward eating poorer diets and watching a lot of TV.

Or, embedded in the habit of watching television may be factors that steer adolescents toward lower-quality diets.

Advertisement. Article continues below.

"Food advertising is a possibility. Repeated exposure to these [unhealthy] foods in ads may lead adolescents to consume more of them," Barr-Anderson said.

A second candidate is the tendency to eat while parked in front of the tube.

"Studies have shown that adolescents consume a lot of their caloric intake while watching TV," Barr-Anderson said. But in order to pinpoint a culprit, "there's a great need for more investigations."

Parents who want to guide their children toward healthier habits should – to the best of their ability – place firm caps on the amount of TV viewing and monitor what types of food the kids are eating, Barr-Anderson said, and that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends only "quality" television for no more than two hours a day.

But parents also have to monitor themselves.

"I think kids see what their parents are doing," she said. "Until it becomes the norm in the family not to sit in front of the TV for hours or eat junk food, it's not going to change."

The study is published online in the Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity.
 




As I rode from the TV room...

Back to page top

As I rode from the TV room to my kitchen today, on my Power Chair (the one I got from the Scooter Store for which I didnt pay a penny out of pocket) I stopped breifly to read this story. By golly you may be on to something Here.


Submitted by PAT T LAND on January 29, 2009 - 6:51pm.

Geez, Pat, you should get...

Back to page top

Geez, Pat, you should get the HoverAround scooter. And, with the Democrats "Economic Stimulus" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) plan about to be enacted, the tax payers will pay for it. I think there is 500 million dedicated for scooters. Then you can ride your scooter to the tax payer funded Smoking Cessation programs. Then, we both can go to the tax payer funded STD Prevention seminar. It sure isn't the economy that is getting stimulated with this spending monster the Dems are going to shove down our thoats. Well, time to eat my pizza while watching Cops.


Submitted by VicLava on January 29, 2009 - 7:55pm.

Albert Gore says if ya keep...

Back to page top

Albert Gore says if ya keep your filter clean,and your car tuned up you wont have to worry about the STP


Submitted by PAT T LAND on January 29, 2009 - 9:36pm.

Advertising

Advertising

Recent comments

Advertising

Hot Jobs

Multi Media Sales Executive, Southwest Newspapers

Who's new

  • debspt57
  • spoonick111
  • berry
  • Profire Safety
  • Nels

Who's online

There are currently 3 users and 509 guests online.

Online users

  • Pat Minelli
  • Todd Abeln
  • rhoebe

Advertising

Advertising