Do You Know What Happy Calories Are?

I’ve previously outed myself; I watch pretty lousy TV, American idol included.

A new season of Idol started last week. As much as it pains me to watch the judges sip from their gigantic coke-emblazoned tumblers. I understand corporate sponsorship and here it is loud and clear. What got me way too worked up at a time I was counting on mindless relaxation was the Coke commercial that debuted during this episode. Not to worry if you missed it, it’ll air again during the Super Bowl pre-game show.

The commercial begins with that combination fart/explosive sound of a can of soda opening. The caption reads “happy calories”.  When I think of soda, I think of diabetes, sugar, caramel coloring, reproductive issues, osteoporosis and many other far from happy things. Coke is going to sort this out for me.

Cue the music and one of my favorite singers, Ingrid Michaelson’s song Be Ok. It’s catchy. If you don’t know it you can listen here.  I have since found out the song has been used to promote Motts applesauce and Ritz Crackers and has been used on numerous television shows.

The lyrics start “I just want to be ok, be ok, be ok, I just want to be ok today.” I have nothing against okay-ness. What I take serious issue with is figuring out a sneaky way to present Coke as OK. You see, there are 140 calories in a can of regular Coke and Coke shows you how you can burn these negligible 140 calories laughing, dancing and walking your dog. So that’s OK right? Drink “happy calories”, laugh, dance and we’re all good?  Word from the Coke camp was they felt people had skewed notions of the calories in soda and they wanted to set the record straight or so they say. I say crooked.

During Idol I tweeted to Ingrid Michaelson, because I am like that and couldn’t help myself, “is drinking coke ok”? Shockingly she didn’t respond but was tweeting that same night about overeating granola.  I guess after all the money from the endorsements, any calories are “happy” to her.

Coke and all soda for that matter are not ok. Chemicals aren’t something you laugh off.  Coke can twist the truth and employ all the pretzel logic they’d like and it’s still Coke. I promise you they do not have your happiness and wellbeing in mind in that advertising office (David The Agency).

 It’s one thing to sell something that’s unhealthy. It’s unacceptable to justify how it can be part of a healthy lifestyle.  Can you imagine if the same reasoning was used for Vodka? “I just want to be ok, be ok, be ok and that includes having a martini everyday?” Then cut to all the ways you can burn off that vodka?  It’s so much easier to tap your feet to the catchy song and tune this all out but we can’t really afford to do so.

Do you think Coke’s tactics with this commercial are reprehensible or just part of advertising? What do you think can be done to tell Coke that walking your dog doesn’t undo the soda damage? How do you feel when a musician, actor or other public figure you are a fan of endorses something like this (Beyoncé and Pepsi caused a stir recently)?

A Diet Soda a Day if the ADA has Their Way

Did you know the average American consumes 22 teaspoons of added sugar a day? At 16 calories per teaspoon, that is adding 352 calories a day. Over a week, that translates to ingesting an additional 2464 calories.  Did you know a 12-ounce can of sugar-sweetened soda contains about 150 calories and 9 teaspoons of sugar? If you are a soda drinker, substituting just one diet soft drink daily for regular soda can save 4500 calories a month with a potential weight loss of about 1 pound per month. 

Sounds so logical, right? No, of course it doesn’t. Curious about the source of this nonsense? It's none other than the American Dietetic Association in an email promoting their publication “the Truth about Artificial Sweeteners or Sugar Substitutes.” While I applaud their mathematics, there are a few things they omitted:

• By downing something with the equivalent of five packets of junk, way sweeter than sugar, you w bombard your taste buds with sweetness encouraging sweet in another form (after the carcinogens). Diet sodas do not facilitate weight loss.
• The substitution they suggested, replacing one chemical concoction for another, has another solution.  Why not substitute water for the sugary drink?
• Oh and because I can do math too, switching one can of soda to water would lead to over $500 a year in your pocket or over $2190 for a family of four. This money could be used to buy food that has some nutritional value worth promoting.
• Both regular and diet soda increase your risk of osteoporosis, pancreatic cancer, diabetes and dental problems.

And while the ADA used the word “truth” they really mean the truth according to their corporate sponsors. When you go to the ADA’s sponsorship page they politely list and thank all their best buddies. It’s what you’d expect from our nations bastion of nutrition: Coke (and not to offend Pepsi is there too), Mars, Hershey’s. It's the equivalent of a pro-illiteracy group building a school. I can’t wait for my next email. “The truth about chocolate”. If you replace that banana with a Hershey’s miniature, you’ll save 3000 calories a month. We’ll have cancer, no teeth and be just as fat.

It’s abundantly clear how I feel about soda. I would have understood if the ADA said something to the effect of “though there’s nothing nutritious about diet soda having one occasionally doesn’t pose huge risks.” Instead they pushed the diet cancer. I hope the Coke and Pepsi send them a nice thank you note. The header of the email sent to ADA members reads, “How should artificial sweeteners be used as part of a healthy eating plan.” Um, they shouldn't. We can argue about just how much (or in my opinion little) artificial should consumed but let's not put it in the same sentence as healthy.

What do you think of the ADA's diet soda plug? Do you consume soda or sweeteners? Are you an ADA member? What do you think ADA members should do if they feel similarly?