Try jumping through hoops! That's what I've been doing today while trying to set up a retirement account.
The concept of saving for retirement is one that is drilled into us incessantly by banks and financial advisors. We must put money away for the future because the government can't afford to take care of us anymore, after paying them to do so for our whole working lives, we're just being selfish to expect any of that hard earned money back one day. So get an IRA - but don't put away too much money [the government regulates how much you're allowed to save] - we don't want any one to be too rich when they're old. No, no.
I'd like to save money for retirement [soon to be a fantasy concept the way things are going] just as much as the next person, but I have some far out requirements that pose unique problems for banking institutions.
1. I'm not already rich. I know - how dare I want to save only pennies a day? It seems most places I've looked have minimum balance requirements for opening an IRA. The most reasonable - $250 - the most outrageous $25,000 [I laughed at the woman over the phone when she told me that.] Honey, if I had $25,000, I'd be paying off my bills with it.
2. I want to make contributions. Weird right? I mean, employer run IRAs make contributions for you, put what happens if you're self employed? Some instutitions want to open a new account every time you make a contributions, so you end up with hundreds of individual accounts with small balances - way to save on paying interest, right?
3. I don't want to trade stocks, bonds, pig belly futures or commodities. I'm not interested in day trading. All I want is to put my money somewhere safe until I need it.
4. I don't want to pay someone to hold my money. This is the biggie - I mean who am I to expect a financial instiution not to try to bleed me dry, right? If I'm already losing money in a stock based account, why wouldn't I also want t see my balance trickle away with maintenance fees as well? Losing money a little at a time is almost as much fun as hiding it under the mattress and hoping moths don't eat it.
Ah well, back to my work out. At this rate, I may not have any money for retirement, but at least I'll be really skinny from jumping through all these hoops and since skinny people never get sick, I can just keep working and forget about retirement completely.
Showing posts with label products. Show all posts
Showing posts with label products. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Product Review: Sally Hansen Salon Effects
I got back into nail polish in a big way this year, after years of not having the time or the patience to mess with a manicure. I decided one day that I needed more color in my life and went hog wild buying new colors.
Then I remembered all the reasons I gave up nail polish in the first place. The smell is headache inducing. The bottles can spill, and you can’t clean nail polish off of most things. You have to sit around waiting for your nails to dry and if you don’t, they get smudged. After a day [or five minutes] the polish chips. The nail polish remover stinks, and lastly, if you’re not coordinated, one hand looks good and the other one looks like a first-grader painted it.
I ran across Sally Hansen Salon Effects nail polish strips at CVS where they cost about $10.00 for a set that will do one manicure. Pricey, but if you compare – there are some bottles of nail polish that cost at least that much, and a trip to a salon for a live manicure would cost even more. I decided to spring for a pack in purple and I tried it out.
The effect is actually pretty cool. You get a very shiny look that stays shiny. You have, as the package says, no dry time, and you get some very cool patterns to choose from as well as nifty, bright solid colors. The set comes with a three-surface emery board and a cuticle stick as well as 16 strips. My favorite part is, once you apply a strip, the nail is done. You can stop in the middle of a manicure and answer the phone, dig the remote out of the couch cushions, pet the cat, whatever and it will have no effect on your nails. No sitting around blowing on your hands or waving them around just so you can go to the bathroom.
Those are the highlights. The con column is a bit more populated.
For the price, you get ONE manicure. A bottle of polish ranging from $1.99 to $9.99 can do multiple manicures and last for years.
You get 16 strips, which seems like a nice amount. In case you screw up the original 10, you have six more to play with. But why not 20? The application of the strips is fairly simple, so it’s hard to screw one up. Both times I’ve used the strips, I’ve had six leftovers.
The leftover strips are useless. You can’t save them. After a time, they become somewhat brittle, you can’t peel them off their backings, and they rip if you try. You could use one of the two packaged sets of 8 – and do an odd nail on each hand to get two manicures out of the pack, but once you open the foil pack they come in, those strips are done.
There is a mess. Once you’ve peeled your polish strips, shaped them to your nails and pulled off the excess, you have thin cellophane strips all over the place and torn pieces of nail strips that are still sticky on the back. Granted they’re not too hard to clean up, but there’s a pile of little pieces that can be a nuisance.
The polish does chip, just like regular polish. And of course, with no bottle of that color, you can’t do a touch up. I solved the chip problem by cutting my nails after a couple of days, which made the manicure last another week, but don’t be fooled. You’d be hard pressed to get 10 days out of the manicure as the package promises.
There is a faint smell. It’s nothing like when you open a bottle of polish, but there is some mild chemical odor. Not enough to be a deterrent, but it’s there.
Removal still requires regular nail polish remover [which stinks] and the strips come off in layers, first the color, then the white base, so it takes some work to get your nails completely clean, more so than with most liquid polish.
Overall, I’d give Sally Hansen Salon Effects a C+ - they’re fun to work with, it’s a different process than applying nail polish that circumvents some of the nuisance of liquid polish, but the price and the chipping problem take away from the idea that this is a perfectly convenient alternative to liquid polish.
Then I remembered all the reasons I gave up nail polish in the first place. The smell is headache inducing. The bottles can spill, and you can’t clean nail polish off of most things. You have to sit around waiting for your nails to dry and if you don’t, they get smudged. After a day [or five minutes] the polish chips. The nail polish remover stinks, and lastly, if you’re not coordinated, one hand looks good and the other one looks like a first-grader painted it.
The effect is actually pretty cool. You get a very shiny look that stays shiny. You have, as the package says, no dry time, and you get some very cool patterns to choose from as well as nifty, bright solid colors. The set comes with a three-surface emery board and a cuticle stick as well as 16 strips. My favorite part is, once you apply a strip, the nail is done. You can stop in the middle of a manicure and answer the phone, dig the remote out of the couch cushions, pet the cat, whatever and it will have no effect on your nails. No sitting around blowing on your hands or waving them around just so you can go to the bathroom.
Those are the highlights. The con column is a bit more populated.
For the price, you get ONE manicure. A bottle of polish ranging from $1.99 to $9.99 can do multiple manicures and last for years.
You get 16 strips, which seems like a nice amount. In case you screw up the original 10, you have six more to play with. But why not 20? The application of the strips is fairly simple, so it’s hard to screw one up. Both times I’ve used the strips, I’ve had six leftovers.
The leftover strips are useless. You can’t save them. After a time, they become somewhat brittle, you can’t peel them off their backings, and they rip if you try. You could use one of the two packaged sets of 8 – and do an odd nail on each hand to get two manicures out of the pack, but once you open the foil pack they come in, those strips are done.
There is a mess. Once you’ve peeled your polish strips, shaped them to your nails and pulled off the excess, you have thin cellophane strips all over the place and torn pieces of nail strips that are still sticky on the back. Granted they’re not too hard to clean up, but there’s a pile of little pieces that can be a nuisance.
The polish does chip, just like regular polish. And of course, with no bottle of that color, you can’t do a touch up. I solved the chip problem by cutting my nails after a couple of days, which made the manicure last another week, but don’t be fooled. You’d be hard pressed to get 10 days out of the manicure as the package promises.
There is a faint smell. It’s nothing like when you open a bottle of polish, but there is some mild chemical odor. Not enough to be a deterrent, but it’s there.
Removal still requires regular nail polish remover [which stinks] and the strips come off in layers, first the color, then the white base, so it takes some work to get your nails completely clean, more so than with most liquid polish.
Overall, I’d give Sally Hansen Salon Effects a C+ - they’re fun to work with, it’s a different process than applying nail polish that circumvents some of the nuisance of liquid polish, but the price and the chipping problem take away from the idea that this is a perfectly convenient alternative to liquid polish.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Complaints are lies...
…and bad manners besides.
During last week’s episode of Dr. Who on BBC America, I was treated to a commercial for a miraculous new weight loss product called Lipozene.
According to the commercial, Lipozene is the answer for people who have had problems losing weight and finally want something that works. Oh goody!
I decided to look up Lipozene and find out what the hype was all about – the very hype that the Lipozene people don’t want us to believe.
I won’t post a link to the Lipozene site, but I will tell you that Lipozene claims to be an ‘all natural remedy’ used for generations in Japan that ‘acts as a sponge in your intestines.’ That’s so much better than all those nasty lifestyle changes that can be damaging to your system.
Don’t worry, Lipozene has no side effects! It’s been clinically proven to work and best of all, if you come across any complaints or negative reviews on the Internet don’t believe them because [and here’s a quote]:
• Many people who submit complaints to these supposedly unbiased review sites say they were ripped off or that the product didn’t work. The fact is that most of them never received the product because their credit cards were declined, or they never ordered it in the first place. Our customer service department has done the research to prove the facts behind these Lipozene complaints.
Yep, anyone who has a bad report about the product, probably never really bought it in the first place! They’re just lying. Isn’t that rude?
Obviously you can trust someone who tells you all complaints about them must be lies. So there you go. A new and effective way to lose weight, safely and naturally. Stock up while the lies supplies last!
During last week’s episode of Dr. Who on BBC America, I was treated to a commercial for a miraculous new weight loss product called Lipozene.
According to the commercial, Lipozene is the answer for people who have had problems losing weight and finally want something that works. Oh goody!
I decided to look up Lipozene and find out what the hype was all about – the very hype that the Lipozene people don’t want us to believe.
I won’t post a link to the Lipozene site, but I will tell you that Lipozene claims to be an ‘all natural remedy’ used for generations in Japan that ‘acts as a sponge in your intestines.’ That’s so much better than all those nasty lifestyle changes that can be damaging to your system.
Don’t worry, Lipozene has no side effects! It’s been clinically proven to work and best of all, if you come across any complaints or negative reviews on the Internet don’t believe them because [and here’s a quote]:
• Many people who submit complaints to these supposedly unbiased review sites say they were ripped off or that the product didn’t work. The fact is that most of them never received the product because their credit cards were declined, or they never ordered it in the first place. Our customer service department has done the research to prove the facts behind these Lipozene complaints.
Yep, anyone who has a bad report about the product, probably never really bought it in the first place! They’re just lying. Isn’t that rude?
Obviously you can trust someone who tells you all complaints about them must be lies. So there you go. A new and effective way to lose weight, safely and naturally. Stock up while the lies supplies last!
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Less sugar, less real?
Have you seen the ads for Tropicana's new juice drink, Trop 50? My special favorite is the one where a bunch of 'real housewives' are trying to convince their friend that 'gooder' is a word – because the new drink she's serving them tastes 'gooder.'
That was my first red flag. Let's confuse people with bad grammar and they won't realize we're selling them junk.
The idea behind Trop 50 juice drink is that it has 50% less sugar than regular fruit juice. It comes in several flavors, such as orange and apple and pomegranate/blueberry. What struck me is the idea that you can have less sugar in something that is not supposed to have added sugar to begin with. Let's face it, fruit juice has sugar/carbs but pure fruit juice doesn't contain 'sugar' the same way soda or Kool-Aid contains sugar. But the ad campaign sort of plays on the idea that less sugar is added to the juice.
When you look at the nutrition information provided at the Trop 50 website you see the 'sugar' in Trop 50 comes from stevia or purevia – or Reb A – a plant based sweetener which is becoming popular because it doesn't have to be called 'artificial'.
So, essentially, Trop 50 has 50% less sugar [carbohydrates] than regular pure fruit juice because a sweetener has been added to it. It may not be an artificial sweetener but it's still an additive. This makes me wonder how they removed the 50% of sugar [carbohydrates] from the juice in the first place. It seems to me that basically they're taking half the juice used in a regular container of juice and replacing it with sweetened [no calorie] water, then fortifying that with vitamins and such.
I could drink half a glass of pure fruit juice and half a glass of water and get the same amount of 'less sugar' as I can from drinking a whole glass of a juice concentrate that's fortified with an added [but not artificial] sweetener.
My question is, do you think it's 'gooder' to get less sugar/carbohydrates by actually getting less juice?
That was my first red flag. Let's confuse people with bad grammar and they won't realize we're selling them junk.
The idea behind Trop 50 juice drink is that it has 50% less sugar than regular fruit juice. It comes in several flavors, such as orange and apple and pomegranate/blueberry. What struck me is the idea that you can have less sugar in something that is not supposed to have added sugar to begin with. Let's face it, fruit juice has sugar/carbs but pure fruit juice doesn't contain 'sugar' the same way soda or Kool-Aid contains sugar. But the ad campaign sort of plays on the idea that less sugar is added to the juice.
When you look at the nutrition information provided at the Trop 50 website you see the 'sugar' in Trop 50 comes from stevia or purevia – or Reb A – a plant based sweetener which is becoming popular because it doesn't have to be called 'artificial'.
So, essentially, Trop 50 has 50% less sugar [carbohydrates] than regular pure fruit juice because a sweetener has been added to it. It may not be an artificial sweetener but it's still an additive. This makes me wonder how they removed the 50% of sugar [carbohydrates] from the juice in the first place. It seems to me that basically they're taking half the juice used in a regular container of juice and replacing it with sweetened [no calorie] water, then fortifying that with vitamins and such.
I could drink half a glass of pure fruit juice and half a glass of water and get the same amount of 'less sugar' as I can from drinking a whole glass of a juice concentrate that's fortified with an added [but not artificial] sweetener.
My question is, do you think it's 'gooder' to get less sugar/carbohydrates by actually getting less juice?
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Eating like a dog
I love my dog…and I'm sure most dog owners do adore their pets, but I have to wonder if we're being hoodwinked by the pet food industry into thinking dog's need gourmet food.
Last night I saw a commercial for Cesar's dog food – it's a fancy food for smaller dogs, so it's not something I normally buy for my Dalmatian. The brand offers a new line of 'canine cuisine' [in other words, dog food] called Bistro which includes flavors like Steak Florentine, Tuscan Stew and Chicken Primavera.
In addition to the usual 'canine cuisine' ingredients such as meat by products, some vitamins and meat flavoring, these fancy little feasts contains tomatoes, carrots, pasta and spinach. Sounds tasty, doesn't it?
Not that a dog could tell. I've seen my dog eat a rock. So I don't think flavor is really chief among his concerns. He certainly could care less about carrots, tomatoes and spinach and generally wouldn't be too interested in eating those things if I served them by themselves. He would eat pasta, I'm sure. But then dogs tend to like carbs.
I have to ask myself, who are all these fancy ingredients really for? Dogs, as a rule, don't have discerning palates. Meat makes them happy, and a nice crunchy biscuit now and then, but spinach and pasta? Do dogs really need vegetables and enriched wheat products for optimum health?
You can't convince me those trappings aren't just to make dog owners feel like they're giving their pets something more than the usual slop that comes out of a 'canine cuisine' can.
Last night I saw a commercial for Cesar's dog food – it's a fancy food for smaller dogs, so it's not something I normally buy for my Dalmatian. The brand offers a new line of 'canine cuisine' [in other words, dog food] called Bistro which includes flavors like Steak Florentine, Tuscan Stew and Chicken Primavera.
In addition to the usual 'canine cuisine' ingredients such as meat by products, some vitamins and meat flavoring, these fancy little feasts contains tomatoes, carrots, pasta and spinach. Sounds tasty, doesn't it?
Not that a dog could tell. I've seen my dog eat a rock. So I don't think flavor is really chief among his concerns. He certainly could care less about carrots, tomatoes and spinach and generally wouldn't be too interested in eating those things if I served them by themselves. He would eat pasta, I'm sure. But then dogs tend to like carbs.
I have to ask myself, who are all these fancy ingredients really for? Dogs, as a rule, don't have discerning palates. Meat makes them happy, and a nice crunchy biscuit now and then, but spinach and pasta? Do dogs really need vegetables and enriched wheat products for optimum health?
You can't convince me those trappings aren't just to make dog owners feel like they're giving their pets something more than the usual slop that comes out of a 'canine cuisine' can.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Digest this bait [and switch]
Everybody, it seems, is out to get a hold of your contact information so they can sell you drugs.
I was reading Reader's Digest this evening and came across an add touting a Reader's Digest Health Survey. Completing the survey, the ad said, would not only help the venerable Digest to identify issues that matter most to its readers, but would also enter you into a sweepstakes for a $30,000 prize.
The ad notes that the information you provide will be helpful to the Digest's readers and advertisers. But what it really means is, the information will be sold to advertisers.
I found this out by going to the website listed in the ad figuring I'd be asked to fill out a health survey that might be providing results for a Digest-sponsored article. They do publish the results of a lot of surveys [most of which are useless] but what the hey...
It turns out the website 'survey' asks one question. They want you to check off areas of health concerns that you would like more information about, then they want you to agree to share your contact information with healthcare marketing companies.
So much for a survey.
I'm disappointed in the Digest, not because I think it has anything valuable to offer, it's no more interesting a read for me than the inspid People magazine, but luring readers to healthcare marketing mailing lists is about as low as standing on the street corner offering a hit of crack to passing school kids.
Shame you, Reader's Digest. I didn't take the bait.
I was reading Reader's Digest this evening and came across an add touting a Reader's Digest Health Survey. Completing the survey, the ad said, would not only help the venerable Digest to identify issues that matter most to its readers, but would also enter you into a sweepstakes for a $30,000 prize.
The ad notes that the information you provide will be helpful to the Digest's readers and advertisers. But what it really means is, the information will be sold to advertisers.
I found this out by going to the website listed in the ad figuring I'd be asked to fill out a health survey that might be providing results for a Digest-sponsored article. They do publish the results of a lot of surveys [most of which are useless] but what the hey...
It turns out the website 'survey' asks one question. They want you to check off areas of health concerns that you would like more information about, then they want you to agree to share your contact information with healthcare marketing companies.
So much for a survey.
I'm disappointed in the Digest, not because I think it has anything valuable to offer, it's no more interesting a read for me than the inspid People magazine, but luring readers to healthcare marketing mailing lists is about as low as standing on the street corner offering a hit of crack to passing school kids.
Shame you, Reader's Digest. I didn't take the bait.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Some kind of nut
I’ve been trying hard to eliminate candy from my diet – not chocolate per se, which my research [and my own personal belief system] lists as a health food – but the readily available snack type candy that contains nothing more than empty calories.
That being said, I could not resist picking up a couple of single serving bags of Coconut M&Ms the other day. My husband has been talking about them since he first heard they existed so when I saw them at the local Walgreens, I couldn’t resist.
I ripped open one of the small bags as soon as I got home tried some. Cocunut M&Ms come only in white, green and brown – I imagine to evoke the tropical hues of the coconut – leaves, shell and meat. I’d have included a pale beige for sand and a bright blue for an island sky, but that’s just me.
As expected, the M&Ms are overly sweet, but they definitely taste like coconut. That’s quite an accomplishment considering that while the nutrition information warns they may contain both peanuts and almonds, there is no trace of real coconut anywhere in the package.
They’re good, but fortunately for me, not good enough to blow my new health-centric diet for. I could live without them. I wonder how could they might be though, if they actually contained coconut.
That being said, I could not resist picking up a couple of single serving bags of Coconut M&Ms the other day. My husband has been talking about them since he first heard they existed so when I saw them at the local Walgreens, I couldn’t resist.
I ripped open one of the small bags as soon as I got home tried some. Cocunut M&Ms come only in white, green and brown – I imagine to evoke the tropical hues of the coconut – leaves, shell and meat. I’d have included a pale beige for sand and a bright blue for an island sky, but that’s just me.
As expected, the M&Ms are overly sweet, but they definitely taste like coconut. That’s quite an accomplishment considering that while the nutrition information warns they may contain both peanuts and almonds, there is no trace of real coconut anywhere in the package.
They’re good, but fortunately for me, not good enough to blow my new health-centric diet for. I could live without them. I wonder how could they might be though, if they actually contained coconut.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Read the label, but don't believe it
I was thumbing through the March 18th issue of People magazine this weekend [not an authoritative source for much of anything, I know] and I came across two legal notices round about page 124.
Both notices were about class action lawsuits being brought against major food companies for essentially false advertising. Apparently Dannon is being sued for claims made about their Activia and DanActive yogurt products – the ones hawked by Jamie Lee Curtis as being good for your digestive health by helping with irregularity. Similarly Tyson is being sued for claims about their chicken products that supposedly were raised without certain types of antibiotics.
As a consumer [not of either of these products though] I have to wonder how many other foods are out there making claims that will later be questioned, or in fact proven false. It seems like every packaged food out there is making some kind of promise these days. It’s not enough just to taste good, it has to be good for you in some way...which is wonderful, if in fact the products are actually good for you. But these law suits are telling me that a lot of the hype we see on packages at the supermarket is just that. Hype.
We’re told to read food labels and study nutrition information as part of a healthier lifestyle but how healthy can we really be if we can’t trust what we read?
For more information on these settlements you can check out these websites. I’d love to hear from anyone who is going to participate in the suits.
www.DannonSettlement.com
www.ChickenSettlement.com
Both notices were about class action lawsuits being brought against major food companies for essentially false advertising. Apparently Dannon is being sued for claims made about their Activia and DanActive yogurt products – the ones hawked by Jamie Lee Curtis as being good for your digestive health by helping with irregularity. Similarly Tyson is being sued for claims about their chicken products that supposedly were raised without certain types of antibiotics.
As a consumer [not of either of these products though] I have to wonder how many other foods are out there making claims that will later be questioned, or in fact proven false. It seems like every packaged food out there is making some kind of promise these days. It’s not enough just to taste good, it has to be good for you in some way...which is wonderful, if in fact the products are actually good for you. But these law suits are telling me that a lot of the hype we see on packages at the supermarket is just that. Hype.
We’re told to read food labels and study nutrition information as part of a healthier lifestyle but how healthy can we really be if we can’t trust what we read?
For more information on these settlements you can check out these websites. I’d love to hear from anyone who is going to participate in the suits.
www.DannonSettlement.com
www.ChickenSettlement.com
Friday, February 5, 2010
Isn't it just business?
I came across this article about the Coca-Cola company managing to charge more than twice as much for half the amount of soda and calling it an innovation.
Let me start by saying, soda is bad. As a long-term cola addict [notice I didn’t say Coke addict] I had a rough time giving up the fizzy blend of sugar and caffeine that took the place of coffee in my diet. You can’t really win with soda – it’s either full of sugar or it’s full of diet sweetner, so the best thing for everyone is to avoid it all together.
That being said, I still defend a soda drinker’s right to get some value for their money.
Apparently the company is now marketing smaller cans of Coke, 7.5 ounces as opposed to 12 [or 8]. This is healthier – less high fructose corn syrup or less chemical sweetners is good. Since all ‘health’ foods are more expensive, it stands to reason people would be more than happy to pay more for less.
That’s just business, right? Can we blame the company for trying to increase their profits by offering less product at a higher price and marketing it in such a way that consumers think they are getting a better deal? I’m drinking less soda — that will help my health in the long run, right?
Of course, the flip side is, someone who was used to drinking 12 ounces of soda may buy the 7.5 ounce product, but once they’ve downed that tiny can, what’s to stop them from popping open another and ultimately drinking 15 ounces of soda instead of 12? Fifteen ounces, by the way, that costs more than twice as much per ounce. So much for the calorie control aspect of the Coca-Cola ad campaign.
I have no problem with non-consumable items that come in tinier sizes because they’re more convenient to carry around. I know I pay more for that little travel size tube of toothpaste or bottle of mouthwash – and how hard is it really to pack the full-size version right from the medicine cabinet? That’s paying more for less and thinking it’s a good deal. I don’t mind grabbing a little bag of pretzels or chips at a convenience store when pound for pound the full size bags are cheaper because I don’t always want a full size container of some snack food. Why should Coca-Cola be any different?
Do you think a product designed with portion control in mind is a good thing or just a gimmick? If they called these little cans of Coke ‘travel sized’ would that make a difference? I think the problem here lies not in the size of the can, but in the idea that drinking soda from any size container should be viewed as a healthy lifestyle choice.
Let me start by saying, soda is bad. As a long-term cola addict [notice I didn’t say Coke addict] I had a rough time giving up the fizzy blend of sugar and caffeine that took the place of coffee in my diet. You can’t really win with soda – it’s either full of sugar or it’s full of diet sweetner, so the best thing for everyone is to avoid it all together.
That being said, I still defend a soda drinker’s right to get some value for their money.
Apparently the company is now marketing smaller cans of Coke, 7.5 ounces as opposed to 12 [or 8]. This is healthier – less high fructose corn syrup or less chemical sweetners is good. Since all ‘health’ foods are more expensive, it stands to reason people would be more than happy to pay more for less.
That’s just business, right? Can we blame the company for trying to increase their profits by offering less product at a higher price and marketing it in such a way that consumers think they are getting a better deal? I’m drinking less soda — that will help my health in the long run, right?
Of course, the flip side is, someone who was used to drinking 12 ounces of soda may buy the 7.5 ounce product, but once they’ve downed that tiny can, what’s to stop them from popping open another and ultimately drinking 15 ounces of soda instead of 12? Fifteen ounces, by the way, that costs more than twice as much per ounce. So much for the calorie control aspect of the Coca-Cola ad campaign.
I have no problem with non-consumable items that come in tinier sizes because they’re more convenient to carry around. I know I pay more for that little travel size tube of toothpaste or bottle of mouthwash – and how hard is it really to pack the full-size version right from the medicine cabinet? That’s paying more for less and thinking it’s a good deal. I don’t mind grabbing a little bag of pretzels or chips at a convenience store when pound for pound the full size bags are cheaper because I don’t always want a full size container of some snack food. Why should Coca-Cola be any different?
Do you think a product designed with portion control in mind is a good thing or just a gimmick? If they called these little cans of Coke ‘travel sized’ would that make a difference? I think the problem here lies not in the size of the can, but in the idea that drinking soda from any size container should be viewed as a healthy lifestyle choice.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Is more of a good thing really better?
In the paper this weekend I saw an ad for yet another brand of fat free milk. Now the debate as to whether or not humans should even be drinking cows’ milk, has been raging for a while. I remain in the ‘what do we really need all that milk for anyway?’ camp. Having been lactose intolerant [and I do believe that’s a curable condition by the way] I developed a dislike of milk in my early teens when I associated it with all kinds of gastrointestinal discomfort. Right now, I use milk as an ingredient in other foods when necessary but it’s been years since I’ve downed a whole glass [at least one that wasn’t liberally spiked with Hersey’s syrup] and I never drink milk with a meal. To be honest, I don’t even like to watch other people drink milk with a meal. It’s a quirk, what can I say?
In deference to my husband who is still severely lactose intolerant, we’ve been using Lactaid brand fat free milk for a while. I don’t find a significant difference in the taste or performance of the milk. Having used fat free milk most of my life, I don’t need my milk to be ‘creamy’ – I just need I to be liquid.
I’ve noticed there are dozens of brands of fat free milk available and in order to differentiate themselves they all offer something different. Some are lactose free, some are calcium fortified and this latest one I came across has added protein.
My question is, do we really need everything we eat or drink to have additives, even supposedly healthy ones? If I drink orange juice for the vitamin C, do I need it to also have extra calcium, just in case I’m not getting enough of that from my milk? Do I then need my milk to have added protein or fiber or something else, because I’m likely not getting that nutrient from the place it would normally come from?
I guess the idea is that fortifying a product with some vitamin or nutrient gives people the idea that it must be a healthier alternative for them. Clearly we can’t get all the nutrition we need from eating foods in their natural state, so they should be adulterated in order to give us a better diet.
Do you think foods that are fortified either with extra of whatever healthy nutrient they already contain or with something they don’t are better for you or are they just a marketing ploy? Do you use any of these products because you don’t think you would get that particular nutrient anywhere else?
In deference to my husband who is still severely lactose intolerant, we’ve been using Lactaid brand fat free milk for a while. I don’t find a significant difference in the taste or performance of the milk. Having used fat free milk most of my life, I don’t need my milk to be ‘creamy’ – I just need I to be liquid.
I’ve noticed there are dozens of brands of fat free milk available and in order to differentiate themselves they all offer something different. Some are lactose free, some are calcium fortified and this latest one I came across has added protein.
My question is, do we really need everything we eat or drink to have additives, even supposedly healthy ones? If I drink orange juice for the vitamin C, do I need it to also have extra calcium, just in case I’m not getting enough of that from my milk? Do I then need my milk to have added protein or fiber or something else, because I’m likely not getting that nutrient from the place it would normally come from?
I guess the idea is that fortifying a product with some vitamin or nutrient gives people the idea that it must be a healthier alternative for them. Clearly we can’t get all the nutrition we need from eating foods in their natural state, so they should be adulterated in order to give us a better diet.
Do you think foods that are fortified either with extra of whatever healthy nutrient they already contain or with something they don’t are better for you or are they just a marketing ploy? Do you use any of these products because you don’t think you would get that particular nutrient anywhere else?
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
There's a pill for that
Today I saw a commercial for another new product women should be taking. [Men, you can skip this post – you probably don’t want to know this anyway and it doesn’t effect you.]
RepHresh Pro-B is an over-the-counter probiotic supplement designed to promote feminine health [you know...down there.]
Apparently you take this pill like a vitamin everyday to maintain the proper balance of bacteria and yeast in your body. Anyone who has had a yeast infection knows, given that kind of discomfort, you’ll do anything to prevent it from happening again, but the interesting thing about this supplement is that, like so many pharmaceutical products, it wants us to assume that good health can only be achieved by taking the right kinds of pills.
I can understand a product that will do something to relieve discomfort when it occurs, and I’m all for prevention of disease, but I still think we need to move away from the idea that if we just have enough different bottles in our medicine cabinet we will be healthy.
Something I found interesting about the website for RepHresh Pro-B, if you notice in the box under: When pH imbalance is most likely to occur, one of the check points is: For freshness any time. So I guess pH imbalance can occur for freshness?
I also notice there are no side-effects listed. Now many dietary supplements supposedly don’t have side-effects, but I think a little blurb about it should be included anyway.
What do you think about probiotics in general? Do you think it helps to take a daily probiotic supplement, especially one designed to promote feminine health?
I did see this famous warning at the bottom of the web-site:
*These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.
So we can assume RepHresh Pro-B is not a product of Big Pharma. It’s a product of wanna-B Big Pharma. Does that make it a better choice for our health or does it just mean if taking this product becomes popular there will eventually be a doctor-recommended prescription strength available that will cost ten times as much?
RepHresh Pro-B is an over-the-counter probiotic supplement designed to promote feminine health [you know...down there.]
Apparently you take this pill like a vitamin everyday to maintain the proper balance of bacteria and yeast in your body. Anyone who has had a yeast infection knows, given that kind of discomfort, you’ll do anything to prevent it from happening again, but the interesting thing about this supplement is that, like so many pharmaceutical products, it wants us to assume that good health can only be achieved by taking the right kinds of pills.
I can understand a product that will do something to relieve discomfort when it occurs, and I’m all for prevention of disease, but I still think we need to move away from the idea that if we just have enough different bottles in our medicine cabinet we will be healthy.
Something I found interesting about the website for RepHresh Pro-B, if you notice in the box under: When pH imbalance is most likely to occur, one of the check points is: For freshness any time. So I guess pH imbalance can occur for freshness?
I also notice there are no side-effects listed. Now many dietary supplements supposedly don’t have side-effects, but I think a little blurb about it should be included anyway.
What do you think about probiotics in general? Do you think it helps to take a daily probiotic supplement, especially one designed to promote feminine health?
I did see this famous warning at the bottom of the web-site:
*These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.
So we can assume RepHresh Pro-B is not a product of Big Pharma. It’s a product of wanna-B Big Pharma. Does that make it a better choice for our health or does it just mean if taking this product becomes popular there will eventually be a doctor-recommended prescription strength available that will cost ten times as much?
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Lead us not into cheap jewelry
As if parents don’t have enough to worry about, now we have to fear the cute little necklace or charm bracelet we bought at Wal*Mart will give our kids brain damage.
I’m all for laws protecting children from dangerous products, but I wonder if the terror associated with the possibility of lead poisoning isn’t being taken just a little too far.
This article is basically a big pat on the back for the Chairman of the Consumer Safety Commissions, who is cracking down on jewelry and toys imported from China which may contain high levels of lead and cadmium. The danger posed by exposure to these two heavy metals, according the article, is extensive. Children can suffer brain damage which can lead to severe developmental disorders.
The mere idea that such harmful substances might be found in items given to children is reprehensible and the Commissioner should be congratulated for her vigilance and dedication to protecting American families. I can’t really argue with that – but if you read the article carefully, you’ll note that nowhere does it explain exactly how lead or cadmium poisoning occurs.
Answer.com has this to say about Cadmium poisoning:
Cadmium can be very toxic, and is dangerous if it is swallowed or inhaled.
And this to say about lead:
Lead poisoning occurs when a person swallows or inhales lead in any form.
Note the danger seems to lie in the swallowing or inhaling of these metals, not the wearing or touching of them. Now, of course I realize that young children do often put things they’re not supposed to in their mouths. They swallow small toys, suck on them, and occasionally even stuff them up their noses. Hence the danger of poisoning – but the article doesn’t explain this. It sort of insinuates that if your child happens to be wearing a cheapo pendant from one the brands in question, rip it off her little neck. Slap that bracelet right off her wrist this instant because it’s giving her brain damage.
Clearly, the proper response to this information should be panic, clear and simple.
Let me repeat, I’m all for product safety, especially when it comes to toys, but I think the important bit of information that’s neglected here is this: Parents, don’t allow your children to put jewelry in their mouths. If your child can’t keep that necklace or bracelet or small toy out of her mouth, don’t let her play with it.
I realize a warning like this would put the responsibility for a child’s safety on the parents, and let’s face it, what parent has the kind of time these days required to actually supervise their child? Seriously. So, rather than caution parents to make sure their kids aren’t eating things that were not intended to be eaten, the message is: You too could be a victim!
If only a dose of reality were better than a pound of litigation, maybe parents could get the real facts from articles designed to warn them about potential dangers, rather than more hype designed to scare them senseless.
I’m all for laws protecting children from dangerous products, but I wonder if the terror associated with the possibility of lead poisoning isn’t being taken just a little too far.
This article is basically a big pat on the back for the Chairman of the Consumer Safety Commissions, who is cracking down on jewelry and toys imported from China which may contain high levels of lead and cadmium. The danger posed by exposure to these two heavy metals, according the article, is extensive. Children can suffer brain damage which can lead to severe developmental disorders.
The mere idea that such harmful substances might be found in items given to children is reprehensible and the Commissioner should be congratulated for her vigilance and dedication to protecting American families. I can’t really argue with that – but if you read the article carefully, you’ll note that nowhere does it explain exactly how lead or cadmium poisoning occurs.
Answer.com has this to say about Cadmium poisoning:
Cadmium can be very toxic, and is dangerous if it is swallowed or inhaled.
And this to say about lead:
Lead poisoning occurs when a person swallows or inhales lead in any form.
Note the danger seems to lie in the swallowing or inhaling of these metals, not the wearing or touching of them. Now, of course I realize that young children do often put things they’re not supposed to in their mouths. They swallow small toys, suck on them, and occasionally even stuff them up their noses. Hence the danger of poisoning – but the article doesn’t explain this. It sort of insinuates that if your child happens to be wearing a cheapo pendant from one the brands in question, rip it off her little neck. Slap that bracelet right off her wrist this instant because it’s giving her brain damage.
Clearly, the proper response to this information should be panic, clear and simple.
Let me repeat, I’m all for product safety, especially when it comes to toys, but I think the important bit of information that’s neglected here is this: Parents, don’t allow your children to put jewelry in their mouths. If your child can’t keep that necklace or bracelet or small toy out of her mouth, don’t let her play with it.
I realize a warning like this would put the responsibility for a child’s safety on the parents, and let’s face it, what parent has the kind of time these days required to actually supervise their child? Seriously. So, rather than caution parents to make sure their kids aren’t eating things that were not intended to be eaten, the message is: You too could be a victim!
If only a dose of reality were better than a pound of litigation, maybe parents could get the real facts from articles designed to warn them about potential dangers, rather than more hype designed to scare them senseless.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Perfectionist Parenting
I’m a big fan of The World’s Worst Mom. Lenore Skenazy received this dubious title after letting her nine-year-old son ride the NY subway alone. She’s a believer in free-range parenting, letting kids have a little more freedom than the average parent today can handle, and this radical belief launched her blog and her book on the same subject.
I try my best to be a free-range parent. My kids are 12 and 15. Little by little I’m loosening the apron strings, but it’s not easy. I give Lenore a lot of credit for her ability to give her son all the freedom he needs to learn true independence. And I read her blog every day.
One of the themes she talks about a lot is perfect parenting – not really to be confused with helicopter parenting, this is the idea that parents can and must do every little thing to ensure their child’s needs [and wants] are met 24/7. A recent blog post talked about this new item, to help crazed, perfection seeking new parents keep track of baby care responsibilities, like those easily forgotten chores of feeding, changing and bathing a newborn. You know how that is if you ever had kids, right? Hmmm...the baby doesn’t smell bad and isn’t crying...I wonder what I should be doing right now? Oh, ding...the timer says I need to put Baby Einstein on TV for him.
Let’s take a reality check. If you’ve ever had an infant, you know they come with a built in timer that tells you when to snap into action. One end smells bad when they need changing. The other end makes noise when they need feeding, burping, holding or sleep. Bathing usually causes that end to make noise too, so you do it at your own discretion. You don’t pay extra for this service, it’s all included in the purchase price – a mere $18 to $21 years of your life. Eventually they learn to take care of the smelly end themselves, but the noisy end never stops needing attention. They’re always telling you what they need and want and when you need to get it for them.
This product is just another example of the need to relieve ourselves of personal responsibility. You no longer have to keep your head about you while caring for your baby. This device will tell you exactly what to do and when to do it so you can relax. Because parenting is all about relaxing...or it should be, right?
I see this conversation happening:
Mom: I feel like I should be doing something for the baby.
Dad: The timer hasn’t gone off, so you’re golden. Relax.
Mom: Don’t you think it’s been a while since the timer went off?
Dad: No.
Mom: Maybe we should check on the timer.
Dad: Trust the timer.
Mom: I can’t. I’m worried about the timer. Did you set it the last time you changed the baby?
Dad: I didn’t change the baby last. You did.
Timer: Ding!
Mom [smiling]: Good, so that means it’s your turn now!
Dad [tossing timer in the diaper pail]. This thing sucks.
I’m all for trusting the timer. The one that comes with the baby. And trusting your instincts when it comes to parenting. I’m not sure I’d let my kid ride the NY subway alone – in fact, I wouldn’t even let my husband ride the NY subway alone, but I check out Free Range Kids for my daily dose of reality.
I try my best to be a free-range parent. My kids are 12 and 15. Little by little I’m loosening the apron strings, but it’s not easy. I give Lenore a lot of credit for her ability to give her son all the freedom he needs to learn true independence. And I read her blog every day.
One of the themes she talks about a lot is perfect parenting – not really to be confused with helicopter parenting, this is the idea that parents can and must do every little thing to ensure their child’s needs [and wants] are met 24/7. A recent blog post talked about this new item, to help crazed, perfection seeking new parents keep track of baby care responsibilities, like those easily forgotten chores of feeding, changing and bathing a newborn. You know how that is if you ever had kids, right? Hmmm...the baby doesn’t smell bad and isn’t crying...I wonder what I should be doing right now? Oh, ding...the timer says I need to put Baby Einstein on TV for him.
Let’s take a reality check. If you’ve ever had an infant, you know they come with a built in timer that tells you when to snap into action. One end smells bad when they need changing. The other end makes noise when they need feeding, burping, holding or sleep. Bathing usually causes that end to make noise too, so you do it at your own discretion. You don’t pay extra for this service, it’s all included in the purchase price – a mere $18 to $21 years of your life. Eventually they learn to take care of the smelly end themselves, but the noisy end never stops needing attention. They’re always telling you what they need and want and when you need to get it for them.
This product is just another example of the need to relieve ourselves of personal responsibility. You no longer have to keep your head about you while caring for your baby. This device will tell you exactly what to do and when to do it so you can relax. Because parenting is all about relaxing...or it should be, right?
I see this conversation happening:
Mom: I feel like I should be doing something for the baby.
Dad: The timer hasn’t gone off, so you’re golden. Relax.
Mom: Don’t you think it’s been a while since the timer went off?
Dad: No.
Mom: Maybe we should check on the timer.
Dad: Trust the timer.
Mom: I can’t. I’m worried about the timer. Did you set it the last time you changed the baby?
Dad: I didn’t change the baby last. You did.
Timer: Ding!
Mom [smiling]: Good, so that means it’s your turn now!
Dad [tossing timer in the diaper pail]. This thing sucks.
I’m all for trusting the timer. The one that comes with the baby. And trusting your instincts when it comes to parenting. I’m not sure I’d let my kid ride the NY subway alone – in fact, I wouldn’t even let my husband ride the NY subway alone, but I check out Free Range Kids for my daily dose of reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
