Dinner with TV may not be a very healthy option: study

November 6, 2016

Nov 6: Families that eat dinner with the TV on tend to eat less healthy food and to enjoy the meals less than families who leave the TV off, according to a recent U.S. study.

Dinner

This was true even for families that were not paying attention to the TV and only had it on as background noise, the researchers write in the journal Appetite.

“Family meals are protective for many aspects of child health,” lead author Amanda Trofholz said by email, adding that parents can take this time to check in with children and teach them about setting limits on their diets.

“Having the TV on during the family meal may reduce the opportunity for this connection between family members and blunt the protective effects of the meal,” said Trofholz, a researcher at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

To explore the link between TV watching during meals and risk factors for childhood obesity, the study team analyzed video recordings of 120 families that included a child aged 6 to 12. The families were recruited from primary care clinics in Minneapolis between 2012 and 2013 and were mostly from low-income and minority groups.

The families recorded two of their family meals using an iPad and reported to the research team what they had eaten and how much they had enjoyed it. The study team assessed the health of the meals themselves, whether a TV was being used and the emotional atmosphere of the meal.

Only one third of the families left the TV off during both recorded meals. About a quarter had the TV on for only one meal and 43 percent left the TV on during both meals. Of the families eating with the TV on, two thirds paid attention to the TV while the other third only had it on in the background.

Families who ate with no TV playing or with the TV on during only one meal enjoyed their meals more than those that watched during both meals. This was true regardless of whether families paid attention to the TV.

Families that didn’t watch TV during meals ate significantly healthier food than the others. Families that had the TV on but did not pay attention also ate more healthy food than families that actively watched TV while eating.

Families eating with the TV on also ate fast food for dinner significantly more often than those with TV-free meals. Children of TV-watching families were not more likely to be overweight or obese than children whose families did not watch TV during meals, however.

“A non-distracted meal environment, without the TV on, is an opportunity for children to enjoy eating, try novel foods and self-regulate eating when healthy options are provided,” said Eileen FitzPatrick, an assistant professor at The Sage Colleges in Troy, New York.

“Having the TV on during dinner is a distraction which may lead to ‘mindless eating’ including overeating without realizing it,” FitzPatrick, who was not involved in the study, said by email. FitzPatrick added that advertisements on TV market unhealthy foods to children and can shape what foods they prefer to eat for dinner.

Families should try to view the family meal as a family event rather than just a necessity, Trofholz said. “Families who see the family meal as a time to connect with and enjoy their families may be more likely to turn off the TV, have a higher quality meal, and enjoy the meal more.”

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
April 15,2020

Dear parents, if you want your children to have proper sleep, read this carefully. Joining a growing list of studies that tell parents to shun devices at bed-time, researchers say that children who use devices and decide what time they go to sleep, achieve less sleep and feel more sleepier the following day than their peers.

The study of children in this age-group (aged 11 to 13 years), published in the New Zealand Medical Journal, found most (72 per cent) of the 163 students interviewed by University of Otago researchers achieved recommended guidelines of an average 9 to 11 hours sleep nightly over one week.

"But that also means that almost one in four students did not achieve sleep within these guidelines, which highlights an area for improvement," said study researcher Kate Ford.

However, consistent with previous research in 15 to 17-year-old New Zealanders, the study results show less sleep on the nights where devices are used in the hour before bed.

According to the researchers, students who used devices before going to sleep were also more likely to report that they felt sleepy the following morning. Watching television before bed had no significant effect on sleep length.

There were also some interesting observations over the weekends where students went to bed later but woke later achieving similar sleep length to the school days, the researchers said.

A small group of students (six per cent) who reported less than seven hours of sleep, including a small number reporting not sleeping at all, according to the study,

Therefore, while the average across the week of 72 per cent of students reporting adequate sleep is reassuring, it is far from the goal of every child achieving sleep within the recommended guidelines," Ford said.

Dr Paul Kelly, head of the Sleep Health Service at Canterbury District Health Board, supervised the study and explained that the foundations for good health are based on proper nutrition, regular exercise and good sleep quality.

Sleep quality is often overlooked as a contributory factor to poor health.

"The study findings suggest the need for parental guidance around bedtimings and moderation of the use and availability of electronic devices before bed," Kelly said.

"Respect and protect your sleep, as good daytime functioning is reliant on adequate sleep," Kelly added.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
May 17,2020

Geneva, May 17: Spraying disinfectant on the streets, as practised in some countries, does not eliminate the new coronavirus and even poses a health risk, the World Health Organization (WHO) warned on Saturday.

In a document on cleaning and disinfecting surfaces as part of the response to the virus, the WHO says spraying can be ineffective. "Spraying or fumigation of outdoor spaces, such as streets or marketplaces, is... not recommended to kill the Covid-19 virus or other pathogens because disinfectant is inactivated by dirt and debris," explains the WHO.

"Even in the absence of organic matter, chemical spraying is unlikely to adequately cover all surfaces for the duration of the required contact time needed to inactivate pathogens." The WHO said that streets and pavements are not considered as "reservoirs of infection" of Covid-19, adding that spraying disinfectants, even outside, can be "dangerous for human health".

The document also stresses that spraying individuals with disinfectants is "not recommended under any circumstances".

"This could be physically and psychologically harmful and would not reduce an infected person's ability to spread the virus through droplets or contact," said the document.

Spraying chlorine or other toxic chemicals on people can cause eye and skin irritation, bronchospasm and gastrointestinal effects, it adds.

The organisation is also warning against the systematic spraying and fumigating of disinfectants on to surfaces in indoor spaces, citing a study that has shown it to be ineffective outside direct spraying areas.

"If disinfectants are to be applied, this should be done with a cloth or wipe that has been soaked in disinfectant," it says.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus, the cause of the pandemic that has killed more than 300,000 people worldwide since its appearance in late December in China, can attach itself to surfaces and objects.

However, no precise information is currently available for the period during which the viruses remain infectious on the various surfaces.

Studies have shown that the virus can stay on several types of surfaces for several days. However, these maximum durations are only theoretical because they are recorded under laboratory conditions and should be "interpreted with caution" in the real-world environment.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.