Customers might eat up Sketchers‘ claims that their Shape-Up toning shoes can make you fit without working out, but the Federal Trade Commission isn’t amused; in fact they’re fining the company to the tune of $40 million for making false claims–to be paid out to customers in the form of refunds for their shoes.

The FTC’s biggest beef was with the company’s scientific claims; while many of their marketing claims sounded pretty run-of-the-mill, it was their claim that they had clinical studies to back them up that seemed to get them in trouble (one study cited in an ad was independently conducted by a chiropractor, who was married to a Sketchers marketing exec…and whose findings didn’t actually support the advertising claims).

David Vladeck, director of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a statement:

Skechers’ unfounded claims went beyond stronger and more toned muscles. The company even made claims about weight loss and cardiovascular health. The FTC’s message, for Skechers and other national advertisers, is to shape up your substantiation or tone down your claims.

Going forward, the FTC ruled that Sketchers won’t be allowed to claim strengthening, weight loss or any health or fitness-related benefits from its toning shoes unless they’re backed by scientific evidence. In the meantime, we’d recommend applying for a refund, then hitting the gym (in regular shoes) for real results.

Related posts:

• FTC Making Reebok Pay Up (And Give Refunds) For False Claims About Toning Shoes
• Toning Shoes Won’t Shape Your Buns, But They Will Sprain Your Ankle

Post from: Blisstree

Post from: Blisstree

• Cooking thermometers are a necessary kitchen tool–here are some good ones (The Kitchn)

• One expert weighs in on how to help kids love their bodies. Awesome! (YourTango)

• Want to run faster? Of course you do. Try out one of these four tips (Fitbie)

• How to live by the “five second rule” and not, surprising, get sick (The Stir)

Post from: Blisstree

Vogue‘s recent decision to become “ambassadors for positive body image” sounds, for the most part, like an attempt to patch up their many missteps in the fight against terrible self-esteem and eating disorders. But according to an Elle Canada article by Ben Barry (owner of the Ben Barry Agency, a pro-women talent agency that uses diverse body types), it may also be a savvy business move. Because, despite the firmly-held beliefs of many advertisers, women actually buy more stuff when clothing is modeled on realistic, healthy, and natural models.

It turns out, according to Barry’s research, that models are more than just skeletal clothes hangers that women ignore when flipping through the glossy magazine pages. He found that we are, to no woman’s surprise, inclined to look at who’s wearing the clothes, and–here’s the important part–base our purchasing habits on what we see. Shocking, I know.

From the article:

My study found that women increased their purchase intentions by more than 200 percent when the models in the mock ads were their size. In the subgroup over size 6, women increased their purchase intentions by a dramatic 300 percent when they saw curvier models. Conversely, when women saw models who didn’t reflect their size, they decreased their purchase intentions by 60 percent, and women over size 6 dropped their purchase intentions by 76 percent.

It’s true, Fashion Industry and Advertising Moguls: You could be making more money if you actually used real models. You don’t even have to care about the fact that it would help women feel better about themselves. You could totally just do it for the boost in sales. So…why don’t you?

Barry points out that, often, when the use of “normal”-looking women succeeds (like Dove’s “Real Beauty” campaign, which bolstered sales by leaps and bounds, and endeared the brand to millions of consumers), the marketing and fashion industries see it as a one-off, or a novelty that won’t succeed again. But, as his and other research indicates, they’re missing a huge opportunity. Apparently women (who have brains and money and self-esteem concerns) actually appreciate it when models are less ‘aspirational’ (read: very thin).

And even if natural or differently-shaped women are just a novelty that excites women (remember how excited everyone and their mom was about that one V magazine spread? Or that time when Crystal Renn, pre-weight loss, modeled swimsuits in Glamour and we all had a heart attack because of her beauty?), isn’t that a good enough reason to keep trying it? If it’s novel to portray women as they are, shouldn’t we keep doing it until it becomes the norm?

Consider a recent interview we ran with Katie Halchishick of Natural Model Management, and our readers loved it, in part because the idea of empowering and photographing women of a variety of sizes is so outside of the mainstream–but it’s not outside of the desires of women.

Women want to see models that look like them, not ultra-thin women who give them something to aspire to /starve themselves to become. And yet, much of the fashion industry is lagging behind, churning out size 2 samples and casting impossibly small women to pose nude, hipbones akimbo, as they shill for handbags and headscarves, because they think that giving women something to “work toward” is the best way to spur purchases. But, as Barry illustrates (and as many of us can attest to), it’s not what we want–and it’s not how we behave. Karl Lagerfeld doesn’t have to be OK with Adele‘s body, or even care about how women feel about their bodies–he just needs to accept that women like seeing other women who look like her.

Designers and marketers should take a leaf out of Barry and Halchishick’s respective books and consider broadening sample sizes and widening their casting pools–if not because it’s better for women (though it is), because it’s better for their bottom line.

Image via

Related posts:

• Tyra Banks Likes Vogue‘s New Rules (But Likes Her Own Advice More)
• Vogue’s Olympic Issue: Celebrating Male Athletes and Female…Models
• Dear Vogue: Please Actually Become “Ambassadors For Healthy Body Image”
• Italian Vogue Editor Condemns Pro-Ana Websites; Continues Making Pro-Ana Bait
• Adele’s Body Confidence Unphased By Karl Lagerfeld’s Nasty Fat Comments

Post from: Blisstree

A new study says a 20% ‘fat tax‘—on ‘unhealthy foods’ and sugary drinks—would help curb obesity by substituting for the lack of self control that has clearly led to obesity (wink wink). Published in British Medical Journal, the study aggregated data from several countries measuring the effectiveness of food taxes, and found that they can have a positive impact on public health…if they’re significant enough to really make our wallets hurt. There’s so many things wrong with this, I don’t know where to begin. So I’ll just throw out the biggest issues that come to mind:

First, the phrasing: The concept of a “soda tax” isn’t inherently offensive, but calling it a “fat tax” makes it sound a lot like legislated discrimination. I’m all for correcting a food system that makes junk food artificially cheap, but framing it in terms of hitting fat people with financial penalties doesn’t address those problems—it just lends further credence to the myth that fat people are fat because they have an uncontrollable appetite for Twinkies and Coke.

But Twinkies and Coke are only half the problem; making them expensive might deter customers, but it won’t make vegetables cheap. It also won’t make it easier for people in food deserts to access fresh food, and it won’t teach people how to make healthy meals. And what’s really horrifying is that, for people who can literally barely afford to feed their families junk food from the 99-cent store, raising prices on even bad-for-you foods would mean that they basically don’t get to eat enough. So not only would they be malnourished; they’d literally be starving.

There are plenty of other logistical issues, like how we would define “unhealthy” foods, and how difficult it would be to implement. But what’s most frustrating to me about the whole idea of a ‘fat tax’ is that it completely overlooks the fact that those foods are cheap to begin with because of food subsidies.

If you’re not familiar with food subsidies, the basic concept is that the government gives money to certain agricultural industries in order to supplement their income, thereby influencing the cost and supply of certain commodities. In the U.S., the meat and dairy industries get huge boosts from the government, as do corn farmers—which is part of why things like Twinkies, Coke, and cheeseburgers are so damn cheap. Here’s a quick visual, courtesy of Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine:

Lead researcher Oliver Mytton said of the 30 or so international surveys they observed, most situations pointed to the success of taxes on unhealthy food:

Economists generally agree that government intervention, including taxation, is justified when the market fails to provide the optimum amount of a good for society’s well-being. [This] include[s] a failure to appreciate the true association between diet and disease, time inconsistency (preference for short-term gratification over long-term well-being), and not bearing the full health and social costs of consumption.

But, at least in the U.S., the market isn’t “failing’ to provide the optimum amount for society’s good; the government is failing to subsidize the optimum foods for our health. Layering taxes on top of already-dysfunctional production and pricing wouldn’t help make healthy food affordable or accessible; if we can make that happen (and, you know, frame the discussion around real health concerns instead of fat-shaming), I think we won’t even need to debate how to tax junk food.

Related posts:

• Obesity Costs U.S. $190 Billion Per Year—Let The ‘Fat Tax’ Battles Begin
• Soda Tax: Should We Pay the Price for Getting Fat?
• ‘Weight Of The Nation’ Isn’t The Fat-Shaming Debacle You Think It Is

Post from: Blisstree

The study—published this week in the peer-reviewed Journal of Physiology—zeroed in on high-fructose corn syrup in diets, instead of cane sugar. The average American consumes more than 40 pounds of high-fructose corn syrup (in soft drinks, cereals, salad dressings, jelly, bread and more) each year, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Previous studies have diets high in added sugars can contribute to diabetes, obesity and fatty liver. This is the first to look specifically at how it influences the brain.

Whether corn syrup differs nutritionally from regular sugar is up for debate. The Corn Refiners Association is currently fielding a lawsuit for the right to say your body can’t tell the difference between cane sugar and “corn sugar,” the industry’s preferred term for high fructose corn syrup.

“We’re concerned about high-fructose corn syrup that is added to manufactured food products as a sweetener and preservative.”

The study was conducted on rats, who drank a fructose solution instead of drinking water for six weeks. One group also received omega-3 fatty acids in the form of flaxseed oil and DHA, which protects against damage to the brain’s synapses (the chemical connections between brain cells that enable memory and learning). Our bodies can’t produce enough DHA, so it must be supplemented through our diet, Gomez-Pinilla said.

At the end of the study, the rats who were not given omega-3 fatty acids were slower, had poorer memory and had brains that showed a decline in synaptic activity. The omega-3-deprived rats also developed signs of insulin resistance, which could be a precursor to type 2 diabetes. One of the initial signs of insulin resistance is fatigue, short attention span and brain fogginess.

“Insulin is important in the body for controlling blood sugar, but it may play a different role in the brain, where insulin appears to disturb memory and learning,” said Gomez-Pinilla. “Our study shows that a high-fructose diet harms the brain as well as the body.”

Related posts:

• Nutrition Facts Decoder: Natural Sugar vs. Added Sugar
• McDonald’s Cherry Berry Chiller Is Brimming With Sugar…And No Vitamins
• Michael Pollan Says High Fructose Corn Syrup Isn’t Worse Than Sugar
• High Fructose Corn Syrup Vs. Sugar Battle Takes To The Courts
• 5 Foods You Didn’t Know Contained High-Fructose Corn Syrup

Post from: Blisstree

When I was a broke college student, I discovered a giant, money-saving secret in the aisles of Walgreens: gendered pricing. Women’s beauty products, like deodorant and razors, simply cost more than their identical, marketed-for-men counterparts. And according to Forbes and Marie Claire, this isn’t just a small marketing anomaly, in which manufacturers bank on a few extra pennies from the ladies–artificially inflated prices can cost females and female-identified individuals well over $1,000 per year in beauty products and health insurance.

You may recall an article on Blisstree a few months ago, in which Elizabeth deconstructed the model of gendered pricing within health insurance–a sad, upsetting practice in which preventative healthcare measures for women are priced higher than those of men for, it seems, no reason. That practice is slowly, state-by-state, being stopped by the Affordable Care Act…but what about every other way women are gouged, like at the drugstore, where formulas and construction (think shampoo or razors) across genders are similar or identical? Does it really cost more to make stuff for women?

First, let’s compare the ingredients in a men’s deodorant to a women’s, just to see if the formulas really are “totally different” like one source told Forbes. Here are the ingredients for Dove’s Men+Care Clean Comfort Deodorant/Antiperspirant:

Aluminum Zirconium Tetrachlorohydrex GLY, Cyclopentasiloxane, Stearyl Alcohol, C12-15 Alkyl Benzoate, PPG-14 Butyl Ether, Hydrogenated Castor Oil, Fragrance (Parfum), Dimethicone, Polyethylene, Steareth-100, Helianthus Annuus (Sunflower) Seed Oil, BHT

And here’s the ingredient list for Dove’s Go Sleeveless Beauty Finish Deodorant:

Aluminum Zirconium Tetrachlorohydrex GLY, Cyclopentasiloxane, Stearyl Alcohol, C12-15 Alkyl Benzoate, PPG-14 Butyl Ether, Hydrogenated Castor Oil, PEG-8, Fragrance (Parfum), Dimethicone, Silica, Polyethylene, Helianthus Annuus (Sunflower) Seed Oil, Steareth-100, BHT

When purchased online, they’re about the same price–around $5. When purchased in a store in my neighborhood, the women’s version was a good $1 more expensive. The women’s stick was also substantially smaller. So what gives?

One factor that Forbes points out is that the cost of importing women’s products tends to be higher, because tariff laws are weird and old and controlled by huge market forces and lobbyists. But that’s only part of the problem–if razor blades or ingredients are shipped independently and assembled in US factories, that doesn’t really apply.

What is really at play, it seems, is that manufacturers of health and beauty products know that they can get women to spend more on personal care items, and that by playing to women’s insecurities, they can also hawk more and different products. This is from an actual Datamonitor market research document:

…The increasing image consciousness of many women creates premiumization opportunities for manufacturers and retailers even during a recession

Yup. Making us more self-conscious gets us to pay more money for products.

Additionally, store placement is a big part of the equation. By keeping men’s and women’s products separated, vendors are able to thwart comparison shoppers. Few women actually go check to see what the men’s (or generic, non-gendered) razors, shampoo, or other products cost, and thus, they may not realize how much more they’re really spending for something that’s basically the same, but marketed toward them.

What can you do to save money on beauty products? First, you can consider–hear me out–actually spending a little more, by shopping for sustainable, responsible products. National chains like The Body Shop, which offer more eco-friendly (and way less gender-marketed), or artisan, local vendors may charge more, but it’s not because they’re gouging you–it’s because you’re getting a better product with less ooky stuff in it.

Or, if you’re really looking to pinch pennies, consider doing what I did in college (and still do): look for the products that are the least gendered. Take a stroll to the men’s section to check out the wares, and look for deodorants and other personal care items that seem less targeted toward women. Then compare price–items in yellow, green, blue or other more gender-neutral colors (one market study showed that women don’t actually prefer the color pink–it’s just that buy pink items because they’re in front of them) will likely be lower in price.

You can also, as Marie Claire recommends, reach out to your congressperson or representative and ask that gendered pricing, which is pointless except to make money for manufacturers, be curbed once and for all.

Image via Dove

Related posts:

• Women Pay $1 Billion A Year More For Health Insurance, Thanks To “Gender Rating”
• Companies Charging Smokers Up to $2,340 More For Insurance. What About Obese Workers Too?
• Keep It Clean: The Top 7 Ingredients To Avoid In Beauty Products
• Deodorant May Not Give You Breast Cancer, But Other Toxic Beauty Products Could
• Badvertising: Stop Making Me Feel Insecure About My Armpits

Post from: Blisstree

New York sex therapist Sari Eckler explained it best to Barron’s:

There’s a lack of resistance for the knees and feet. And whoever is on the bottom is sinking into the bed.

Or, as an owner of one of these plush mattresses wrote on an Internet message board:

It’s like trying to do it in quicksand.

Ah, point taken.

The type of mattresses, in particular, that are the culprit for bad sex are memory-foam mattresses. And regardless of what happens–or doesn’t happen on them, they continue to be the fastest-growing segment of mattresses out there. In fact, their market share has gone from 14% to almost 20% in the past eight years.

Meaning, those of us in the market for a new mattress value sleep over sex. Or at least sex under the sheets. But who can blame us? Insomnia sucks, and roughly 60 million Americans suffer from it.

As Gayle Greene, author of Insomniac, explained to NPR, few people realize just how debilitating sleep deprivation can be:

Sleep is the fuel of life. It’s nourishing; it’s restorative. And when you are deprived of it, you are really deprived of a basic kind of sustenance.

She went on to explain that people who suffer from insomnia or any sleep disruptions will do whatever it takes to keep it away:

I don’t manage this beast. I live with it. I live around it. I bed down with it every night, gingerly, cautiously, careful not to provoke it. I do my best to placate it, domesticate it, dull its claws, avoid its fangs, knowing that at any moment it can pounce on me and tear me to bits.

And for many of us, that means choosing a plush mattress. Even if that means sex needs to take place elsewhere. Kitchen table, anyone?

Photo: shutterstock.com

Related posts:

• Insomnia Totally Sucks; 6 Foods To Help You Sleep Better
• Sleep To Get Slim: Obesity Genes Curbed By Nightly Rest, Study Says
• Biking Hurts Our Vaginas–And Our Sex Life; Study Proves We’re Not Just Wimps.

Post from: Blisstree

Post from: Blisstree