Study: Breakfast cereal for kids is getting unhealthier
Here's something to consider as you're getting your kids ready for the day: many breakfast cereals are getting unhealthier.
A new study in the JAMA Network found that cereals marketed toward kids aged 12 and under had lower protein and dietary fiber content. But they have more total fat, sodium, and sugar per serving.
CHECK IT OUT >> How to make a well-balanced meal for toddlers
The study's authors said parents should consider other breakfast options like eggs, steel-cut oats, or whole-grain bread with peanut butter.
(VIDEO: Man, 99, has eaten Wheaties daily since 1943; now he's on the cereal's box)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Study: Breakfast cereal for kids is getting unhealthier
Here's something to consider as you're getting your kids ready for the day: many breakfast cereals are getting unhealthier. A new study in the JAMA Network found that cereals marketed toward kids aged 12 and under had lower protein and dietary fiber content. But they have more total fat, sodium, and sugar per serving. CHECK IT OUT >> How to make a well-balanced meal for toddlers The study's authors said parents should consider other breakfast options like eggs, steel-cut oats, or whole-grain bread with peanut butter. (VIDEO: Man, 99, has eaten Wheaties daily since 1943; now he's on the cereal's box)
WIRED
3 days ago
- WIRED
Is Using a Stair Machine the Same as Climbing Stairs?
May 30, 2025 9:00 AM According to physics, one burns more calories than the other—and the winner might surprise you. Photogrpah:You can get a great workout by walking up the stairs in a tall building. The only problem is that you can't watch TV while doing it—hence the popularity of stationary stair-climbing machines. But is it the same? If your goal is to burn calories, does it make any difference which you choose? That's actually a great physics question, and we can get a pretty good mental workout with it. Shall we? The Work-Energy Principle OK, what is a calorie, anyway? It's a unit of energy, defined as the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 liter of water by 1 degree Celsius. (This is your common 'food calorie': chemists confusingly use a calorie measure that's 1,000 times smaller.) Of course, in physics we prefer to measure energy in joules. Just to give you a feel for this unit, if you lift a textbook from the floor to a table, that would take about 10 joules. Now, the work-energy principle says that in order to change the energy of a system, you need to add energy to (or remove energy from) the system. That seems obvious, but it's actually useful. We call the energy input (or output) 'work.' Work is done on a system by applying a force over some distance. Let's go back to the case of lifting a book off the floor. The first thing we need to do is define our 'system.' That tells us what kinds of changes in energy we're going to deal with. So I'm going to use the system consisting of the book and the Earth. Since the book can move, it can have kinetic energy (K), which depends on its mass (m) and velocity (v). And with Earth in the system, we can also have gravitational potential energy (U). This depends on the mass of the book, the gravitational field (g), and the height of the book above the floor (y). With this, we can write the work-energy principle as the following: Notice that we're dealing with changes in energy—the Greek delta symbol means the change in something. If the book starts and ends at rest, then the change in kinetic energy is zero. That leaves us with just the change in gravitational potential energy. The gravitational field on the surface of the Earth is about 9.8 newtons per kilogram. So, using the formula for U above, with a book mass of 1 kilogram and a change in height of 1 meter, we need a work of 1 x 1 x 9.8 = 9.8 joules (or about 10). Now suppose you are the book, and you go from standing on the floor to standing on the table? In that case, you are part of the system, so there's no external force doing work on the system. How can you have a change in gravitational potential energy without any added work? Well, the simple solution is to add another type of energy—let's just call it 'internal energy.' It's the energy stored in your body by eating your Wheaties for breakfast. It's how humans work. With that, our work-energy equation looks a little different: Since the change in kinetic energy is still zero, this means that the positive change in gravitational potential energy is equal to the negative of the change in internal energy. Let's say you have a mass of 75 kilograms (165 pounds). That means moving up 1 meter would reduce your internal energy by 735 joules. That's called working out. Climbing Stairs vs. a Stair Climber Now we can go back to the original question: What does the work-energy principle say about stairs versus a stair-climbing machine? Well, we already did the physics of stair climbing. It's the same calculation if you get on top of a 1 meter table or climb 100 stories—it's just a different value for the height. But suppose you stay in the same place while the stairs move under you. If someone is measuring your forward motion, they'd say your speed is zero. Your height also doesn't change, so now the work-energy equation looks like this: This says the change in internal energy is also zero, which means you don't burn any calories. I mean, that can't be right … right? Then how do we fix this? I'm going to use a nice example based on this video from Steve Mould. It goes like this: Imagine you are climbing up a downward-moving escalator. Again, an observer on the ground would see you as stationary. However, we could also measure your speed from the reference frame of the escalator, and you would be moving up. In fact, if the escalator had walls and a ceiling, you wouldn't be able tell that you were staying in place. You wouldn't even know the stairs are moving. Since the stairs are moving at a constant velocity (zero acceleration), this would be an inertial reference frame. In physics, any inertial reference frame is as valid as any other reference frame—the basic laws of physics remain the same. So, from the perspective of the escalator frame you are moving up and doing work. It's the same as if you were walking up a stationary frame. But Actually, the Stair Climber Is Harder I said that the stair climber and climbing stairs were the same—but they are not. In fact, climbing up 100 stories is easier than the equivalent distance on a stair climber. Does that seem crazy? It is a little crazy. The reason they're different is because the gravitational field (g) is never really constant. Remember, we defined the gravitational potential energy as U = m x g x y? That's not really wrong, but it is a little misleading. Actually, the gravitational potential energy for the Earth-person system would be defined as the following: Let's go over this new equation. First, we have the universal gravitational constant (G = 6.67 x 10–11 Nm2/kg 2). Next, we have the masses of the two objects involved (M E for the Earth and m for the person). Finally, there is the distance from the center of the Earth to the person (r). Since we are dividing by the distance (r), the gravitational potential decreases as we get farther from the Earth. There's a negative sign there, so that if you move farther from the Earth (we usually call that 'up'), the gravitational potential energy increases from some negative value to a smaller negative value. If this is the gravitational potential energy, then why do we use U = m x g x y? Well, that's just a handy approximation. Since the Earth is very big, with a radius of 6.4 million meters, moving up even 1,000 meters doesn't change the value of r that much. So it's OK to approximate the gravitational field as a constant value of 9.8 newtons per kilogram, even though it actually gets smaller. But just for fun, let's do a more precise calculation. Suppose I climb 100 flights of stairs. Let's say each flight of stairs has a change in height of 3 meters, so that the full climb would be 300 meters. If I start at the surface of the Earth (radius R) and climb up to a certain height (h ), the work-energy equation would look like this: For a person-mass of 75 kilograms, I get a change in internal energy of 2.20312 x 105 joules. Now, if I use the stair climber, the change in energy would just be m x g x h. This gives an energy of 2.20323 x 105 joules. That's a difference of 10.4 joules or 0.0025 calories. If a typical candy bar has 200 calories, this would be 0.001 percent of the bar—not even a tiny bite. What I'm saying is, you can get at least as good a workout on the stair machine— and you can watch TV. I call that a win-win.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
NY man alleges vision loss after taking Ozempic: Details
The Brief A 48-year-old man from Suffolk County blames Ozempic for partial vision loss in both eyes. He, along with over 30 others who are suffering from the same side effect, are suing Ozempic's manufacturer. The manufacturer, Novo Nordisk, states they believe "the benefit-risk profile of semaglutide remains unchanged." LONG ISLAND - Michael, a 48-year-old from Suffolk County, is suing Ozempic's manufacturer for partial loss of vision. What we know Michael, who opted out of sharing his surname, says that the loss of sight began after his endocrinologist recommended he switch from Metformin to Ozempic to manage his type 2 diabetes. Michael told FOX 5 NY's Jodi Goldberg that he lost 10 pounds, but also some vision in both eyes. "From the bottom right side of my eye… if I close the left eye, faces get blurry, I can't read my cell phone." He claims he had 20/20 vision before taking Ozempic. Michael was diagnosed with NAION (Non-arteritic Anterior Ischemic Optic Neuropathy), which is essentially a stroke of the eye – it presents as an acute but painless loss of vision in one eye. No treatment for NAION currently exists. One of the most recognized risk factors for NAION is diabetes. However, two recent studies – one from the JAMA Network and the other out of Denmark – suggest there could be a link between the condition and taking semaglutide, which is the active ingredient in Ozempic. Jason Goldstein of Parker Waichman LLP, a personal injury, mass tort and environmental law firm, has filed a multimillion dollar lawsuit against Novo Nordisk, the manufacturer of Ozempic and Wegovy, a similar medication. Goldstein is representing more than 30 clients from 10 states suffering from the same side effect, including Michael. "This lawsuit is about holding Novo Nordisk responsible for not warning doctors and their patients this condition could develop," Goldstein said. Dig deeper Over the past decade, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has recalled over 14,000 drugs; rare side effects can be missed during clinical trials and may not be discovered until later on. Goldberg spoke to Dr. Chetna Bakshi about how common reactions to medications like Ozempic could be. Bakshi's take is that more research is necessary. "These medications come out, people take them, and it's not until 10 or 15 years later that we find other complications that weren't apparent in the initial clinical trials." The other side A spokesperson for Novo Nordisk gave FOX 5 this statement: "Patient safety is a top priority for Novo Nordisk, and we take all reports about adverse events from use of our medicines very seriously. After a thorough evaluation of studies from the University of Southern Denmark and Novo Nordisk's internal safety assessment, Novo Nordisk is of the opinion that the benefit-risk profile of semaglutide remains unchanged." Goldstein's response: "It was a drug you were taking, that there were other options on the market, and no one warned you this could happen." The Source This article includes reporting from FOX 5 NY's Jodi Goldberg, as well as two medical studies from the JAMA Network and a Danish-Norwegian cohort.
