Can Genetically Modified Cotton Cure Food Insecurity?

As a teacher, I know some of my students come to school hungry and have to rely on school meal programs to get the energy needed to get through the school day. In a country that seems to have an abundance of food, why are people going hungry?

As our world continues to grow, the need for food security grows along with it. Never having to worry about food security myself, I have never been directly affected by food security but I know this is a major issue. I try to do my part and look at ways I can help other individuals by giving to my local food pantry. I know every bit helps but it still seems so small and insignificant.

Wouldn’t it be great to find a way to help on a larger scale? Genetically-modified (GM) foods/crops may be that solution.

As I drive around the Quad Cities, I can’t help but notice field after field of corn and soybeans. Corn and soybeans are the bread and butter of Iowa farming, but they are also perfect examples of GM foods. According to our textbook, Nutrition Concepts & Controversies by Frances Sizer and Ellie Whitney, nearly 90 percent of both feed corn and soybeans are genetically engineered. That number will continue to increase.

Either directly or indirectly, GM corn and soybeans seem like simple solutions to food insecurity issues. Stronger, healthier crops can be used as food or as feed for livestock. But could a crop like cotton have an effect on food insecurity?

I reviewed two articles on GM food/crops and food security. The first article, entitled “Genetically Modified Crops and Food Security,” was written by Matin Qaim and Shahzad Kouser and appeared in the June 2013 edition of PLOS ONE. Qaim is with the Department of Agricultural Economics and rural Development with the University of Goettingen and Kouser is with the Institute of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of Faisalabad.

The two studied farmers in India growing Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton, a GM cotton altered to resist bollworms. The farmers growing Bt cotton consumed about 500 kcal more than conventional cotton growers. These farmers also consumed more nutritious foods, such as fruit and vegetables.

With the Bt cotton providing resistance to bollworms, the farmers were able to raise high yields. These high yields led to higher incomes for the farmers, who in turn, could spend the income on nutritious foods. While the Bt cotton is not eliminating food security issues, it is definitely helping as only eight percent of the Bt cotton farmers were food insecure while 20 percent of the conventional farmers were food insecure.

A second article, GM Crops and Food Security by Dr. Jonas Kathage, touched on the research done by Qaim and Kouser. Dr. Kathage is an agricultural economist who earned his Ph.D. from the University of Gottingen. He also works as an independent consultant for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which sponsors policies that improve economic and social conditions for people around the world.

Dr. Kathage noted that large pockets of those facing food insecurities live in rural areas, and are often involved in agriculture. They cannot grow enough food to eat or sell to survive. Turning to GM crops, such as Bt cotton, may be a solution.

GM crops may not fix all food insecurity issues for people around the world, but they may be an option for people to better themselves and find more food security.


Kathage, J. (2013, June 7). GM crops and food security « Biology Fortified, Inc..Biology Fortified, Inc.. Retrieved July 17, 2013, from http://www.biofortified.org/2013/06/gm-crops-and-food-security/
Qaim, M., & Kouser, S. (2013). Genetically Modified Crops and Food Security. Plos ONE, 8(6), 1-7. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0064879 Retrieved July 17, 2013, http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy.sau.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=88908165&site=ehost-live
Sizer, F., & Whitney, E. (2013). Nutrition: concepts & controversies (13th ed.). Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Where is Your Next Meal Coming From?

As I look out my window, I can see four different fields without even moving from my spot.  Some contain corn, while others contain beans.  If I drive down the road a few miles I would notice a hay field as well as some wheat, and many fields of corn and beans in between.  Living in an environment like this it is hard to think how people could say that the agricultural business is lagging behind in many areas of the world.  However, an article published on September 16, 2012 in the New York Times claims that agriculture in many areas of the world, including many countries in Africa, is far more expensive to produce than what people realize (Cowen, 2012).  The article blames many different areas for this expense, including extremely high fertilizer prices, sub-par soil, and tight restrictions on agricultural products.  In a time when many are trying to fight world hunger, these problems aren't helping.  Africa has often been known for some of the poorest countries in the world (Sizer & Whitney, 2013).  These countries are also the places that have some of the worst soil, but are paying two to four times more for fertilizer than the rest of the world (Cowen, 2012). As many people work to fix this problem, Tyler Cowen, author of the article published in the New York Times,suggests that we quit using our corn to make bio-fuels to run our cars.  He claims that, when all other costs are taken into consideration, the savings to the global environment are nearly insignificant, and that using corn in this way is adding to the cause of rising corn prices.  He argues that the corn that is being used to fuel our cars would be better used to feed people around the world.

Another study, which was published in New Biotechnology on November 30, 2010, claims that even though the Global Hunger Index, or GHI, fell from 18.7% in 1990 to 15.2% in 2008, there in still a lot of work to be done.  In 1990 there was an estimated 823 million people undernourished in developing countries.  However, in a study done from 2002-2005, that number increased to an estimated 848 million people (Von Braun, 2010).  According to the article, the price of wheat and maize tripled from 2003 to 2008, making it even more difficult for those in developing countries to get the food that they needed at a reasonable cost.  In some countries of the world, it takes everything that a family has in order to find food to eat that day (Sizer & Whitney, 2013).  Unlike many things that we take for granted in the United States, such as air conditioning, running water, and toilets, food is something that people cannot live without.  If we can't find a way to help those undernourished people find food, wherever they are in the world, we are going to be facing an increased number of mortality rates due to starvation. 

Many of us, including myself, don't know what it's like to not know where the next meal is going to come from.  When we get hungry we simply open the fridge and see what there is to eat.  However, many people in parts of the world don't even know what a refrigerator is, let alone are they able to afford one.  Living in the Midwest it is also hard to imagine how agricultural products, such as corn and beans, can be a rarity.  However, in other parts of the world, where the cost to produce these products is too high to afford, they don't know what it's like to have a farm in their back yard.  The world must come together as one and put more emphasis on finding a solution to world hunger, or we will simply continue to watch more and more people die because they can't find the money to afford their next meal.

Lastly, staggering statistics of the "poorest poor" can be found in our textbook.  The "poorest poor" survive on less than two dollars a day, and spend nearly 80% of their total income on food.  Even with spending that much, they are still malnourished (Sizer & Whitney, 2013).  A statistic published in Nutrition: Concepts and Controversies in 2013 states that, "the average U.S. house cat eats twice as much protein every day as one of these people, and the yearly cost of keeping that cat is greater than that person's annual income" (Sizer & Whitney, 2013).  Statistics like these are eye opening.  It is a slap in the face to many of us in the United States that it is time to stand up and start doing something to end the fight against hunger. 

   

Cowen, T. (September 12, 2012). World Hunger: The Problem Left Behind. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/business/world-hunger-the-problem-left-behind-economic-view.html?_r=0

Sizer, F., & Whitney, E. (2013). Nutrition: concepts & controversies (13th ed.). Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Von Braun, J. (November 30, 2010). Food Insecurity, Hunger and Malnutrition: Necessary Policy and Technology Changes. New Biotechnology, 27(5). Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871678410005546

Is Organic Farming the Future of Food Production?

As increasing numbers of people become more conscious of both nutrition and environmental concerns, organic farming and its products have received more and more national and global attention.  For example, $4 billion of organic goods were sold in 1997 and by 2008 the total had climbed to $21 billion (Sizer & Whitney, 2012 p.468).  Organic farming prohibits the use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, growth regulators, and livestock feed additives.  It is important for sustainable agriculture, food quality, soil and environmental health (Akbaba, Sahin, & Turkez, 2012 p.783).  Moreover, the growing problem of feeding our world's population faces the challenge of producing additional food while attempting to minimize its environmental impacts.  For some, organic farming, "a system aimed at producing food with minimal harm to ecosystems, animals, or humans", appears to be part of the solution (Seufert, Ramankutty, & Foley, 2012 p.229).  Some of the principle differences between organic and conventional farming methods can be found in the graphic below.

A study by Seufert, Ramankutty, and Foley (2012) has investigated the yields of both organic and conventional farms in order to determine if organic farming is able to keep up with food supply demands while not using addition land.  "It is widely accepted that high yield is essential to sustainable food security on a finite land basis" (Seufer, RamanKutty, & Foley, 2012 p.229).  Good results for organic farms appeared to be dependent on the presence and quantity of nitrogen, while conventional farms were not impacted by this element.  This is probably due to the fact that conventional farms utilize chemical fertilizers that provide additional nitrogen to the soil while organic farms abstain from using chemicals.  Nevertheless, the results revealed that organic yields for legumes and perennials were equal to that of conventional farms.  Sadly, in other cases, organic farms were not able to consistently match the yields of conventional farming, limiting its usefulness as a sustainable agriculture method on a large scale.  However, most importantly, the study indicated that normally organic farming simply requires more knowledge and good management techniques than conventional farming.  Therefore, this study's results seem to indicate the need for a "hybrid" method of farming as a feasible solution for meeting global needs.  

Nutrient content, another factor of organic products often considered by consumers, is explored in Akbaba, Sahin, and Turkez's study (2012).  The quantity of 27 elements was evaluated in both organically and conventionally grown pistachios in order to determine if a certain farming technique resulted in higher nutrient contents.  The results indicated that the organic pistachios contained greater amounts of calcium, iron, manganese, phosphorous, magnesium, chlorine, sodium and potassium.  In addition, conventionally grown pistachios were found to contain greater amounts of harmful metals such as aluminum.  This particular study appears to demonstrate the possible higher nutritional mineral content of organic products as well as the harmful substances sometimes present in conventionally farmed products.  

While organic farming appears to have some benefits, the sustainability of agriculture is something that needs to be considered as more important than in the past.  Sustainable agriculture is "the idea that a food system should maintain the health of the land, water, plants, animals, humans, and natural resources for generations to come" (Looking Beyond Organics to Sustainability a Growing Food Movement, 2010).  Organic farming strives to achieve healthy soils, plants, animals, and people, yet these goals are not always achievable for large scale production (http://www.ipni.net/ppiweb/agbrief.nsf/5a4b8be72a35cd46852568d9001a18da/e8d48113660c218985256c870011acef!OpenDocument).  Just as the study by Seufer, RamanKutty, and Foley pointed out, a combination of farming techniques will need to be utilized in the future in order to better feed the world's population and to preserve natural resources for future generations.  Overall, despite the recent popularity of organic foods, they may not always be the best choice and scientific, social, economical, and environmental factors will all play a part in the future of food production.  

Sizer, F.S. and Whitney, E. (2012).  Nutrition: Concepts and Controversies.  United States: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N., & Foley, J. A. (2012). Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature, 485(7397), 229-232. doi:10.1038/nature11069

Akbaba, U., Şahin, Y., & Türkez, H. (2012). Element content analysis by WDXRF in pistachios grown under organic and conventional farming regimes for human nutrition and health. Toxicology & Industrial Health, 28(9), 783-788. doi:10.1177/0748233711422734

Looking Beyond Organics to Sustainability a Growing Food Movement. (2010). Environmental Nutrition, 33(6), 3.

http://www.ipni.net/ppiweb/agbrief.nsf/5a4b8be72a35cd46852568d9001a18da/e8d48113660c218985256c870011acef!OpenDocument

Can Money Decrease Risk of Obesity?

 

Over recent decades, childhood obesity has been on the rise. Some researchers say that we are starting to level off, but others say that this epidemic is still a major concern. So what is it that is causing this trend? Many believe that it is due to the fact that kids are eating more and moving less. In all actuality, this is probably the truth. Combined with delicious processed foods that have been brought to store shelves, it is understandable why more and more children are becoming obese.

 

According to a study that was published in The American Journal of Public Health in November of 2010, during the past 30 years, childhood obesity rates have risen from 6% in the early 1970's to 17% in 2004 (Babey et al, 2010). These numbers are astonishing when you take a moment to think about it. Childhood obesity is a scary situation because it can lead to a number of other health problems down the road. These complications can include hypertension, heart disease, and type two diabetes. Though some of the complications caused by childhood obesity can be treated, many cannot be cured. Just because you take medication to lower your blood pressure doesn't mean that the problem isn't there.

 

After understanding the complications associated with childhood obesity, let's take a look at what puts a child at risk. First, many people believe that those children who have obese parents are at an increased risk of becoming obese themselves. This could be due to the fact that there are not healthy foods in the household because the parents don't eat them. It could also be due to the fact that the parents may be inactive, and therefore the children are sedentary as well. Without the support and motivation of their parents, most children won't get up and be active. The parents may also not be educating their children of the proper steps in leading a healthy life. If their parents don't tell them that it is healthy to get up and be active, how are they supposed to know? In these situations, a lot of times the blame can be placed on the parents.

 

Finally, there has also been a suspected link between low-income families and an increased risk of obesity. Many studies have supported this idea, including an article in The American Journal of Public Health in November of 2010, as well as an article published in CNNHealth in May of 2012. Though there are many reasons as to why this could be, many people believe that it is due to the fact that low-income families can't afford healthy food. I believe that this is often a misconception. If you look in the right places, it is possible to find cheap, nutritious food that is healthy for the body. Many times I believe that it may come down to the fact that the parents are so busy trying to work and support the family that they don't have time to make a healthy, home-cooked meal. Though this is sad to think about, in many cases, it is the reality.

 

If five different parents were asked why their child were overweight or obese, it is very likely that you would get five different answers. Regardless of what the reason is, we must start battling this epidemic. Though some believe that we have reached a plateau in this problem, we now need to do something to reverse it. Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" campaign is a step in the right direction to get children to get up and get moving. Our country must start taking responsibility for getting children started off on the right foot and leading them into a healthy life.

 

 

Babey, S., Hastert, T., Wolstein, J., Diamant, L. (November 2010) . Income Disparities in Obesity Trents Among California Adolescents. The American Journal of Public Health, 100 (11). Retrieved from http://www.calendow.org/uploadedFiles/Publications/Publications_Stories/4146_income_disparities_obesity_trends.pdf

 

Harding, A. (May 1, 2012). As Childood Obesity Improves, Will Kids In Poverty Be Left Behind? CNNHealth. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/01/health/childhood-obesity-poverty

 

Huber, B. (July 18, 2012). Michelle Obama's Moves. The Nation. Retrieved from http://www.thenation.com/article/170485/michelle-obamas-moves

 

Sizer, F. & Whitney, E. (2013) Nutrition: concepts & controversies (13th ed, p. 545-552). Belmont, Calif: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

 



Breastfeeding's Influence on Childhood Obesity

As a mother of two children, I had to come to the decision to breastfeed or formula feed.  I had heard the benefits of breastfeeding, for both the mother and child, from weight loss to preventing obesity.  I decided to breastfeed both my children at birth.

Breastfeeding was a HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE experience from the beginning with my first child.  I could not get her to latch on and it took my mom and husband to help pry her hands away from her face and get her to attach.  We continued this for the next two weeks before finding out she wasn’t gaining enough weight and I had to supplement.  I continued trying to breastfeed, but it became too easy to give her a bottle, so I stopped breastfeeding at seven weeks.

I felt awful.  I felt like a bad parent, who was letting her child down by not providing the best nourishment for her.

When I became pregnant with my son, I decided I was going to breastfeed him, and it was going to work this time.  In the hospital, I had no problems.  It just seemed to get harder when we got home.  I visited a lactation consultant who said my son was tongue-tied which caused the problems.  We had his tongue clipped but it was still a challenge.

I continued until his two-month appointment when we learned he was not gaining enough weight.  I decided to breastfed and supplement.  It worked.  I continued to give him 75 percent breast milk and supplemented with 25 percent formula.  I continued this until he was nine-months old.  Now at 10 months, he is formula fed because my supply dwindled.  Even though they both received formula, neither of my children seems to have weight issues.  I know several other individuals who have been exclusively formula fed and are healthy individuals.

I reviewed two articles on breastfeeding and the link to children avoiding obesity.  Both articles where written about recent studies done on breastfeeding and the link to obesity in children. The first article appeared in TIME in March of 2013. It was a discussion about Dr. Richard Martin’s 12 years of research of 15,000 mothers in Belarus. The women were divided into two groups.  One group was educated and supported with breastfeeding while in the hospital, and the other group received no support with breastfeeding after the birth of their child.  The researchers examined the children three different times, at the ages of one, six-and-a-half, and eleven-and-a-half.  While the breastfed children tended to have fewer gastrointestinal infections, less eczema, and higher IQs, they had no significant advantage in avoiding obesity.  Nearly five percent of the children in each group were considered obese.

These results differed from previous research which showed breastfed children were less likely to become obese than their formula-fed counterparts.  This was believed to occur because breastfed children learned to eat until they were full.  Formula-fed children instinctively ate until the bottle was empty.  However, previous studies allowed mothers to choose breastfeeding or formula feeding, while this study in Belarus randomly assigned them to one group or the other.  When allowed to choose, mothers who choose to breastfeed typically have higher education levels and make different dietary choices than mothers who feed with formula.  This can impact future risks of obesity.

The next article I reviewed was in contrast to the TIME article. Dr. Wendy H. Oddy examined and summarized several research studies to come to the conclusion that breastfeeding has an impact on future obesity.  Infants who are breastfed are less likely to become obese later in their childhood than infants who are formula fed.

The various studies came up with several different reasons.  Thanks to containing lower protein levels, breastfeeding promotes slower growth than formula feeding.  It also creates lower plasma insulin levels that lead to less fat storage.  While the first article argued against this, Dr. Oddy wrote that breastfed infants learn to eat until they are full.  Formula-fed infants tend to drink to empty the bottle.  Because of this, formula-fed infants eat larger meals, as much as 20-30 percent more than breastfed infants.  All of these factors are believed to give breastfed infants a better chance at avoiding obesity later in childhood.

There seems to be no doubt that breastfeeding has several benefits for infants.  However, links to obesity need to be examined further.  There are just too many variables that come into play to determine if breastfeeding truly has an impact. 

Oddy, W. H. (2012). Infant feeding and obesity risk in the child. Breastfeeding Review, 20(2), 7-12. Retrieved July 8, 2013, from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=201162244&site=ehost-live

Rochman, B. (2013, March 13). Breastfeeding’s Role in Controlling Obesity Is Weakened. TIME.com. Health & Family: A healthy balance of the mind, body and spirit TIME.com. Retrieved July 10, 2013, from http://healthland.time.com/2013/03/13/breastfeedings-role-in-controlling-obesity-is-weakened/

Sizer, F., & Whitney, E. (2013). Nutrition: concepts & controversies (13th ed.). Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Caffeine and Pregnancy

It is clear that nutrition is exceedingly  important during pregnancy, and after reading Chapter 13 I wished to further explore the effects of caffeine on pregnancy.  Caffeine is the most widely consumed stimulant in the world (Derbyshire & Abdula, 2008).  As a stimulant, it increases blood pressure and heart rate and, as a diuretic, reduces body fluid levels, which can lead to dehydration.  Each of these conditions is undesirable during pregnancy, making the careful consumption of caffeine during pregnancy important for these reasons alone.  Moreover, caffeine is able to cross the placenta, exposing the developing fetus to its effects ("Caffeine Intake During Pregnancy", 2013).  The baby is unable to metabolize caffeine as efficiently as the mother and caffeine metabolites have been found to build up in the fetal brain (Sengpiel, et al., 2013).  

While 75% of the world's caffeine consumption comes from coffee, the American Pregnancy Association cautions that caffeine is found in more than just coffee (Derbyshire & Abdula, 2008).  Other common sources include tea, chocolate, and headache medications.  Moderate caffeine consumption during pregnancy is considered safe by many experts and is defined as 150-300 mg/day ("Caffeine Intake During Pregnancy", 2013).  Nevertheless, the recommended upper intake level in the U.S. is 450 mg/day, which is 150 mg higher than the UK's 300 mg/day recommendation (Derbyshire & Abdula, 2008).  These discrepancies in recommendations simply underscore the need for continuing research on the effects that caffeine has on pregnancy.  

One study, conducted by Sengpiel et al. (2013), hoped to determine the relationship between caffeine and gestational length and birth weight.  While the average caffeine intake reported by the 59,123 mothers that were surveyed was well below the recommended 150-300 mg/day, caffeine intake still appeared to consistently lower birth weight.  10% of the women surveyed reportedly consumed greater than 200 mg/day of caffeine and this was associated with a 60% greater risk of the baby being small for its gestational length, which is linked to increased chances of neonatal mortality.  Increased caffeine intake was correlated to smoking, both behaviors that increase risk factors during pregnancy.  The study concluded by recommending that the current recommendations for caffeine consumption during pregnancy be re-evaluated in order to better ensure the health of both mother and child.  

Another study that I examined chose to research the effects of caffeine on women of childbearing age in general, not just those that are pregnant.  The research report by Derbyshire and Abdula (2008) was entitled “Habitual caffeine intake in women of childbearing age” and hoped to further current research that points to decreasing fertility and increased miscarriages due to caffeine.  The women surveyed in this study averaged 173 mg of caffeine a day and 18% of the women exceeded 300 mg/day.  As in the other study, increased caffeine consumption was also linked to smoking.  High caffeine diets may result in delayed conception, infertility and increased risk of osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease and cancer for women later in life, yet many women are unaware of these risks.  Steps need to be taken in order to inform the public about the possibly harmful effects of caffeine on women of childbearing age.  This study revealed that women who had been educated on the effects of caffeine consumed less, suggesting that proper education about these risks could significantly reduce caffeine consumption in women of childbearing age.  

Overall, just as our textbook suggests, limiting caffeine consumption during pregnancy appears to be the most sensible course of action.  As other sources indicate, limiting caffeine during women's childbearing years as well may have a positive effect on their health and ability to carry healthy children.  I believe additional research should be conducted in order to establish more accurate upper intake limits during pregnancy as well as for the general public.  Nevertheless, increased public education on the known harmful effects of caffeine appears to be one way to positively impact the health of our nation.  

Sizer, F.S. and Whitney, E. (2012).  Nutrition: Concepts and Controversies.  United States: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Sengpiel, V., Elind, E., Bacelis, J., Nilsson, S., Grove, J., Myhre, R., & ... Brantsæter, A. (2013). Maternal caffeine intake during pregnancy is associated with birth weight but not with gestational length: results from a large prospective observational cohort study. BMC Medicine, 11(1), 1-18. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-42

Derbyshire, E. E., & Abdula, S. S. (2008). Habitual caffeine intake in women of childbearing age. Journal Of Human Nutrition & Dietetics, 21(2), 159-164. doi:10.1111/j.1365-277X.2008.00859.x

http://americanpregnancy.org/pregnancyhealth/caffeine.html

Performance Enhancers or Added Calories?

In recent years, there has been a lot of controversy about whether or not sports drinks can assist athletes in their performance.  Some say yes, they do, others say they don't at all, and still others say that they only help after a certain level of activity. So who do we believe? Many people have tried to answer this question with different studies.  One study, which was published in the Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics in May of 2011 stated that, "for the average child engaged in routine physical activity, the use of sports drinks in place of water on the sports field or in the school lunchroom is generally unnecessary."  Keeping in mind that this article is solely about children and adolescents, it points out some good information.    Many children, though maybe active, are not active enough to qualify drinking sports drinks.  Generally, these types of drinks are most effective after being vigorously physically active for at least two hours.  The types of activities that last this long, such as marathons and triathlons, are activities that not many children are involved in.  Activities such as soccer, baseball, and basketball that children and adolescents are generally involved in usually give the participants a break at the end of the inning, period, or quarter.  

Certain studies show that sports drinks are only effective after certain duration of activity.  The question is, what is that limit?  People often give a definitive answer, such as two hours.  However, I believe that the time where the drinks become effective is different from person to person.  For example, two people could be in the gym working out next to each other for the exact same amount of time.  However, one could be walking at 3.5 miles per hour, while the other is running at 6.5 miles per hour.  Though both workout for two hours, the person who is continuously running is going to be working harder than the person that is walking.  Because of this, their body is burning nutrients faster, and therefore could use the electrolytes and other micro-nutrients from the sports drinks sooner.  Another example is if two people were both walking at 3.5 miles an hour for two hours. For one, this is the first day of physical activity in nearly five years.  For the other, however, it is simply an off day and they are walking while their child is in gymnastics.  In this case, the beginner is going to work harder than the routine exerciser, and therefore will be able to utilize the sports drinks earlier.  This same idea is suggested by a lady who was interviewed in an article published on ABCNews in August of 2012.  She stated, "Are sports drinks appropriate for everyone? Absolutely not. Are they appropriate for some people? Absolutely so. And I think that determination has to be made on an individual, case by case basis."  As with most things in life, we cannot set a certain time for everyone.  There may be an average or a suggestion, but in reality, the time will vary from person to person.  

Obviously, sports drinks can be beneficial when taken in the right circumstances.  After an intense, vigorous, and long-lasting workout, the electrolytes and other nutrients in the drinks can be very rewarding.  However, many people abuse them by taking them to simply quench thirst or to enjoy the beverage.  In these situations, the drinks simply add unwanted calories to the diet.  We must learn to educate the public as to when to take these drinks in order to get the true benefits of the drink.  

(2011) Clinical Report-Sports Drinks and Energy Drinks for Children and Adolescents: Are They Appropriate? Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics.  Retrieved July 5 from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/05/25/peds.2011-0965.full.pdf+html

Avila, J. (2012). Study: Sports Drink Science Is Self-Serving. ABCNews. Retrieved July 4 from http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Exercise/study-sports-drink-science-serving/story?id=16939249#.UdeMqPk4uSo

Sizer, F., & Whitney, E. (2013). Nutrition: concepts & controversies (13th ed.). Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.