런치 대 런처블: 건강 주장 및 영양 분석

### 런치 대 런처블: 유명인의 식품에 대한 영양 분석
* 🍽 KSI, 미스터비스트, 로건 폴은 런처블과 경쟁하기 위해 **런치리라는 새로운 식품**을 출시했지만 초기 반응은 냉담합니다.
* 📉 비평가들은 런처블이 어린이들에게 인기가 있지만 **'초가공식품'**이며 **나트륨, 포화지방, 첨가당 함량이 높아 영양가에 대한 우려**가 높다고 지적합니다.
* 🔬 연구에 따르면 **초가공식품을 섭취하면 비만 위험이 최대 50%까지 증가**하고 암과도 관련이 있을 수 있다고 합니다.
* 📊 런치리는 더 건강한 대안이라고 주장하지만, 비교 결과 **키트당 230칼로리에 불과**해 여전히 USDA 영양 기준에 미치지 못하며 적절한 에너지 섭취를 위해서는 여러 번 섭취해야 하는 것으로 나타났습니다.
* 런치리에는 설탕이 적고 진짜 치즈를 사용하지만 **포화지방이 상당량 함유**되어 있고 어린이 점심에 필수적인 **통곡물 성분이 부족**합니다.
* ⚖ 비타민 함량이 높아지는 등 일부 개선 사항이 있긴 하지만, 런치리의 전반적인 영양 프로필은 **런처블의 영양 프로필을 의미 있게 능가하지 못한다**는 점입니다.
* 🗣 궁극적으로 제작자를 향한 비판은 부당할 수 있지만, 진정으로 건강한 제품을 만들기 위해서는 **정해진 영양 가이드라인을 준수**하는 것이 중요합니다.
* 👩 제작자는 제품의 영양 메시지를 개선하고 어린이 건강 기준을 충족할 수 있도록 **건강 전문가를 고용하는 것**을 고려할 것을 권장합니다.

KSI, 미스터비스트, 로건 폴의 런치리는 런처블보다 더 건강하다는 주장에도 불구하고 아이들의 영양을 크게 개선하지 못할 수 있습니다.

- KSI, MrBeast, and Logan Paul have announced they were teaming up and launching a new food product called Lunchly to compete with the Uber-popular kids brand Lunchables, and the reception has been less than stellar. Many creators took to social media to criticize the product, and the creators themselves, Logan and Jimmy, were quick to push back on the critics with their own posts, and in the process, created newsworthy headlines like- - [Reporter] YouTube stars are coming for your kids' lunch. It's a move that has MrBeast, Logan Paul, and KSI teaming up to take on Lunchables. - And I usually don't make videos discussing creators' products, but in terms like healthier or better for you get tossed around, I feel it's important to set the record straight. So in the spirit of avoiding personal attacks, let's take a look at the science of Lunchly.

including a true issue with their kits. I don't think anyone has correctly pointed out yet. For those who may not know, Lunchables are basically these pre-packaged do-it-yourself meal kits. They've usually got things like crackers, deli meats, cheeses, treats, and come with a little drink. And since their inception, they've been super popular with kids. However, it's been known, especially by experts, that while these kits are fun and tasty, their nutritional value is just not good. They're often too high in sodium, saturated fat, and added sugars, and don't use healthy whole food ingredients. And because they fall into the category of ultra-processed foods, they aren't healthy to consume often, period. Studies actually show that those consuming high amounts of UPFs can have up to 50% higher risk of developing obesity, and some specific UPFs are linked to increases in cancer. I see it even in my clinic,

So many of my pediatric patients are over-consuming UPFs, and it's becoming a growing problem across the country. Consumer reports even dedicated a special feature highlighting the problems with Lunchables and why they shouldn't be consumed regularly due to health risks. My own take on Lunchables: I don't recommend parents pack them for their kids on a daily basis, a low-quality food with poor nutritional value. But now, what about Lunchly? Starting with the first claim, in the press release announcing the product, Logan Paul was quoted as saying, Lunchly is a healthier alternative and that it's a better-for-you lunch option compared to Lunchables. In fact, throughout the Lunchly website and the social media promo posts, you'll see countless comparisons being made to Lunchables. To be honest, some of the comparisons are kind of cringe and don't make much sense to me, but maybe that's because I'm not the target demo.

Flavorful combos versus standard picks. The meal kit combos are nearly identical to Lunchables. Big gestures versus mid moments. I certainly don't remember that lesson in my nutrition classes. I was more concerned with the nutritional comparisons being made anyway, so if someone was to make a healthy meal kit for kids, I would find that incredibly valuable. And in looking in the comparison, I'd be most interested in calories, which they have, protein, which they have, sugar, which they have, saturated fat, which is missing, and sodium, which is not only missing but replaced by electrolytes, and unlike all the other macros, is only labeled potassium and only in the PRIME bottle in the kit, comparing it to the Capri-Sun in the Lunchables. This is a pretty weird marketing choice to label electrolytes and food products. It's such a strange choice that it even stunned fellow Dr. Brian Sutterer.

who tweeted- - [Announcer] Sodium getting rebranded as electrolytes will be taught in marketing textbooks one day. - And sadly was ashamed to see Logan attack instead of starting a meaningful dialogue with the doctor. Given that 400 milligrams is not the amount of electrolytes in PRIME. At least in the image that Logan shared, 400 milligrams of potassium plus 5 milligrams of sodium equals 405 milligrams of electrolytes. It's not about nitpicking, it's just about being reasonable and honest to help further the conversation. Look, if I wanna decide if a food is right for me, I like to be able to compare the entire electrolyte profile, which would have to include sodium. It's like having a PB and J sandwich label that says what's in the sandwich, you know, protein, fats, calories, but then the sugar line only tells you what's in the peanut butter.

as opposed to the jelly and the entire sandwich. I wanted to go further and do the comparisons myself using the nutrition facts from the Lunchables and Lunchly websites, and it's honestly really hard to draw perfectly clear conclusions for several reasons. One, I don't have nutrition facts for each part of the kits. For example, how many calories come from Feastables versus the food component. Second, some of the portion sizes aren't the same. The Turkey Cracker kit from Lunchables is 82 grams while Lunchly's is 72 grams. Three, there are so many varieties of Lunchables that just swapping out the flavor of Capri-Sun cost significant differences in sugar and calorie content. What I was able to conclude is that Lunchly has less sugar and therefore, less calories than Lunchables in comparable kits. That's probably due to the drink component of the kit, as Capri-Sun uses sugar and PRIME is artificially sweetened.

Lunchly has significantly more potassium than Lunchables because of the PRIME drink, which I guess is good, but not something I'd regularly use in deciding if a food is an ideal lunch for a kid. Lunchly has slightly less sodium and saturated fat than comparable Lunchables. That's definitely moving in the right direction. However, both differences were fairly small. Lunchly does use real cheese as opposed to cheese product, signaling that at least one ingredient is less processed than in Lunchables, but the entirety of the kit is still considered an ultra-processed meal. Lunchly has higher amounts of A and B vitamins, which can be good, but also can be problematic as vitamin A is a fat-soluble vitamin and kids can easily overconsume it, leading to toxicity. Being that it's fat-soluble means that you can't just urinate excess out. This has actually been raised as an issue by experts.

with PRIME in general. Despite these legitimate upgrades, social media posts are slamming Lunchly for not being perfect, but Lunchly does not need to be perfect to be valuable for kids. It just needs to be significantly healthier in order to reduce risk. As a doctor, I use risk reduction all the time, essentially taking something harmful and replacing it with something less harmful but still imperfect. As an example, I would never recommend starting vaping, but getting someone to replace smoking cigarettes with vaping is generally a good step down in terms of health risk. Knowing all that, is it fair to say that Lunchly is healthier? I guess one can say, yes, but honestly, probably more so as a marketing tactic. The reason why, well, let's look at the recently past nutrition standards set forth by the USDA for school lunches and see how Lunchly compares. Going line by line here, less than 10% of calories should come from saturated fat.

Lunchly Turkey, 23% of calories come from saturated fat. Less than 10% of calories should come from added sugars. Lunchly Turkey, 10.4 comes from added sugars, but this is where things get really interesting and for some reason, no one has pointed this out. You see USDA caloric guidelines say that a lunch meal for kids K-8 should contain around 625 calories. Kids need energy to function and calories give them that energy. Lunchly Turkey contains only 230 calories, which would mean a kid would need to eat about 2.7 portions to consume enough calories, and if they did that, they'd get nearly 1300 milligrams of sodium, which is also significantly over the USDA standards, so they'd be either undereating calories or overeating sodium. Finally, the grain guidelines state that 80% of lunch meals must be whole grain, and Lunchly Turkey does not list

any whole grain ingredients. It's clear, Lunchly, just like Lunchables, misses the mark too many times to be considered meaningfully healthier, at least in my opinion. That being said, I do think many criticisms pointed at Logan, KSI, and Jimmy are unfair. Attacking them for trying to create a successful influencer product isn't inherently problematic. I just think if a company was truly interested in creating a healthier lunch kit for kids, the USDA standard should be the minimum starting requirements, otherwise, we're simply propagating the problem even further. One of my hopes is that in navigating the future feedback on this company, the guys hire a health professional to guide them in making messaging more accurate. I just saw someone ask about heavy metal contamination and Logan responded with a video of an X-ray machine checking for foreign materials. That checks for stray objects accidentally getting into the meals, not heavy metal contaminations.

like we discussed earlier with Lunchables and lead. And saying a food has more electrolytes, therefore, it must be better or healthier, just not true. Foods with an incredibly high sodium content and electrolyte are not considered particularly healthy. In fact, many are considered unhealthy for that reason. I can't expect non-medical people to get this perfect, but if you're gonna stand by a children's food product being healthy, you need to hold your messaging to a higher standard. Eating a diet full of UPFs can lead to weight gain. Click here to see the harsh reality of life at 800 pounds and as always, stay happy and healthy. (upbeat music)

Doctor Reacts To The Lunchly Controversy

Dr. Mikhail "Mike" Varshavski D.O.
Actively Practicing Board Certified Family Medicine Doctor living in NYC
#1 Health/Medicine Influencer w/ 25,000,000+ followers
Aiming to make the field of medicine relatable, understandable, and fun! 

Executive Producer - Doctor Mike
Director of Production - Dan Owens
Managing Editor/Producer - Sam Bowers
Editor/Designer - Caroline Weigum
Editor - Juan Carlos Zuniga


Doctor Mike

KSI, 미스터비스트, 로건 폴의 런치리 출시

이 트리오는 런처블과 경쟁하기 위해 런치리를 출시했지만, 이 제품은 크리에이터와 전문가들로부터 비판을 받고 있습니다.

런처블은 재미있는 밀키트로 인기를 끌었지만 영양가가 낮아 건강상의 위험을 초래할 수 있습니다.

런처블리는 더 건강한 대안이라고 주장하지만 런처블리와 비교했을 때 반응이 엇갈리고 있습니다.

논란이 되고 있는 밀키트 마케팅

밀키트 콤보는 도시락과 비슷하며 영양 성분 표시가 투명하지 않습니다.

포화 지방과 나트륨과 같은 주요 영양소가 누락되어 있고, 나트륨은 전해질로 이름이 바뀌었습니다.

이러한 마케팅 선택은 비판과 혼란을 불러일으키며 식품 라벨링에 대한 보다 정직하고 포괄적인 접근 방식의 필요성을 강조하고 있습니다.

런처블과 런처리 키트의 영양성분은 제공량과 성분이 다르기 때문에 비교하기 어렵습니다.

런처블은 음료 성분으로 인해 런처블보다 당분이 적고 칼로리가 낮습니다.

런치블리는 실제 치즈와 더 많은 양의 비타민 A와 비타민 B를 제공하지만, 두 키트 모두 여전히 초가공 식품으로 간주되며 런치블리의 높은 비타민 A 함량은 어린이에게 과잉 섭취와 독성을 유발할 수 있습니다.

Lunchly의 건강 영향 및 영양 기준

런치리의 업그레이드가 소셜 미디어에서 비판을 받고 있지만, 완벽함보다는 위험 감소에 초점을 맞추고 있습니다.

이 회사의 칠면조 요리는 포화지방과 첨가당 함량이 USDA 가이드라인에서 권장하는 것보다 높고, 칼로리가 낮아 나트륨 과잉 섭취로 이어질 수 있습니다.

또한 Lunchly의 칠면조 식단은 USDA가 학교 급식에 대해 정한 통곡물 요건을 충족하지 않습니다.

Lunchly의 건강 주장에 대한 비판

런치블리는 런처블과 마찬가지로 통곡물 성분과 적절한 USDA 기준이 부족하여 의미 있는 건강식이라고 하기에는 부족합니다.

인플루언서 제품에 대한 로건, KSI, 지미에 대한 비판은 불공평하다고 여겨지지만, 회사의 메시지와 건강 주장은 더 정확해야 합니다.

더 많은 전해질이 더 나은 건강과 같다는 오해뿐만 아니라 건강 전문가를 고용하여 지침을 제공하고 메시지를 더 높은 기준으로 유지하는 것의 중요성이 강조됩니다.