The Tailball Range is available in five varieties giving you the option to play outdoors, indoors, with a net, or as an alternative to a traditional Frisbee or ball.

Tailball Back Pack Attack

The perfect game for those who prefer a net game – it is a lightweight back pack complete with two Tailball bats, a Tailball and a net!   Great for in the park, at home in the garden or on the beach. Approximate RRP £29.99

Tailball Extreme

Want more from your Tailball?  Tailball Extreme is strictly for outdoor play and the perfect game for any picnic or BBQ. Approximate RRP £14.99

Tailball Light

Raining?  Don’t worry, you can still get your Tailball fix with Tailball Light – a game that can be played both indoors and outside. Approximate RRP £12.99

Tailball Flyer

Like a game of frisbee but find it a bit dull?  Then Tailball Flyer is the game for you. Approximate RRP £8.99

Tailball Rocket Zoomer

Add a bit of flair to the traditional throw and catch game with Tailball Rocket Zoomer. Approximate RRP £9.99

Road Testing the Tailball Light

Firstly the ball comes in its own protective container and as it’s made from foam and weighs only 12g, doesn’t hurt when it hits you on your head. Secondly the tail provides flight control and actually seems to slow the ball down making it easier to prepare for your return shot. As the Tailball is an ideal activity to get kids moving I thought I’d better get some under 12’s to help me test it. I took a Tailball Light to a summer sports scheme to get a variety of ages to have a go as it is recommended as suitable for ages 3 upwards. First a few 7 year olds had a go. It took them about 15 minutes to work out how to serve as it requires serving like a badminton shuttlecock with the ball being dropped onto the racket, whereas they insisted on throwing it into the air like a tennis ball to serve and ended up hitting the tail. Surprisingly they didn’t get frustrated and soon got quite a long rally going. They probably needed an area 10x10m to play in and if a hit did go wide it didn’t bother people it landed on. The adult instructors then had a go. They picked it up straight away and the tail ensured that whilst the Tailball could travel a long distance and required a lot of running around to hit it, even if they tried to smash it, it didn’t fall dangerously hard onto someone’s head. Then the 12 year olds had a go and unfortunately this is where the trial ended. They too picked up the concept of how to serve but they couldn’t direct the ball. Instead of hitting it across the room they hit it skywards and after a few minutes it ended up on a beam of the sports hall roof. The ’tail’ of the Tailball is made up of a number of plastic like streamers and after about 30minutes of regular use, three had already fallen off. Although the set with the racket and Tailball is relatively cheap, I think that if they sell packs of spare Tailballs, they would be useful to buy as I imagine that the lifespan of the Tailball itself is quite short either through regular play removing the tail streamers or with it getting lost in a tree or over a fence.

Overall

An original alternative to traditional ball or Frisbee games. The combination of the tail and light weight ball makes it more suitable for playing in public areas where a traditional ball may hurt if it hits someone or roll away. Because of the tail however, it does travel further and higher than a traditional ball. This does make you run about more and get more exercise but also means it could get stuck high up or lost. Also as the ‘tail’ easily falls off the ‘ball’ it will need replacing quite frequently, although this is probably taken into with the low RRP and a Manufacturer’s helpline available is if you require spare parts. Call 01525 722716 if you require assistance. The Tailball range is available to purchase from Amazon with a Tailball net set also available from John Lewis.

ASA claim this advert was misleading

Today’s upholding of a complaint by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) supports my view that you should investigate claims of health benefits of products you supplement your diet with, to ensure you don’t waste your time, money or even damage your health.

The TV advert in question is for Actimel, a pro-biotic drinking yoghurt intended to be consumed by every one of all ages. One viewer had challenged whether the claim by the ad voice-over that “Actimel was scientifically proven to help support your kids’ defences” could be substantiated.

In their defence to the ASA, Danone claimed that the health benefits of Actimel had been demonstrated in 23 human studies conducted on over 6000 people across different age ranges, with eight studies carried out on children up to 16 years of age.

Danone claimed that the health benefit of Actimel is through the support of the human body’s natural defence system, helping to protect against pathogens and harmful environmental factors, as some of the most important defence systems are located within the gastrointestinal tract. Danone said they had referred to Actimel as being “scientifically proven” in their ads based on a significant body of published scientific evidence that showed that Actimel supported the natural defences of different age groups, including children.

The ASA thought that the ad suggested through the image of an Actimel bottle jumping over a skipping rope and the sound of children laughing and playing implies that the product is intended for normal, healthy children of school age (five to sixteen years old). The ASA also considered that most consumers would understand the claim that Actimel “was scientifically proven to support your kids’ defences” to mean that the product would help defend those children against common, every-day childhood infections. Whilst Danone submitted scientific studies in support of the claims, they were not involving subjects who could be considered ‘normal, healthy children of school age’.

• One study examined the effect of Actimel on hospitalised children in India suffering from acute diarrhoea another involved those receiving medication for chronic Helicobacter pylori. Both trials were considered to be unsuitable for use in support of a claim that was likely to be seen as referring to normal, healthy children.
• Children in another study assessed the effect of Actimel on the occurrence and duration of a range of symptoms, including asthma, rhinitis, diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting, abdominal pains and fever, in children aged two to five years who suffered from allergic conditions. Again meaning the results of the study could not necessarily be applied to normal, healthy children.
• Three other trials were on children between the ages of 6 and 33 months, much lower than the target group of school-age children suggested by the ad. The ASA understood that the developing immune systems of children under two differed from those of older children, and so did not think that it could be safely assumed that the results reported for the young children in these studies would be the same for school-aged children.
• A further area of concern was the portion sizes used in the studies. The children in some studies were supplemented with portion sizes that were larger than the recommended serving size of one 100 g pot of Actimel per day. The observed benefit for Actimel in the clinical trials might not therefore, be representative of the effect of the product when consumed on an ‘everyday’ basis.

The ASA considered that the ad was making an absolute claim that Actimel would support the defences of children, and that the reference to “your kids” was implying to consumers that Actimel would benefit their child.

The ASA understood that some children would not see a benefit from consuming Actimel, and because were concerned that any observed effects for Actimel in the trials might not be representative of the efficacy of the product when consumed in line with the recommended daily serving. It was concluded that a serving of Actimel was not scientifically proven to support the defences of normal, healthy school-aged children against common, every-day childhood infections and that the ad was misleading.

The ASA have ruled that the ad must not be broadcast again in its current form. Whilst there is no suggestion that this product could damage anyone’s health, the findings of the ASA support my previous articles on supplement efficacy and safety: Even with claims of supporting scientific evidence, many products may only benefit specific groups of people. Before you waste your money on ‘healthy’ products, consider if you are actually deficient in the nutrients they are supplying?  If they can cure illnesses, is it something you are suffering from? Do you fit the target group scientific studies have shown benefit in? If in any doubt consult a healthcare professional.