Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Elementary School Gym teachers telling kids to restrict calories!
Options
Replies
-
Wow.. as a recovering bulimic this bothers me like crazy. Sounds like she's just projecting her problems on these innocent kids who at that age are like sponges. I'm all about promoting a healthy lifestyle for children (play, sports, more fruits & veggies, etc) but suggesting they count/burn off calories is absolutely insane. My heart breaks for these kids who are taught to worry about their appearance at such a young age. Awful.
You know as well as I do that it's not just about appearances. Childhood obesity and T2D are becoming very real problems, very quickly.4 -
The attitudes expressed here help explain why obesity is rampant in our young.
This is a trend we can't allow to persist
5 -
LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »Also to the ignorant people who keep saying it's the parents fault. I do not have an eating disorder. That was 10 years ago. Also no longer married to his biological father who had one. I don't diet or restrict food. I eat healthy but don't talk about fat or calories or bad foods.
So, you don't talk about basic nutrition with your kids? And, we wonder why kids have no clue, and why they have to teach it in school...
My daughters will be 17 in 2 months and I've never made much of an issue about fat or calories. We've discussed the need for milk/water over soda, fruit and veggies are important, and candy/cakes are a sometimes thing. Both girls are at a very healthy weight range. You don't have to make an issue about calories to teach nutrition. Besides, as has been discussed numerous times on this board nutrition is not the same as the number of calories consumed.
Basic nutrition is founded on caloric content. You track caloric intake first, then macros, then micros. This is basic nutritional information.
I mean hell, your name is LowCarb. I suppose that says enough.
By your logic my kids should be obese, then, and they're not. As for my being low carb, that is definitely about the nutrition first, calories second.
If they're not now, there's a good chance they'll be here, in the newbie section, in a few years, wondering why they are eating low-carb, but still not able to lose weight.
As for low-carb, that has naught to do with nutrition, really. You can get complete nutrition, without going low-carb. I know I pound back a great deal of carbs, am at a healthy weight, and hit all of my macros and micros.
Maybe they will be overweight, but they'll have a good idea of what is and isn't healthy eating. They do understand calories, but its not the main thing they're concerned about. Low carb does have something to do with nutrition for me as I'm diabetic and don't process a lot of carbs. I'm glad you've found what works for you, you might consider allowing others the same consideration.
Unfortunately, they wont have a clue, still, about what healthy eating really means, which boils down to: Hit your caloric goals, to maintain a healthy weight, hit your macro split regularly, and make sure you're getting the micros you need as well.
And yes, different macro splits work best for different people, I get that. But, it's not all about macro splits. The order of precedence is as I laid out above, and to not teach kids the foundations of nutrition (Which include calories) is a disservice, and setting them up for failure in the future.
With all due respect, you really don't have a clue what my kids do and don't know at this moment, or will know in the future. You're guessing based on a small amount of information. What I know is that my kids eat healthy, are healthy, and have a good relationship with food. I'm good with that. They know about calories, they can choose to count them or not. Seeing as they're very nearly adults I think that is their decision. As for macros, you brought up the low carb thing, not me. I simply explained why I do it.
I am making an educated assumption based on the information you've provided, ie, your children lack basic understanding of nutrition at it's fundamental level, and as such, are ill-equipped at this point in time to make good nutrition decisions in the future, and will likely fall victim to "fat logic" at some point in the future, much like most individuals who lack the same information.4 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Wow.. as a recovering bulimic this bothers me like crazy. Sounds like she's just projecting her problems on these innocent kids who at that age are like sponges. I'm all about promoting a healthy lifestyle for children (play, sports, more fruits & veggies, etc) but suggesting they count/burn off calories is absolutely insane. My heart breaks for these kids who are taught to worry about their appearance at such a young age. Awful.
You know as well as I do that it's not just about appearances. Childhood obesity and T2D are becoming very real problems, very quickly.
I absolutely agree with this, and I do believe nutrition should be taught in school, but having children become so focused on calorie counting so early in their lives just seems inappropriate to me. Teach them about proteins, carbs, healthy fats - the purpose they serve. Teach them that water is the healthiest option. Junk food should be eaten in moderation. Make sure you eat when you're hungry, not when you're bored. Move more, join sports, play outside, etc. Even things that are so basic like this would help make a difference in childhood obesity. I wouldn't want any teacher telling my child that she ate a few nuts for dinner as to not go above her calories, that's suggesting restriction. Restriction leads to wanting "bad" foods, wanting "bad" foods leads to binges, which leads to weight gain. It just seems like it's coming from a negative place to me from what the OP said. Bottom line, the real issue is that parents need to be educated & schools need to stop serving terrible foods to these kids.4 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Wow.. as a recovering bulimic this bothers me like crazy. Sounds like she's just projecting her problems on these innocent kids who at that age are like sponges. I'm all about promoting a healthy lifestyle for children (play, sports, more fruits & veggies, etc) but suggesting they count/burn off calories is absolutely insane. My heart breaks for these kids who are taught to worry about their appearance at such a young age. Awful.
You know as well as I do that it's not just about appearances. Childhood obesity and T2D are becoming very real problems, very quickly.
I absolutely agree with this, and I do believe nutrition should be taught in school, but having children become so focused on calorie counting so early in their lives just seems inappropriate to me. Teach them about proteins, carbs, healthy fats - the purpose they serve. Teach them that water is the healthiest option. Junk food should be eaten in moderation. Make sure you eat when you're hungry, not when you're bored. Move more, join sports, play outside, etc. Even things that are so basic like this would help make a difference in childhood obesity. I wouldn't want any teacher telling my child that she ate a few nuts for dinner as to not go above her calories, that's suggesting restriction. Restriction leads to wanting "bad" foods, wanting "bad" foods leads to binges, which leads to weight gain. It just seems like it's coming from a negative place to me from what the OP said. Bottom line, the real issue is that parents need to be educated & schools need to stop serving terrible foods to these kids.
I will absolutely agree with your last statement, and definitely the parts about physical activity.
I also tend to forget that few people are as robotic as I am, when it comes to food. I eat numbers based fuel, essentially. The whole boredom/emotional/inner child/social eating thing doesn't apply to me, so I will never understand those that deal with it. I've always been that way, I was just working with a flawed knowledge of the numbers, genetic beliefs, etc. for many years, that led to my being obese from ages ten to twenty-eight.1 -
If the gym teacher is just eating nuts for dinner, she should keep that to herself. Kids have enough pressure without worrying about body image. They should learn portion control, as should she is she ate all of her calories earlier in the day. They should learn whats good whats bad. Healthy habits, diet and exercise. Teacher needs a class or two in nutrition.
2 -
coreyreichle wrote: »LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »Also to the ignorant people who keep saying it's the parents fault. I do not have an eating disorder. That was 10 years ago. Also no longer married to his biological father who had one. I don't diet or restrict food. I eat healthy but don't talk about fat or calories or bad foods.
So, you don't talk about basic nutrition with your kids? And, we wonder why kids have no clue, and why they have to teach it in school...
My daughters will be 17 in 2 months and I've never made much of an issue about fat or calories. We've discussed the need for milk/water over soda, fruit and veggies are important, and candy/cakes are a sometimes thing. Both girls are at a very healthy weight range. You don't have to make an issue about calories to teach nutrition. Besides, as has been discussed numerous times on this board nutrition is not the same as the number of calories consumed.
Basic nutrition is founded on caloric content. You track caloric intake first, then macros, then micros. This is basic nutritional information.
I mean hell, your name is LowCarb. I suppose that says enough.
By your logic my kids should be obese, then, and they're not. As for my being low carb, that is definitely about the nutrition first, calories second.
If they're not now, there's a good chance they'll be here, in the newbie section, in a few years, wondering why they are eating low-carb, but still not able to lose weight.
As for low-carb, that has naught to do with nutrition, really. You can get complete nutrition, without going low-carb. I know I pound back a great deal of carbs, am at a healthy weight, and hit all of my macros and micros.
Maybe they will be overweight, but they'll have a good idea of what is and isn't healthy eating. They do understand calories, but its not the main thing they're concerned about. Low carb does have something to do with nutrition for me as I'm diabetic and don't process a lot of carbs. I'm glad you've found what works for you, you might consider allowing others the same consideration.
Unfortunately, they wont have a clue, still, about what healthy eating really means, which boils down to: Hit your caloric goals, to maintain a healthy weight, hit your macro split regularly, and make sure you're getting the micros you need as well.
And yes, different macro splits work best for different people, I get that. But, it's not all about macro splits. The order of precedence is as I laid out above, and to not teach kids the foundations of nutrition (Which include calories) is a disservice, and setting them up for failure in the future.
With all due respect, you really don't have a clue what my kids do and don't know at this moment, or will know in the future. You're guessing based on a small amount of information. What I know is that my kids eat healthy, are healthy, and have a good relationship with food. I'm good with that. They know about calories, they can choose to count them or not. Seeing as they're very nearly adults I think that is their decision. As for macros, you brought up the low carb thing, not me. I simply explained why I do it.
I am making an educated assumption based on the information you've provided, ie, your children lack basic understanding of nutrition at it's fundamental level, and as such, are ill-equipped at this point in time to make good nutrition decisions in the future, and will likely fall victim to "fat logic" at some point in the future, much like most individuals who lack the same information.
No, they don't, but nice try.2 -
punkahontas71 wrote: »If the gym teacher is just eating nuts for dinner, she should keep that to herself. Kids have enough pressure without worrying about body image. They should learn portion control, as should she is she ate all of her calories earlier in the day. They should learn whats good whats bad. Healthy habits, diet and exercise. Teacher needs a class or two in nutrition.
Ehh, it's IIFYM at it's finest. Look at what you have to work with at the end of the day and make it fit. Fortunately for her, nuts tend to provide great satiety for their volume/weight.3 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Wow.. as a recovering bulimic this bothers me like crazy. Sounds like she's just projecting her problems on these innocent kids who at that age are like sponges. I'm all about promoting a healthy lifestyle for children (play, sports, more fruits & veggies, etc) but suggesting they count/burn off calories is absolutely insane. My heart breaks for these kids who are taught to worry about their appearance at such a young age. Awful.
You know as well as I do that it's not just about appearances. Childhood obesity and T2D are becoming very real problems, very quickly.
I absolutely agree with this, and I do believe nutrition should be taught in school, but having children become so focused on calorie counting so early in their lives just seems inappropriate to me. Teach them about proteins, carbs, healthy fats - the purpose they serve. Teach them that water is the healthiest option. Junk food should be eaten in moderation. Make sure you eat when you're hungry, not when you're bored. Move more, join sports, play outside, etc. Even things that are so basic like this would help make a difference in childhood obesity. I wouldn't want any teacher telling my child that she ate a few nuts for dinner as to not go above her calories, that's suggesting restriction. Restriction leads to wanting "bad" foods, wanting "bad" foods leads to binges, which leads to weight gain. It just seems like it's coming from a negative place to me from what the OP said. Bottom line, the real issue is that parents need to be educated & schools need to stop serving terrible foods to these kids.
Are you (generic you) supporting school board candidates that are willing to raise taxes, lunch costs, etc to get the funds to provide for this?4 -
The attitudes expressed here help explain why obesity is rampant in our young.
This is a trend we can't allow to persist
I am concerned about childhood obesity - even though, as I understand it, there are some recent signs of possible improvement in the rates. But this chart kinda makes me SMH.
As an infographic, it uses several of the tricks for manipulating perception of statistics. It shows percentages, but cuts off the top end before 100, which tends to make those numbers seem like a higher proportion of some imputed whole. The visual presentation is as if it's tilted away from us, which makes us perceive the bars as taller, too.
Is it wrong? Not that I know of. But it's the infographic equivalent of prose with lots of scary adjectives, and excess underlines and exclamation points. It's trying to play us.
You could look at it in two ways:- Yikes! The obesity rate has doubled for young children, and tripled for teens!!!
- Though there's been material increase in obesity rates, five out of six children or teens - the overwhelming majority - are not obese.
I'm not saying either interpretation is right or wrong. I'm saying the chart is loading the dice for interpretation #1.11 -
The attitudes expressed here help explain why obesity is rampant in our young.
This is a trend we can't allow to persist
I am concerned about childhood obesity - even though, as I understand it, there are some recent signs of possible improvement in the rates. But this chart kinda makes me SMH.
As an infographic, it uses several of the tricks for manipulating perception of statistics. It shows percentages, but cuts off the top end before 100, which tends to make those numbers seem like a higher proportion of some imputed whole. The visual presentation is as if it's tilted away from us, which makes us perceive the bars as taller, too.
Is it wrong? Not that I know of. But it's the infographic equivalent of prose with lots of scary adjectives, and excess underlines and exclamation points. It's trying to play us.
You could look at it in two ways:- Yikes! The obesity rate has doubled for young children, and tripled for teens!!!
- Though there's been material increase in obesity rates, five out of six children or teens - the overwhelming majority - are not obese.
I'm not saying either interpretation is right or wrong. I'm saying the chart is loading the dice for interpretation #1.
Pffftttt. Your logic and critical thinking skills have no place here. Don't you know that sensationalized infographics are where the truth lies!9 -
and how does that percentage compare with the change in demographics for those age groups0
-
WinoGelato wrote: »The attitudes expressed here help explain why obesity is rampant in our young.
This is a trend we can't allow to persist
I am concerned about childhood obesity - even though, as I understand it, there are some recent signs of possible improvement in the rates. But this chart kinda makes me SMH.
As an infographic, it uses several of the tricks for manipulating perception of statistics. It shows percentages, but cuts off the top end before 100, which tends to make those numbers seem like a higher proportion of some imputed whole. The visual presentation is as if it's tilted away from us, which makes us perceive the bars as taller, too.
Is it wrong? Not that I know of. But it's the infographic equivalent of prose with lots of scary adjectives, and excess underlines and exclamation points. It's trying to play us.
You could look at it in two ways:- Yikes! The obesity rate has doubled for young children, and tripled for teens!!!
- Though there's been material increase in obesity rates, five out of six children or teens - the overwhelming majority - are not obese.
I'm not saying either interpretation is right or wrong. I'm saying the chart is loading the dice for interpretation #1.
Pffftttt. Your logic and critical thinking skills have no place here. Don't you know that sensationalized infographics are where the truth lies!
(Snort!)
Thanks, @WinoGelato - I needed that.
But while I'm at it: Why is a 4-year period (1976-80) being compared to a 6 year period (1988-94) and a 2-year period (1999-2000). (What does a population percent over a multi-year time period even mean, anyway?) And why are there gaps between those time periods?
Smells like data manipulation!
LOL.5 -
WinoGelato wrote: »The attitudes expressed here help explain why obesity is rampant in our young.
This is a trend we can't allow to persist
I am concerned about childhood obesity - even though, as I understand it, there are some recent signs of possible improvement in the rates. But this chart kinda makes me SMH.
As an infographic, it uses several of the tricks for manipulating perception of statistics. It shows percentages, but cuts off the top end before 100, which tends to make those numbers seem like a higher proportion of some imputed whole. The visual presentation is as if it's tilted away from us, which makes us perceive the bars as taller, too.
Is it wrong? Not that I know of. But it's the infographic equivalent of prose with lots of scary adjectives, and excess underlines and exclamation points. It's trying to play us.
You could look at it in two ways:- Yikes! The obesity rate has doubled for young children, and tripled for teens!!!
- Though there's been material increase in obesity rates, five out of six children or teens - the overwhelming majority - are not obese.
I'm not saying either interpretation is right or wrong. I'm saying the chart is loading the dice for interpretation #1.
Pffftttt. Your logic and critical thinking skills have no place here. Don't you know that sensationalized infographics are where the truth lies!
(Snort!)
Thanks, @WinoGelato - I needed that.
But while I'm at it: Why is a 4-year period (1976-80) being compared to a 6 year period (1988-94) and a 2-year period (1999-2000). (What does a population percent over a multi-year time period even mean, anyway?) And why are there gaps between those time periods?
Smells like data manipulation!
LOL.
I wish there was a way to correlate (cause hey, everyone knows correlation is all you need!) infographics with a specific behavior change...
I feel that infographics strongly contribute to the dumbing down of society because people can be influenced by the way the infographics represent (or misrepresent) scientific data and people draw errant conclusions from that information, which can influence their behavior.
3 -
WinoGelato wrote: »I wish there was a way to correlate (cause hey, everyone knows correlation is all you need!) infographics with a specific behavior change...
Apparently the Nintendo Game Boy came out in 1989 and the PlayStation 2 in 2000 - would that do it? Stop playing outside and start sitting on the couch with a game! 3 -
Childhood obesity is a huge problem. At the same time, she doesn;t know what she's talking about.1
-
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »The attitudes expressed here help explain why obesity is rampant in our young.
This is a trend we can't allow to persist
I am concerned about childhood obesity - even though, as I understand it, there are some recent signs of possible improvement in the rates. But this chart kinda makes me SMH.
As an infographic, it uses several of the tricks for manipulating perception of statistics. It shows percentages, but cuts off the top end before 100, which tends to make those numbers seem like a higher proportion of some imputed whole. The visual presentation is as if it's tilted away from us, which makes us perceive the bars as taller, too.
Is it wrong? Not that I know of. But it's the infographic equivalent of prose with lots of scary adjectives, and excess underlines and exclamation points. It's trying to play us.
You could look at it in two ways:- Yikes! The obesity rate has doubled for young children, and tripled for teens!!!
- Though there's been material increase in obesity rates, five out of six children or teens - the overwhelming majority - are not obese.
I'm not saying either interpretation is right or wrong. I'm saying the chart is loading the dice for interpretation #1.
Pffftttt. Your logic and critical thinking skills have no place here. Don't you know that sensationalized infographics are where the truth lies!
(Snort!)
Thanks, @WinoGelato - I needed that.
But while I'm at it: Why is a 4-year period (1976-80) being compared to a 6 year period (1988-94) and a 2-year period (1999-2000). (What does a population percent over a multi-year time period even mean, anyway?) And why are there gaps between those time periods?
Smells like data manipulation!
LOL.
I wish there was a way to correlate (cause hey, everyone knows correlation is all you need!) infographics with a specific behavior change...
I feel that infographics strongly contribute to the dumbing down of society because people can be influenced by the way the infographics represent (or misrepresent) scientific data and people draw errant conclusions from that information, which can influence their behavior.
Infographics don't have to do this. Good data visualizations are incredibly helpful. It's like broad-audience writing about science: Most of it is awful, manipulative (intentionally, or not), and misleading. But the best tiny percentage is really excellent, and adds to insight.
What we need is a more discriminating quality of consumer. But I'm not sure how we do that.
Apologies - I'm off topic.1 -
Update: meeting was today. The principal totally agreed and has put a temporary stop to any nutritional teaching in gym until they can implement a new plan. The gym teacher .. didn't deny telling the kids that she went to bed hungry after consuming her calories for the day.. she did get very defensive.. which the principal said was wrong of her to do. On a side note he even said after she left the room that he didn't even agree with the way she was teaching fitness. I'm not sure why she's still employed.
Sorry, didn't see this until now. Glad you met with them. That was a good call.
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions