New data: Over 20% obesity in every single state in the U.S.
Replies
-
Packerjohn wrote: »Great post, thanks for sharing.Blessings, strength, motivation, and success to all of us trying to turn these trends around in our own lives and through supporting our families and loved ones in their efforts.
Yes, we should help the individuals in our orbit, but there is no way this problem can be addressed without serious changes from the top. It is clearly the opposite of an individual problem.
Is the President and/or members of Congress holding people down and shoving food in their mouths?
Well, no not literally, but I still don't think it would be a good idea to put him in charge of this project.
0 -
But the parents have to use the money on the fruits and vegetables.lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't know if it's still in place, but for instance I think it was New Zealand they took a portion of the Food Stamp budget and put it towards free fruits and vegetables at schools for all children. They took the parents right out of the equation. That's an example of changing what you're subsidizing.
Here SNAP can be used at many farmer's markets/green markets too.
I'm not at all disagreeing with you, though, ok?
I didn't think we were disagreeing -- just discussing.
If my tone sounded at all argumentative that was not intentional.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I didn't click the link, but have seen the stats before and Yes, it's very disturbing how much fatter we have become in such a short time.
They need to do a better job on nutrition in schools. People don't know anything. Half (or more) of MFP regular posters never even heard that weight gain and loss was related to the calories in the food they ate. How do people get out of school without learning that?!
Personally, I think they should swap out Chemistry for Anatomy in high schools. Most people do not go into science classes in college, so the Chem is all but worthless to them. EVERYONE has a body. They should learn how it works, why all those vitamins and minerals are important. That's something that would serve them well through life. And when someone they love gets sick, they'll have some freaking idea what that organ does and won't have to rely on googling, which is a poor replacement for an actual education. (I realize that you cannot learn a whole lot about Physiology without a decent background in Chem, but they could learn enough. They don't have to learn to differentiate between metabolic and respiratory acidosis, but should learn why they breathe.)
Get the kids outside. Day Care and video games have taken over. Kids need to use their little bodies, outside, playing.
Whew. Kind of ranted there. Rant over.
I think some of those are goals in one of the plans linked to in the OP. (More activity for kids at school) I bet people will hate that idea though, and will DEFINITELY hate the idea of their kids being taught nutrition at school. Personal responsibility etc.
One of the other goals is reducing access to sugary drinks, that (of ALL THINGS) is going to cause riots in the streets
I don't think more physical activity at school is controversial at all. Most people bemoan that it's less than when they were kids. There's tons of activity at the elementary school near me (where the kids generally don't seem fat). This is an upper middle class neighborhood, but like all CPS schools there are lots of poorer kids there (but also lots of local neighborhood kids). The problem is that in some schools there are difficulties, like a lack of safe areas or physical plant.
Similarly I see schools having nutrition days which seem to be about teaching nutrition to parents (generally not needed by the parents in this neighborhood, I expect). I think nutrition is a normal part of the curriculum and I would not consider it controversial -- I learned it, I think most people know what good nutrition is, but it's a basic life skill that should be taught. (I do think you will get lots of flack from paleo and low carb types who disagree with the usual advice that eating lots of fruit and veg and whole grains and legumes is good, and that we should deemphasize -- not eliminate -- animal fats. And around here you might have some vegan types who would disagree that protein is important, although likely in much smaller numbers.)
Anyway, I don't think any of this is controversial and also don't think sugary drinks should be sold or provided for free in schools. (But again, milk?) I also don't think it would make any significant difference to the obesity rate, because the problem ISN'T lack of knowledge. That's an excuse.
The one area of knowledge that I think might help marginally is cooking, as I think cooking skills have dropped way off.lemurcat12 wrote: »and will DEFINITELY hate the idea of their kids being taught nutrition at school. Personal responsibility etc.
Nutrition and what's considered the best source of nutrition (and in what percentages) is a controversial subject to be mandated into a public school curriculum.
Some parents think anything goes as long as calories are restricted to maintain or obtain a healthy weight. Some swear by milk/egg vegetarianism. Some are vegan for religious or ethical reasons. Others bristle at the idea that the kids might be taught that eating whole grains is "healthy", others think that low fat is the way to go, others swear that high fat, low carbohydrate is the best way to develop a healthy brain, etc.
There's no agreeing on these things universally and it's much more combustible when teaching kids is involved. Allegedly, we're all adults here at MFP and look how we go at it when it comes to food religion, LOL.
Yeah. Not hopeful about that strategy. People freaked out with Jamie Oliver and his healthy school lunches. I think also there was a thing about people getting very angry about pop machines being taken out of schools (somewhere, can't remember where this happened).
There is a serious danger is getting your understanding of how people in the US react or what we know based on "documentaries" with a pre-set message.
For example (as we have discussed before), while I'm sure it's possible to find some person who will claim she thought Lean Pockets were a super nutritious choice for her family and didn't know that calories were a thing printed on the box (or that vegetables are generally good to eat), this is not normal. It's not a reasonable assumption about the population. The problem isn't that people are stupider than ever before (and yes, I'm sorry, the assumptions being made assume people are really, really stupid). I mean, yes, it's easy enough to find someone who doesn't know who the vice president is, so you can find someone to represent any level of ignorance, but it doesn't make sense to base public policy on some anecdote in a biased movie.
Similarly, the Jamie Oliver thing was from a very specific population, even assuming -- and I don't -- that the changes were handled in the most encouraging way. I happen to know that in my city -- which has a major problem with both obesity and income inequality (and where I'd bet good money that there's an income element to where the obesity problem is centered), there have been major efforts and positive changes to the nutritional content of school lunches (and breakfasts -- a lot of kids get a lot of their basic nutrition from the school) and nutrition IS taught. The problem is that -- like reading and math -- a lot of these cannot work without better support in the homes, and there are structural issues (among other things). And, most crucially, knowledge is likely not the issue -- I continue to believe that most know darn well what a healthy diet is and is not. People just also like to use food for other purposes, especially (I expect) when life isn't that great in lots of ways.
I am skeptical that banning large size servings is going to make a difference, and the broader problem is that these are profitable options for the sellers -- which has to do with US food culture, among other things.
But it's not like it wasn't tried (and isn't being tried in a variety of places): here's an article about one aspect of the NYC ban (http://nonprofitquarterly.org/2013/03/21/lessons-from-the-naacp-s-public-opposition-to-new-york-city-s-big-soda-ban/). There was also a discussion here about a northern CA ban on selling soda with a child's meal, if memory serves.
Personally, one reason I like federalism and that we have many levels of government is that places can try things (including things I personally don't think would help) and we can see how it works.
The idea that we know what would fix things but just refuse to do it is flat out false, obviously.
If you disagree, maybe Canada should fix the problem and show us how it's done, rather than making annoying generalizations about Americans based on poor sources.
Jesus, @lemurcat12 , thanks for your concern, but I'm not intending for one or two or three documentaries to be my only source of information. I may watch them AND read something else, imagine that!
Re Jamie Oliver, I was in fact thinking of the ruckus in the UK
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2006/sep/20/schoolmeals.schools
I am 100% on board structural & policy solutions & want to be more informed about what's been talked about and tried already. Education is one part of it, it's obviously far from the only good response.
What I think is completely wrong headed is dumping the management of obesity onto individuals and their poor doctors. It is a sociological problem, a social disease, the answers must have a similar scope and be focused on prevention in the first instance. Because once a person's obese, they are in for a fight to get and stay within a normal range; obese children --> obese adults most most most of the time.
(We also have more than one level of government fyi, & I have no idea why you brought federalism up)0 -
Lourdesong wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think I'm generally in favor of banning ads aimed at kids.
Maybe I don't understand how things work, but isn't this effectively being in favor of banning children's programming?
I thought the programming exists because of the ads.
Most of the kids programming when I was a kid were by Hasbro and they were to sell toys. The content itself was created as an advertisement.
That thought crossed my mind. I dismissed it (perhaps too easily) based on (1) much of the kids programming when I was a kid was PBS; and (2) I think the amount of kids shows on commercial based TV these days pales besides (a) cable options, and (b) non TV based options (computer or DVD).
It is possible I'm being biased here in that most of the parents I know well are middle class or above and I'm not a parent. I generally haven't thought through the issue enough to have strong opinions.0 -
I'm probably sensitive today because I got yelled at and demeaned by someone I was trying to help. Granted, I probably approached her wronglemurcat12 wrote: »
But the parents have to use the money on the fruits and vegetables.lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't know if it's still in place, but for instance I think it was New Zealand they took a portion of the Food Stamp budget and put it towards free fruits and vegetables at schools for all children. They took the parents right out of the equation. That's an example of changing what you're subsidizing.
Here SNAP can be used at many farmer's markets/green markets too.
I'm not at all disagreeing with you, though, ok?
I didn't think we were disagreeing -- just discussing.
If my tone sounded at all argumentative that was not intentional.
I guess for me, the childhood obesity issue seems similar to issues like overpopulated prisons, as an example. One way to keep kids from eventually ending up in jail is to get them to graduate high school. So our police department started a scholarship for 6th graders, the lowest performing 1/3 of the school district's 6th graders, that if they finished high school they could go to community college for free.
Now, most of these kids would qualify for free college anyway... but it's this idea that the police department whose mission is not graduation rates saw that it was in their overall best interest to fund free college. They acknowledged that graduation rates effect them.
If more people would acknowledge that childhood obesity effects them, then maybe more people would see it as just a part of good public policy.
0 -
We also have more than one level of government fyi, & I have no idea why you brought federalism up
Because there was a lot of opposition in a thread some months ago about some town in northern CA (SF?) banning the selling of soda with children's meals. My position was that it may or may not help, but that's the beauty of having multiple levels of government. That town can try it out while mine tries something else and someone else's tries something else.
The point is that we aren't not fixing the problem due to an unwillingness to, but because we DON'T KNOW what will work, so we need to experiment and explore the issue.
(Thus, going on a strike or whatever seems not especially helpful.)0 -
Lourdesong wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Whether or not that's true, public health is in the government's domain. And they should do more to help this terrible trend that will end up potentially costing us so much money in the future.
Agree with the first sentence. Would agree with the second, except I'm not really sure what to do. There are things I support (many of which seem to be being already tried, at least in some places), but I get the sense that people are saying "the government should do something," when the problem is we don't know what to do and doing it is hard, because so many other issues are involved.
I don't want to be negative -- I guess I want to push the conversation into acknowledging some of the issues and not just suggesting it's a lack of caring or political will. A lot of things I see suggested either aren't possible or would have (IMO) negative side effects. I find it a frustrating problem because I don't know how to fix it.
I thought it was in this thread where I said I wish public policy assumed government/schools were 1/3 to shoulder a potential solution to childhood obesity. Right? That was this thread? It can't be the government/schools alone. That would no doubt fail.
It was, but saying that doesn't say how that is achieved. Unless I'm missing something. My problem is that I'm not convinced that the solutions often thrown out are helpful. I'm in favor of trying some of them (as indicated below).Regulating packaging
Size? I don't think this will work, but if individual places want to try it and see how it affects things, fine with me.
Statements on packaging? In theory we already do this, although arguably not that well -- and that points to the difficulties. I'm open to improving it.ads during children's programming
I think I'm generally in favor of banning ads aimed at kids.
Maybe I don't understand how things work, but isn't this effectively being in favor of banning children's programming?
I thought the programming exists because of the ads.
Most of the kids programming when I was a kid were by Hasbro and they were to sell toys. The content itself was created as an advertisement.
[/quote]
The idea would be controlling if food could be advertised towards kids, or even more particularly kinds of food. I think most people wouldn't be upset at broccoli being advertised at kids, but who knows?
Toy advertising wouldn't be touched, though there could be regulations about toys doing tie-ins with food products. There is the tangential issue of some toys that people feel project bad body image that might fall under the umbrella.0 -
Toy advertising wouldn't be touched, though there could be regulations about toys doing tie-ins with food products. There is the tangential issue of some toys that people feel project bad body image that might fall under the umbrella.
She was responding to my post, which was broader. I did think at least in passing that there's no real need to have ads aimed at kids at all, and most parents would likely prefer we not. But like I said, not well-thought-through at this point, so I'm fine with limiting the proposal to food ads.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Whether or not that's true, public health is in the government's domain. And they should do more to help this terrible trend that will end up potentially costing us so much money in the future.
Agree with the first sentence. Would agree with the second, except I'm not really sure what to do. There are things I support (many of which seem to be being already tried, at least in some places), but I get the sense that people are saying "the government should do something," when the problem is we don't know what to do and doing it is hard, because so many other issues are involved.
I don't want to be negative -- I guess I want to push the conversation into acknowledging some of the issues and not just suggesting it's a lack of caring or political will. A lot of things I see suggested either aren't possible or would have (IMO) negative side effects. I find it a frustrating problem because I don't know how to fix it.
I thought it was in this thread where I said I wish public policy assumed government/schools were 1/3 to shoulder a potential solution to childhood obesity. Right? That was this thread? It can't be the government/schools alone. That would no doubt fail.
It was, but saying that doesn't say how that is achieved. Unless I'm missing something. My problem is that I'm not convinced that the solutions often thrown out are helpful. I'm in favor of trying some of them (as indicated below).Regulating packaging
Size? I don't think this will work, but if individual places want to try it and see how it affects things, fine with me.
Statements on packaging? In theory we already do this, although arguably not that well -- and that points to the difficulties. I'm open to improving it.ads during children's programming
I think I'm generally in favor of banning ads aimed at kids.subsidizing things differently
That's a tough one. For example, subsidizing meat was brought up earlier on the thread, but (a) meat is already cheap in the US; (b) lots of nutritionists would say that's the opposite of what we should be doing; and (c) I personally am not comfortable with the idea of subsidizing factory farming of animals/eggs/dairy.
I would very much like to cut off ag subsidies in general (which would get rid of some of the weird corn/soy stuff), but that's certainly a political minefield.prevelence of parks and sidewalks, community policing, functional streetlights, after school programs, nutrition in school, zoning laws, community gardens...
Yes, of course, but communities vary a lot on these things. My city is doing a lot of them (and others poorly -- policing is currently a mess in various areas), and the effectiveness seems questionable. And of course we have NO money. Other places have different things to do -- they may have more money but for various reasons (I talked about this in another thread) no sidewalks and high barriers to getting anywhere other than by car.
Meat is already heavily subsidized. I also have similar qualms about factory farming. Could subsidize pasture raised, but do we have enough space to meet demand? This is an incredibly tricky issue near and dear to my carnivore heart.
I am willing to eat cloned beef if it gets cheap enough and ensure it's safe (which means everyone will have to eat it, no real cow for one class, cloned cow for the rest of us).
I don't know if it's still in place, but for instance I think it was New Zealand they took a portion of the Food Stamp budget and put it towards free fruits and vegetables at schools for all children. They took the parents right out of the equation. That's an example of changing what you're subsidizing.
Note: I'm not saying the government is 1/3 to blame. I'm saying public policy should assume that government/schools are 1/3 of the solution.
I appreciate the lively, thoughtful debate. Let's do this over (logged and tracked) beer (that fits in our macros) sometimes
We have a research study that's turned into a full on program like that. I think it should be implemented in a lot more schools (if there were funding): http://brighterbites.org/0 -
If more people would acknowledge that childhood obesity effects them, then maybe more people would see it as just a part of good public policy.
Yeah, maybe I wasn't communicating well, but I agree with you on the above, and I agree that having schools be a part of the solution makes sense (and my impression is that's even generally agreed and something the schools do, although the schools are tasked with a lot and often don't do any of it that well, given how overwhelming the tasks are -- I worry about the level of education that many students have when completing school).
I just think the specifics are hard, which is one reason we haven't made much progress.0 -
Not to throw a wet blanket on all the political discussion, but...
Educating children on nutrition is already part of the curriculum. Nothing has to be added. Nobody has to riot.
It's already being done. It just isn't being done well.
But...but...I just stocked up on torches and pitchforks!
Cooking classes, though. We can riot for those. Just make the Hot Pocket munching brats spend an hour every day learning to cook. And I don't mean instant anything, either. I mean fruits, veggies, and meats. Then the poor things have to eat what they cooked as their school lunch. Way to learn fast!
I had cooking classes when I was in school. They were completely useless. I ate better in college with my microwave chili snack packs and tuna salad lunch packs than I would have eating what we made (even if it'd been made correctly).0 -
I think senecarr pointed out in another thread that there are two levels of discussion when it comes to obesity:
(1) what can I do on a personal level to lose weight; and
(2) what can we do as a society to address the public policy problem.
Saying that there are things to try to address (2) (and that it is a public policy problem, as shown by the increase in obesity) does not mean that we, as individuals, can't do anything about and aren't responsible for (1).
And similarly, saying that we need to learn to deal with the current situation (which likely won't change much) to do (1) doesn't mean that I don't think there are things worth trying re (2). It just depends on the particular problem being discussed -- how an individual can lose weight or what we can do as a society.0 -
Let the people riot in the streets. They'll be the fat ones, and we can outrun them...0
-
Yeah, pretty much. It's easy to say it is all individual choice because, yes, technically McDonald's having a $1 menu with items over X number of calories doesn't make anyone one person fat. At the same time, chances are fewer people would be overweight if the $1 menu was all low calorie salads and there was an extra charge for the dressing.lemurcat12 wrote: »I think senecarr pointed out in another thread that there are two levels of discussion when it comes to obesity:
(1) what can I do on a personal level to lose weight; and
(2) what can we do as a society to address the public policy problem.
Saying that there are things to try to address (2) (and that it is a public policy problem, as shown by the increase in obesity) does not mean that we, as individuals, can't do anything about and aren't responsible for (1).
And similarly, saying that we need to learn to deal with the current situation (which likely won't change much) to do (1) doesn't mean that I don't think there are things worth trying re (2). It just depends on the particular problem being discussed -- how an individual can lose weight or what we can do as a society.
Either claim pointed at the wrong level of analysis (individual versus society) makes the other sound silly.0 -
Not to throw a wet blanket on all the political discussion, but...
Educating children on nutrition is already part of the curriculum. Nothing has to be added. Nobody has to riot.
It's already being done. It just isn't being done well.
But...but...I just stocked up on torches and pitchforks!
Cooking classes, though. We can riot for those. Just make the Hot Pocket munching brats spend an hour every day learning to cook. And I don't mean instant anything, either. I mean fruits, veggies, and meats. Then the poor things have to eat what they cooked as their school lunch. Way to learn fast!
I had cooking classes when I was in school. They were completely useless. I ate better in college with my microwave chili snack packs and tuna salad lunch packs than I would have eating what we made (even if it'd been made correctly).
Well that's sad, but just because it wasn't done right doesn't mean it can't be. I know it won't be cheap, but the brats are worth it!girlwithcurls2 wrote: »Let the people riot in the streets. They'll be the fat ones, and we can outrun them...
I was waiting until I hit goal weight to buy my running shoes and try running again, but maybe I should start now! I know some pretty fast fat people, maybe I can be one of them!
Oh wait, I know! Bicycle riot! I can bike at a pretty good clip!
0 -
Not to throw a wet blanket on all the political discussion, but...
Educating children on nutrition is already part of the curriculum. Nothing has to be added. Nobody has to riot.
It's already being done. It just isn't being done well.
But...but...I just stocked up on torches and pitchforks!
Cooking classes, though. We can riot for those. Just make the Hot Pocket munching brats spend an hour every day learning to cook. And I don't mean instant anything, either. I mean fruits, veggies, and meats. Then the poor things have to eat what they cooked as their school lunch. Way to learn fast!
I had cooking classes when I was in school. They were completely useless. I ate better in college with my microwave chili snack packs and tuna salad lunch packs than I would have eating what we made (even if it'd been made correctly).
Well that's sad, but just because it wasn't done right doesn't mean it can't be. I know it won't be cheap, but the brats are worth it!girlwithcurls2 wrote: »Let the people riot in the streets. They'll be the fat ones, and we can outrun them...
I was waiting until I hit goal weight to buy my running shoes and try running again, but maybe I should start now! I know some pretty fast fat people, maybe I can be one of them!
Oh wait, I know! Bicycle riot! I can bike at a pretty good clip!
It is sad, but that's why no one cared when those types of classes were removed from the curriculum. Because actually teaching someone to cook in such a way that they can apply those lessons in a practical way is not easy.
I'm not talking apply as in 'replicate the recipe you made in class', I mean as in you've learned the fundamentals of cooking and are ready to tackle new recipes, unknown ingredients, even adjust on the fly. I don't see how that would be possible at a school without an extensive equipment purchase at the least. This type of learning really needs to be hands on.
On the plus side, the cost/benefit could be optimized by using cooking classes as reinforcement to various levels of math, physics, chemistry, and biology.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I think senecarr pointed out in another thread that there are two levels of discussion when it comes to obesity:
(1) what can I do on a personal level to lose weight; and
(2) what can we do as a society to address the public policy problem.
Saying that there are things to try to address (2) (and that it is a public policy problem, as shown by the increase in obesity) does not mean that we, as individuals, can't do anything about and aren't responsible for (1).
And similarly, saying that we need to learn to deal with the current situation (which likely won't change much) to do (1) doesn't mean that I don't think there are things worth trying re (2). It just depends on the particular problem being discussed -- how an individual can lose weight or what we can do as a society.
Well yes, and I think we can take it as read that anyone on MFP is doing what they can at the level of the individual. That's not really the subject of this thread though0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I think senecarr pointed out in another thread that there are two levels of discussion when it comes to obesity:
(1) what can I do on a personal level to lose weight; and
(2) what can we do as a society to address the public policy problem.
Saying that there are things to try to address (2) (and that it is a public policy problem, as shown by the increase in obesity) does not mean that we, as individuals, can't do anything about and aren't responsible for (1).
And similarly, saying that we need to learn to deal with the current situation (which likely won't change much) to do (1) doesn't mean that I don't think there are things worth trying re (2). It just depends on the particular problem being discussed -- how an individual can lose weight or what we can do as a society.
Well yes, and I think we can take it as read that anyone on MFP is doing what they can at the level of the individual.* That's not really the subject of this thread though
No one is saying it is. We've been discussing public policy.
However, I think people often take comments about (1) in other threads as statements that (2) is irrelevant, and that's annoying, so I wanted to repeat senecarr's helpful distinction.
*This is not what I have seen at MFP, but it's not worth discussing now.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »2% will change. I do think the other 98% really do not have an awareness that change is possible because obesity has become the new norm. Other guys my age are dropping like flies with next to none making any eating life style change. One guy did stop eating white bread and started eating whole gain.
If change comes it will be from those who are kids now I expect. It will not come from top down.
ACA may wake up some people. Our company was able to keep our old plan for two more years by renewing last week. The rate increase was 4%. Had we moved to an ACA approved policy at this time the rate increase would have been 84%.
That is because everyone gets the "village" rating vs actual risk rating. We in the obese states will pay more even if we are at our "ideal" weight unlike before. This rewards those who do not take care of their health at the expense of the young and older healthy population.
That makes sense. I can totally see insurance companies playing an important role in changing things. But what are you suggesting would be the way it would happen, people getting annoyed at their premiums (when set by average risk for a given location), or insurance companies holding individuals to behavioural change requirements to keep rates lower?
I'm fine with a focus on individual behaviour, but I think the landscape -the food industry, restaurants etc - needs changes too.
(I am very tired and edited that 3 times to have it make some kind of sense, sorry)
Yes. Rising premiums can cause a demand for change.
I know other countries are ahead of the USA with social medicine so I tend to watch them to see what may become the new norm for the USA. It may have been in the UK where someone was obese and needed a knee or hip replacement but they had to lose weight first. In another case the person may have been a smoker and they were to quit smoking before treatment would happen.
There is one easy way to cut health care cost and that is to find reasons not to render as many services.
In the USA it will take a new generation of politicians I expect to change things from top down. The food industry is still writing the script of what is good and what is bad to eat in my view.
From another post I do see it is the more poor that are the most obese in the USA.
We have serious problems that is and will impact the productive output of nations. Dr. William Davis deals with this in his last book that I just read called Wheat Belly Total Health. He drives home many people can not lose weight with the current foods they are eating because the food itself can drive cravings that drive overeating.
Deer season is here again and more and more are hunting to stock the freezer since beef prices are so high. It is not just a sport any longer for many but a good major protein source.
0 -
Not to throw a wet blanket on all the political discussion, but...
Educating children on nutrition is already part of the curriculum. Nothing has to be added. Nobody has to riot.
It's already being done. It just isn't being done well.
But...but...I just stocked up on torches and pitchforks!
Cooking classes, though. We can riot for those. Just make the Hot Pocket munching brats spend an hour every day learning to cook. And I don't mean instant anything, either. I mean fruits, veggies, and meats. Then the poor things have to eat what they cooked as their school lunch. Way to learn fast!
I had cooking classes when I was in school. They were completely useless. I ate better in college with my microwave chili snack packs and tuna salad lunch packs than I would have eating what we made (even if it'd been made correctly).
Well that's sad, but just because it wasn't done right doesn't mean it can't be. I know it won't be cheap, but the brats are worth it!girlwithcurls2 wrote: »Let the people riot in the streets. They'll be the fat ones, and we can outrun them...
I was waiting until I hit goal weight to buy my running shoes and try running again, but maybe I should start now! I know some pretty fast fat people, maybe I can be one of them!
Oh wait, I know! Bicycle riot! I can bike at a pretty good clip!
It is sad, but that's why no one cared when those types of classes were removed from the curriculum. Because actually teaching someone to cook in such a way that they can apply those lessons in a practical way is not easy.
I'm not talking apply as in 'replicate the recipe you made in class', I mean as in you've learned the fundamentals of cooking and are ready to tackle new recipes, unknown ingredients, even adjust on the fly. I don't see how that would be possible at a school without an extensive equipment purchase at the least. This type of learning really needs to be hands on.
On the plus side, the cost/benefit could be optimized by using cooking classes as reinforcement to various levels of math, physics, chemistry, and biology.
Now that is a good idea!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions