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.
Do Vegan diets for children really need to be outlawed?
Replies
-
BillMcKay1 wrote: »htimpaired wrote: »FrugalMomsRock75 wrote: »Children shouldn't be force fed an eating disorder... but I also hate the nanny state.
The main reason is because my daughter came home from school (PUBLIC) devastated one day. They had done the height/weight tests and slapped labels on them and sent them home with their fresh new stickers including, "normal" "overweight" and "obese" Oh. And shan't forget "morbidly obese." My daughter-who at the time was 5'2" and weighed 120-ish pounds was sent home with a shiny "OBESE" sticker. Talk about force feeding an eating disorder? Soon after this, she stopped eating dinner, stopped taking her lunch to school... rarely ate breakfast. Those *kitten* had her believing she was obese! At 10 years of age! I had a struggle with her for years over that crap.
Five two and 120 lb is far from obese! It's "thick" maybe.... I wouldn't even call it remotely fat.
I'm 5 ft 2 and if I was 120 I'd be healthy. It's not obese, not even overweight. It's in the normal range, I can't imagine why they did that!
There are different weight standards for adult women than there are for 10 year-old girls. Little girls are not considered to be as "developed" as full grown adult females, so they are considered heavier at that particular weight/height. What is a normal weight in an adult may be a little high for a child, even at the same height. From what I've seen, that height and weight on a 10 year old girl is considered overweight, NOT obese. She's in the 92nd percentile, meaning she weighs more than 92% of the other kids at her height. The sticker thing is horrific, though. I don't think they need to be telling the kids anything. Just make a note of it, notify the parents and move on.
The problem though with applying that to kids is pretty much every kid I know went through spurts. I have 5 nephews and everyone of them kinda pudged up a bit prior to jumping up several inches in height. There are a lot of kids that are WAY overweight and this isn't the case, but unless the kid has been obviously overweight for a number of years....
That's why I think anyone who was *responsible* would look at a young person's BMI in context and as part of a trend instead of just running it and slapping a sticker on someone.1 -
chunky_pinup wrote: »chunky_pinup wrote: »MissTattoo wrote: »I don't think your diet has anything to do with height of your children. It's genetics. My 9 year old has always been the tallest baby/toddler/child. She's 5'2 while the rest of her 4th grade class is under 4'7. I'm 5'11. Her dad is 6'7. My sister is 5'11. My dad was 6'5. My aunt is 6'2. My first cousins (on my dad's side) are 6'2+ (female and male) We're just tall. She was going to be tall regardless if I breastfed or not or if she ate meat or just veggies.
I don't think it should be outlawed, but I do think people need to be educated. You can't feed a newborn just water and liquefied carrots. As long as your child isn't starved, feed them whatever works for you.
I'm fully aware that her height is genetics...but she wouldn't be reaching that height if she was malnourished or deficient nutrient-wise, which is the reasoning behind the law they are trying to pass in the article.
so are you saying that non-vegans are malnourished???
When did I say that?
I'm debating the article...you know...the thing I actually read...on a post in a debate forum...debating said article...before taking offense to someone's post for something not even said.
and i am debating your comments and asking you to clarify them. it is still a public forum.
You implied that a vegan child is somehow more nourished then a non vegan child, which is why I asked for clarification.
No implication of that whatsoever. All statements were in regards to the linked article. Never once was a dietary comparison made to anything else.
[edited by MFP moderators]10 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Ahh, two topics that people are extremely passionate about - parenting and veganism.
This thread will go places.
IN.
AND a soupçon of breastfeeding. Scrappers gonna be scrappin'!4 -
enterdanger wrote: »I agree @shinycrazy. Not to threadjack, but I was offended by that comment as well.
I have formula fed all my kids and they turned out fine. None are obese. I'm pregnant now, and I'm going to formula feed this one too. I'm not trying to have the stress of weaning a baby at 8 weeks when I have to go back to work while juggling the newness of having 3 kids, and getting a routine down for my 2 hour a day commute and 40 hour work week. If I got 6 months off paid, I'd breast feed...but I have no desire to spend hours pumping at work and storing my breast milk in the fridge with your lean cuisines.
Snorted a diet pepsi out my nose at that last sentence. Thanks! [wipes keyboard]2 -
TheCrawlingChaos wrote: »Here in this province a couple were found guilty of killing their toddler, who died of meningitis. The couple, who ran their own health food business tried to treat their increasingly sick child with mustard plasters and the like. All natural. No visit to a conventional doctor or an emergency room until it was much, much too late.
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/calgary/lethbridge-meningitis-trial-sentence-parents-toddler-died-1.3650653
Essential micronutrients that a growing child needs include B12, the omega 3 fatty acids, and vitamin D are not easily fulfilled on a vegan diet. No matter how well researched and earnest the parents may be.
Being an idiot about medication <> vegan. While you often find the "natural = better" BS with vegans it's certainly not part of the deal, and there are plenty of non-vegans who are just as crazy when it comes to modern medicine.
Also omega 3 is really easy to get eating vegan. You are right about the B12 and D, though. That's tough unless it's through fortified foods, and that's probably not enough.
I appreciate that a natural idiot is not the same as a vegan. I was providing an example of parental idiocy fuelled by dogma. It is possible to be passionately wrong. When it comes to consenting adults, I figure fine, whatever floats their boat. But when it comes to children, they should be able to freely decide when they come of age.
2 -
I am lost...what were we fighting about?1
-
This content has been removed.
-
BreezeDoveal wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »SoDamnHungry wrote: »Here in this province a couple were found guilty of killing their toddler, who died of meningitis. The couple, who ran their own health food business tried to treat their increasingly sick child with mustard plasters and the like. All natural. No visit to a conventional doctor or an emergency room until it was much, much too late.
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/calgary/lethbridge-meningitis-trial-sentence-parents-toddler-died-1.3650653
Essential micronutrients that a growing child needs include B12, the omega 3 fatty acids, and vitamin D are not easily fulfilled on a vegan diet. No matter how well researched and earnest the parents may be.
What does that article have to do with a vegan diet? Those parents refused to get medical treatment for their child. Not really the same thing.
I also don't understand the comment about B12, Omega 3, and D not easily fulfilled on a vegan diet. I take a supplement for each of those every morning. They're affordable, easy to obtain, and it takes a few seconds. It's incredibly easy to meet those nutritional needs -- my earnestness has little to do with it.
It isn't really omega 3 that's essential though, it is EPA and DHA. A lot of vegans think they'll meet needs with ALA but ALA conversion is limited, particularly in men.
I can't speak to what "a lot of vegans" think, but I supplement DHA. I don't rely on conversion.2 -
shinycrazy wrote: »FrugalMomsRock75 wrote: »Most of them are having formula as babies and slim jims, twinkies, and kool aid for lunch by 1 1/2.
Putting formula and slim jims/twinkies/kool-aid in the same sentence is *kitten* rude. I was unable to nurse and my son turned out just fine with a very healthy BMI. Get off your high horse.
It's only pointing out that 1) the infant growth charts are based on formula fed babies (not breastfed, and THEREFORE NOT APPLICABLE). and 2) the child growth charts are based on the Average American diet (therefore, NOT APPLICABLE TO VEGAN CHILDREN).
PS-I formula fed also... so... yeah. It was simply making a clarification that the current charts have HUGE biases.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
Considering just how fat a kid has to be to qualify as anything other than normal (the scale is wide as hell), one should be horrified either way.
So you condone perpetuating the problem that a school told a child 5'2" and 120 pounds that she is obese?
Yeah. Nevermind that it made her not want to eat FOR YEARS. And she was never remotely fat. She STILL struggles with her image at 5'5" and 128! She's perfect... but "the school said she's obese and she has gained weight since then...."
0 -
FrugalMomsRock75 wrote: »Children shouldn't be force fed an eating disorder... but I also hate the nanny state.
The main reason is because my daughter came home from school (PUBLIC) devastated one day. They had done the height/weight tests and slapped labels on them and sent them home with their fresh new stickers including, "normal" "overweight" and "obese" Oh. And shan't forget "morbidly obese." My daughter-who at the time was 5'2" and weighed 120-ish pounds was sent home with a shiny "OBESE" sticker. Talk about force feeding an eating disorder? Soon after this, she stopped eating dinner, stopped taking her lunch to school... rarely ate breakfast. Those *kitten* had her believing she was obese! At 10 years of age! I had a struggle with her for years over that crap.
Five two and 120 lb is far from obese! It's "thick" maybe.... I wouldn't even call it remotely fat.
My daughter is 5'2 and 80lbs. I would be very concerned if she was 120lbs. She's 9. I'm sure 5'2 and 120 is different for an adult.2 -
MissTattoo wrote: »FrugalMomsRock75 wrote: »Children shouldn't be force fed an eating disorder... but I also hate the nanny state.
The main reason is because my daughter came home from school (PUBLIC) devastated one day. They had done the height/weight tests and slapped labels on them and sent them home with their fresh new stickers including, "normal" "overweight" and "obese" Oh. And shan't forget "morbidly obese." My daughter-who at the time was 5'2" and weighed 120-ish pounds was sent home with a shiny "OBESE" sticker. Talk about force feeding an eating disorder? Soon after this, she stopped eating dinner, stopped taking her lunch to school... rarely ate breakfast. Those *kitten* had her believing she was obese! At 10 years of age! I had a struggle with her for years over that crap.
Five two and 120 lb is far from obese! It's "thick" maybe.... I wouldn't even call it remotely fat.
My daughter is 5'2 and 80lbs. I would be very concerned if she was 120lbs. She's 9. I'm sure 5'2 and 120 is different for an adult.
Yeah, my 5'2" 12 year old is 80-something pounds, and while she is slender, I have trouble imaging that adding 40 would leave her at a healthy weight. The 9 year old is around 5'0" and 70 some odd lbs and looks pretty solid, kids are simply not made like adults.
No WAY should the school be tagging kids with neon "OBESE" stickers, obviously. That's stupid. But a page sent home in the notebook saying she is heavy for her height and weight and to ask the doctor about it, that's just a health screening like they do for scoliosis and stuff. Then you go to the doctor, he says "she's already got her period and is more developed for her age, her weight is fine" or whatever the answer is, and then you don't have to worry about it. But what if you really didn't know, thought she was cute and chubby and then found out from the doctor it was harmful to her health? Kids can get type 2 diabetes and heart problems from being too fat, it's not a harmless thing.4 -
I know this is way off the topic of the OP, but I just can't with this garbage.
A child absolutely does NOT have to be "fat as *kitten*" (as it was so kindly and sensitively put) to fall outside of the "normal" BMI range for their age. A 5 year old girl who is in the 82nd percentile for height and the 85th percentile for weight is "overweight." A 5 year old girl in the 82nd percentile for height and the 93rd percentile for weight is "obese." So, a child who conforms to nearly identical percentiles for both their height and weight - who is increasing their height and weight at almost identical rates - would fall into that "horrifying" category, as it was previously defined (outside of the "normal" weight ranges). Except, most children with these proportions easily perform physical activities at levels comparable to their peers, wear age-appropriate clothing sizes, etc. My daughter's best friend was recently identified as "obese" by a doctor, and while she is a bit thicker than my daughter, let me assure you that she is by all appearances perfectly proportioned - there's not a single fat roll to be found on her body. She is a dancer and a gymnast and a competitive swimmer and excels at all of those activities. She wears the same sized clothing as my daughter who falls smack dab into the middle of the BMI scale and is a similar height. She is certainly FAR from the typical image of childhood obesity.
The attitude expressed in this thread is precisely why such procedures should NEVER be allowed in schools. To imagine someone seeing an "overweight" rating and then referring to that child as a "land whale in training" is deplorable. If ANYONE ever dared to take it upon themself to inform my impressionable young son or daughter (both of whom are currently at healthy weights but, like all children, tend to alternate growing "out" and then growing "up") that they were "overweight" or "obese" I would go out of my mind. Any message to a child about their body that leads to them feeling ashamed or like something is "wrong" with them is a message that should never be communicated to them. I'm certainly not suggesting that such issues should be ignored, but efforts to correct them should be focused on health and strength, not looks or a number on a scale or a categorization of any kind based upon their body. And there should be no circumstance where ANY message related to a child's health or body is communicated or revealed to that child either (a) in the presence of their peers, or (b) without the explicit approval of their parents.
I take no issue with a private communication sent to parents with this information, thereby allowing the parents to decide what to do with it. Which hopefully does not include discussing it with presumably grown men who would use a child's appearance as a basis to call them names and make disgusting comments about them.4 -
Do omnivorous diets need to be banned for children? Is it right to enforce your beliefs on your children? Deciding where they live, what they wear, what toys they can own, what religion they practice, who they can be around and when, where they go? Sounds like part of parenting to make the decisions you decide are best for your child and your family. Go ahead and make it illegal to give kids too much fruit, just make sure it's illegal to give them fast food as well.2
-
I know this is way off the topic of the OP, but I just can't with this garbage.
A child absolutely does NOT have to be "fat as *kitten*" (as it was so kindly and sensitively put) to fall outside of the "normal" BMI range for their age. A 5 year old girl who is in the 82nd percentile for height and the 85th percentile for weight is "overweight." A 5 year old girl in the 82nd percentile for height and the 93rd percentile for weight is "obese." So, a child who conforms to nearly identical percentiles for both their height and weight - who is increasing their height and weight at almost identical rates - would fall into that "horrifying" category, as it was previously defined (outside of the "normal" weight ranges). Except, most children with these proportions easily perform physical activities at levels comparable to their peers, wear age-appropriate clothing sizes, etc. My daughter's best friend was recently identified as "obese" by a doctor, and while she is a bit thicker than my daughter, let me assure you that she is by all appearances perfectly proportioned - there's not a single fat roll to be found on her body. She is a dancer and a gymnast and a competitive swimmer and excels at all of those activities. She wears the same sized clothing as my daughter who falls smack dab into the middle of the BMI scale and is a similar height. She is certainly FAR from the typical image of childhood obesity.
The attitude expressed in this thread is precisely why such procedures should NEVER be allowed in schools. To imagine someone seeing an "overweight" rating and then referring to that child as a "land whale in training" is deplorable. If ANYONE ever dared to take it upon themself to inform my impressionable young son or daughter (both of whom are currently at healthy weights but, like all children, tend to alternate growing "out" and then growing "up") that they were "overweight" or "obese" I would go out of my mind. Any message to a child about their body that leads to them feeling ashamed or like something is "wrong" with them is a message that should never be communicated to them. I'm certainly not suggesting that such issues should be ignored, but efforts to correct them should be focused on health and strength, not looks or a number on a scale or a categorization of any kind based upon their body. And there should be no circumstance where ANY message related to a child's health or body is communicated or revealed to that child either (a) in the presence of their peers, or (b) without the explicit approval of their parents.
I take no issue with a private communication sent to parents with this information, thereby allowing the parents to decide what to do with it. Which hopefully does not include discussing it with presumably grown men who would use a child's appearance as a basis to call them names and make disgusting comments about them.
So basically, I can sum your post up as "I agree with you on the handling, but waaaaahhhhh, you so mean about it." Gotcha. Fortunately for your feels, I have less dealings with children in a year, than you likely do in a day.2 -
Looks like there might be a need for honesty coupled with tactfulness in regards to dealing with kids...especially broaching the subject with their parents.
Is the child in question honestly at risk of malnutrition or obesity or some other condition?
If so, what is a tactful, appropriate, and effective way to address this risk?
The adults (parents, teachers, healthcare professionals) need to be partners.1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »I know this is way off the topic of the OP, but I just can't with this garbage.
A child absolutely does NOT have to be "fat as *kitten*" (as it was so kindly and sensitively put) to fall outside of the "normal" BMI range for their age. A 5 year old girl who is in the 82nd percentile for height and the 85th percentile for weight is "overweight." A 5 year old girl in the 82nd percentile for height and the 93rd percentile for weight is "obese." So, a child who conforms to nearly identical percentiles for both their height and weight - who is increasing their height and weight at almost identical rates - would fall into that "horrifying" category, as it was previously defined (outside of the "normal" weight ranges). Except, most children with these proportions easily perform physical activities at levels comparable to their peers, wear age-appropriate clothing sizes, etc. My daughter's best friend was recently identified as "obese" by a doctor, and while she is a bit thicker than my daughter, let me assure you that she is by all appearances perfectly proportioned - there's not a single fat roll to be found on her body. She is a dancer and a gymnast and a competitive swimmer and excels at all of those activities. She wears the same sized clothing as my daughter who falls smack dab into the middle of the BMI scale and is a similar height. She is certainly FAR from the typical image of childhood obesity.
The attitude expressed in this thread is precisely why such procedures should NEVER be allowed in schools. To imagine someone seeing an "overweight" rating and then referring to that child as a "land whale in training" is deplorable. If ANYONE ever dared to take it upon themself to inform my impressionable young son or daughter (both of whom are currently at healthy weights but, like all children, tend to alternate growing "out" and then growing "up") that they were "overweight" or "obese" I would go out of my mind. Any message to a child about their body that leads to them feeling ashamed or like something is "wrong" with them is a message that should never be communicated to them. I'm certainly not suggesting that such issues should be ignored, but efforts to correct them should be focused on health and strength, not looks or a number on a scale or a categorization of any kind based upon their body. And there should be no circumstance where ANY message related to a child's health or body is communicated or revealed to that child either (a) in the presence of their peers, or (b) without the explicit approval of their parents.
I take no issue with a private communication sent to parents with this information, thereby allowing the parents to decide what to do with it. Which hopefully does not include discussing it with presumably grown men who would use a child's appearance as a basis to call them names and make disgusting comments about them.
So basically, I can sum your post up as "I agree with you on the handling, but waaaaahhhhh, you so mean about it." Gotcha. Fortunately for your feels, I have less dealings with children in a year, than you likely do in a day.
If that's what you think my intent was, you go right ahead with that.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »I know this is way off the topic of the OP, but I just can't with this garbage.
A child absolutely does NOT have to be "fat as *kitten*" (as it was so kindly and sensitively put) to fall outside of the "normal" BMI range for their age. A 5 year old girl who is in the 82nd percentile for height and the 85th percentile for weight is "overweight." A 5 year old girl in the 82nd percentile for height and the 93rd percentile for weight is "obese." So, a child who conforms to nearly identical percentiles for both their height and weight - who is increasing their height and weight at almost identical rates - would fall into that "horrifying" category, as it was previously defined (outside of the "normal" weight ranges). Except, most children with these proportions easily perform physical activities at levels comparable to their peers, wear age-appropriate clothing sizes, etc. My daughter's best friend was recently identified as "obese" by a doctor, and while she is a bit thicker than my daughter, let me assure you that she is by all appearances perfectly proportioned - there's not a single fat roll to be found on her body. She is a dancer and a gymnast and a competitive swimmer and excels at all of those activities. She wears the same sized clothing as my daughter who falls smack dab into the middle of the BMI scale and is a similar height. She is certainly FAR from the typical image of childhood obesity.
The attitude expressed in this thread is precisely why such procedures should NEVER be allowed in schools. To imagine someone seeing an "overweight" rating and then referring to that child as a "land whale in training" is deplorable. If ANYONE ever dared to take it upon themself to inform my impressionable young son or daughter (both of whom are currently at healthy weights but, like all children, tend to alternate growing "out" and then growing "up") that they were "overweight" or "obese" I would go out of my mind. Any message to a child about their body that leads to them feeling ashamed or like something is "wrong" with them is a message that should never be communicated to them. I'm certainly not suggesting that such issues should be ignored, but efforts to correct them should be focused on health and strength, not looks or a number on a scale or a categorization of any kind based upon their body. And there should be no circumstance where ANY message related to a child's health or body is communicated or revealed to that child either (a) in the presence of their peers, or (b) without the explicit approval of their parents.
I take no issue with a private communication sent to parents with this information, thereby allowing the parents to decide what to do with it. Which hopefully does not include discussing it with presumably grown men who would use a child's appearance as a basis to call them names and make disgusting comments about them.
So basically, I can sum your post up as "I agree with you on the handling, but waaaaahhhhh, you so mean about it." Gotcha. Fortunately for your feels, I have less dealings with children in a year, than you likely do in a day.
If that's what you think my intent was, you go right ahead with that.
That's how I had to take it, because the rest of it was so absurd that I refuse to accept that an intelligent person believes it. There are fully functional obese people everywhere. The fact that a fat kid is able to actually move around is am indicator that nothing is wrong?
Spoiler alert: I was a fat kid, and maybe if someone had have actually acknowledged it was a problem, I wouldn't have ended up in my mid-20s, looking at myself in the mirror with disgust at contempt at 265 lbs. (who was also fully capable of working full time construction, I'll add). Instead it was normalized by my fat as hell family, and rationalized by those in my day to day childhood because my family was fat as hell. The only people whoever acknowledged it as an issue, were the "jocks" who were happy to tell me what a fat piece of *kitten* I was, only to end up having that ovewritten by the aforementioned rationalization and normalization.6 -
Under German law, most things are forbidden, but some things are permitted.
Under French law, most things are permitted, but some things are forbidden.
Under Italian law, most things are permitted, a few things are forbidden, but those are probably alright too.
(And that is why everyone loves the Italians most.)
4 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »I know this is way off the topic of the OP, but I just can't with this garbage.
A child absolutely does NOT have to be "fat as *kitten*" (as it was so kindly and sensitively put) to fall outside of the "normal" BMI range for their age. A 5 year old girl who is in the 82nd percentile for height and the 85th percentile for weight is "overweight." A 5 year old girl in the 82nd percentile for height and the 93rd percentile for weight is "obese." So, a child who conforms to nearly identical percentiles for both their height and weight - who is increasing their height and weight at almost identical rates - would fall into that "horrifying" category, as it was previously defined (outside of the "normal" weight ranges). Except, most children with these proportions easily perform physical activities at levels comparable to their peers, wear age-appropriate clothing sizes, etc. My daughter's best friend was recently identified as "obese" by a doctor, and while she is a bit thicker than my daughter, let me assure you that she is by all appearances perfectly proportioned - there's not a single fat roll to be found on her body. She is a dancer and a gymnast and a competitive swimmer and excels at all of those activities. She wears the same sized clothing as my daughter who falls smack dab into the middle of the BMI scale and is a similar height. She is certainly FAR from the typical image of childhood obesity.
The attitude expressed in this thread is precisely why such procedures should NEVER be allowed in schools. To imagine someone seeing an "overweight" rating and then referring to that child as a "land whale in training" is deplorable. If ANYONE ever dared to take it upon themself to inform my impressionable young son or daughter (both of whom are currently at healthy weights but, like all children, tend to alternate growing "out" and then growing "up") that they were "overweight" or "obese" I would go out of my mind. Any message to a child about their body that leads to them feeling ashamed or like something is "wrong" with them is a message that should never be communicated to them. I'm certainly not suggesting that such issues should be ignored, but efforts to correct them should be focused on health and strength, not looks or a number on a scale or a categorization of any kind based upon their body. And there should be no circumstance where ANY message related to a child's health or body is communicated or revealed to that child either (a) in the presence of their peers, or (b) without the explicit approval of their parents.
I take no issue with a private communication sent to parents with this information, thereby allowing the parents to decide what to do with it. Which hopefully does not include discussing it with presumably grown men who would use a child's appearance as a basis to call them names and make disgusting comments about them.
So basically, I can sum your post up as "I agree with you on the handling, but waaaaahhhhh, you so mean about it." Gotcha. Fortunately for your feels, I have less dealings with children in a year, than you likely do in a day.
If that's what you think my intent was, you go right ahead with that.
That's how I had to take it, because the rest of it was so absurd that I refuse to accept that an intelligent person believes it. There are fully functional obese people everywhere. The fact that a fat kid is able to actually move around is am indicator that nothing is wrong?
Spoiler alert: I was a fat kid, and maybe if someone had have actually acknowledged it was a problem, I wouldn't have ended up in my mid-20s, looking at myself in the mirror with disgust at contempt at 265 lbs. (who was also fully capable of working full time construction, I'll add). Instead it was normalized by my fat as hell family, and rationalized by those in my day to day childhood because my family was fat as hell. The only people whoever acknowledged it as an issue, were the "jocks" who were happy to tell me what a fat piece of *kitten* I was, only to end up having that ovewritten by the aforementioned rationalization and normalization.
Absolutely nothing you typed there has any relation whatsoever to anything I said.
Nowhere did I say that an overweight child being able to "actually move around" means that there isn't an issue to be addressed. What I actually said was that you were 100% incorrect in your assumption that a child medically classified as overweight or obese would certainly be "so fat" as to strike horror in their loved ones and the people around them. Many children classified as overweight or obese also appear quite height/weight proportionate and wear clothing in the same sizes as their peers of similar heights who are in the normal BMI range - which is not nearly so broad as you claim - and, yes, they participate in and excel in the same activities as their peers. Because not every kid receiving a neon sticker notifying everyone that they're fat is going to fit into the meme-worthy marshmallow man mental image of childhood obesity that it seems like you might have.
Additionally, nowhere did I say that it isn't necessary to acknowledge and address the weight of a child who is overweight or obese. In fact, exactly the opposite. What I actually said was it's essential to address these issues in a way that fosters a positive body image and that focuses on health and fitness rather than weight. And that the fact that an alleged adult would actually stoop to the level of insulting children based on their weight is....I don't even know. I mean, what level of disregard for humanity does it take to act like that? That's messed up.
I'm really sorry that you were a fat kid. *Spoiler alert,* so was I. I also had a family that enabled me and plenty of kids oinking and mooing at me as they walked past my desk in junior high, all that stuff. But, as an adult, I've chosen to not only take responsibility for my own actions and health, but also to let stuff that happened 20+ years ago go. Also, as an adult, I realize that it's incredibly important to encourage good health in children and hopefully set them up with a base for good health for the rest of their lives, including good mental health. Not, you know, belittle them and call them names. It might be easier for you to move past some of that stuff if you tried to consider overweight children objectively and with a little compassion rather than project your past experiences onto them. I sincerely wish you the best of luck with that.1 -
Being Vegan or not Vegan is not the issue here.....both are fine if there is no neglect on the part of the parent. There are so many products available in most supermarkets today. I feel the couple in Alberta neglected their child, with their own problems. My son is Vegan, and going to compete in body building to show that it can be done being Vegan. I am so proud of him......but I cannot be Vegan myself. I hope he can change some of the stereo-types with his competing.0
-
trixie5059 wrote: »Being Vegan or not Vegan is not the issue here.....both are fine if there is no neglect on the part of the parent. There are so many products available in most supermarkets today. I feel the couple in Alberta neglected their child, with their own problems. My son is Vegan, and going to compete in body building to show that it can be done being Vegan. I am so proud of him......but I cannot be Vegan myself. I hope he can change some of the stereo-types with his competing.
There have been Vegan bodybuilders and powerlifters for a long time. It's not likely that one more is going to change anything. The biggest problem surrounding it, is that most often, Vegans swear that they can compete with their meateating counterparts in strength sports, but then often just go off and form their own leagues instead of actually competing. It's rare that you see one actually bothering to enter one of the mainstream BB or PL comps, and when they do, the results are rarely pretty. And then their supporters make excuses and assumptions like "clearly everyone but the Vegan is on roids, so of course he can't win, abloobloobloo."
ETA: and so no one can accuse me of moving the goalposts later, my real issue with it (and it's the same argument I had with someone on here years ago) is that there is not a single world record holding Vegan in any strength sport, period. And no, Baboumian's silly *kitten* beer keg lift doesn't count. I'm talking about competitive strength sports, not sideshow gags.0 -
TheLegendaryBrandonHarris wrote: »Looks like there might be a need for honesty coupled with tactfulness in regards to dealing with kids...especially broaching the subject with their parents.
Is the child in question honestly at risk of malnutrition or obesity or some other condition?
If so, what is a tactful, appropriate, and effective way to address this risk?
The adults (parents, teachers, healthcare professionals) need to be partners.
+1
1 -
FrugalMomsRock75 wrote: »It's only pointing out that 1) the infant growth charts are based on formula fed babies (not breastfed, and THEREFORE NOT APPLICABLE). and 2) the child growth charts are based on the Average American diet (therefore, NOT APPLICABLE TO VEGAN CHILDREN).
This argument doesn't really help you in your quest to promote veganism. Nourishment leads to good growth regardless of the culture. You can see the profound effect of good nourishment in countries around the world.. and the effect of malnourishment. Well-nourished children, regardless of their way of eating, grow faster and bigger than malnourished ones. This should really be obvious.
That said, I think it's a parents' prerogative to feed their children in the manner they see fit. Unless the child is obviously malnourished, it's really no one else's business.4 -
MissTattoo wrote: »I don't think your diet has anything to do with height of your children. It's genetics. My 9 year old has always been the tallest baby/toddler/child. She's 5'2 while the rest of her 4th grade class is under 4'7. I'm 5'11. Her dad is 6'7. My sister is 5'11. My dad was 6'5. My aunt is 6'2. My first cousins (on my dad's side) are 6'2+ (female and male) We're just tall. She was going to be tall regardless if I breastfed or not or if she ate meat or just veggies.
I don't think it should be outlawed, but I do think people need to be educated. You can't feed a newborn just water and liquefied carrots. As long as your child isn't starved, feed them whatever works for you.
I think what she is saying is her child is growing optimally in spite of the vegan diet, in other words, the diet has not helped, hurt or hindered her genetic potential to this point. She is getting her nutrients (which is really all that matters) and is thriving...3 -
chunky_pinup wrote: »chunky_pinup wrote: »MissTattoo wrote: »I don't think your diet has anything to do with height of your children. It's genetics. My 9 year old has always been the tallest baby/toddler/child. She's 5'2 while the rest of her 4th grade class is under 4'7. I'm 5'11. Her dad is 6'7. My sister is 5'11. My dad was 6'5. My aunt is 6'2. My first cousins (on my dad's side) are 6'2+ (female and male) We're just tall. She was going to be tall regardless if I breastfed or not or if she ate meat or just veggies.
I don't think it should be outlawed, but I do think people need to be educated. You can't feed a newborn just water and liquefied carrots. As long as your child isn't starved, feed them whatever works for you.
I'm fully aware that her height is genetics...but she wouldn't be reaching that height if she was malnourished or deficient nutrient-wise, which is the reasoning behind the law they are trying to pass in the article.
so are you saying that non-vegans are malnourished???
When did I say that?
I'm debating the article...you know...the thing I actually read...on a post in a debate forum...debating said article...before taking offense to someone's post for something not even said.
and i am debating your comments and asking you to clarify them. it is still a public forum.
You implied that a vegan child is somehow more nourished then a non vegan child, which is why I asked for clarification.
I did not take it that way. I took it to mean, her child is "as nourished" as a child who is non-vegan...6 -
Friggin UK gov't needs an overhaul. travesty that this kinda thing is even considered.
Question for vegans and parents of vegans...if a vegan mom nurses her child, the child is not 'vegan' right? Not until the kid goes on food?0 -
DetroitDarin wrote: »Friggin UK gov't needs an overhaul. travesty that this kinda thing is even considered.
Question for vegans and parents of vegans...if a vegan mom nurses her child, the child is not 'vegan' right? Not until the kid goes on food?
HA! That is an interesting question.
Note, though, this is happening in Italy not the UK.0 -
Vegan diets do not need to be outlawed. No. Parents who put their personal philosophy over the health of their child are the issue. You can be nourished and vegan, and malnourished and omnivorous.5
-
chunky_pinup wrote: »I was saying my child's health, growth and thriving status had not been hindered by her vegan diet, which is what the article claimed vegan diets do to children.
No, the article didn't make any such claims. It talked about an Italian politician who seemed to think that a vegan diet was inherently problematic, and a law that may or may not outlaw vegan diets for young children. That was unclear to me, as the reporting wasn't great, and the actual issue seemed to be a bad and inadequate vegan diet followed in a particular case and the law seemed possibly to be about denying a child essential nutrients like B12, not "animal products" or serving a vegan diet alone. That's why I asked if anyone had the text of the proposed law or could read the Italian sources discussing it.
Here are relevant bits:Elvira Savino, of centre-right party Forza Italia, has proposed legislation under which parents who provide children aged 16 and under with a "diet lacking essential elements for an healthy growth" face up to two years of prison.
So does it define what these "essential elements" are or how to determine them? Because as others have pointed out, a properly supplemented vegan diet does not lack essential elements.Ms Savino writes that vegan diets leave children potentially lacking in iron, zinc and B12, which can lead to neurological problems and anaemia, reports Italian newspaper La Repubblica.
Note: this is the politician, not the viewpoint of the newspaper/article.
It's also not clear if the law, vs. the one politician's motivation, would encompass all vegan diets. I'd also love an actual quotation, as there is a big difference between saying "some vegan diets leave a child lacking in..." vs. "vegan diets leave a child potentially lacking.." yet I can see that getting easily messed up in the translation and paraphrasing.
The article goes on to claim: "Any parent forcing a vegan diet on a child aged three or younger would face at least two years of prison." This is the most ridiculous part of it, IMO, but I would need to know the text of the legislation to comment meaningfully, as I see newspapers report inaccurately the details of proposed laws in English often enough, so am disinclined to trust completely here.The proposed legislation follows a number of high-profile cases in which children, some younger than three, malnourished on account of a poorly-constructed vegan diet imposed on them by their parents have been removed from their care.
As I noted above, there have been some prosecutions in North America for similar things.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions