Teacher says Pop Tarts are not a healthy snack
Options
Replies
-
What bothers me a bit is this whole "snack time" thing. For elementary kids school starts at 9am. Perhaps they ate at 8am? Lunch is at 12:00 and the kids are done at 3:00ish. In the morning that is a 4 hour window of no food, and in the afternoon, it is just over 3 hours. Most kids can go that long between meals by time they are a year old. Why the regression?
As long as the kids' meals aren't too high GI, they should be able to go 4 hours without food. Kids used to not snack at school. We weren't even allowed gum. I don't remember it being a problem.Christine_72 wrote: »Aaah gone are the days when kids swapped lunches and snacks, there were no food rules and allergies/sicknesses/intolerance's were rarely heard of. Wtf has happened to our kids since i was in school??
It was still there, but the kids weren't as protected. My neighbour had a peanut allergy that was severe. He ended up the hospital a few times per year because kids ate peanut butter around him.6 -
My child's school is very specific about not allowing candy, large bags of chips and soda at lunch. They have a snack and it is specified that they are to bring a "small, healthy snack". I personally don't believe that foods are healthy/unhealthy in isolation but I have no problem with the school's policy. The teacher is usually enforcing the school's rule, which is often supervised by the federal or state government.
Perhaps it helps that I work in education but I would never, ever "read a teacher the riot act" over a Poptart. For heaven's sake they have enough to do without catching crap over a school policy. In the grand scheme you will need to realize that your child will hear things that you as a family might not agree with and this is your chance to teach your child that different people have different ideas and that one person can believe a Poptart is not a healthy choice for a snack while another person might see it differently. It is life.6 -
I would also like to add that the teacher was acting in what they thought was the best interest of the student. I'm a bit surprised by the strong reactions against the teacher.... Get her fired because she said a pop tart is not a healthy sanck? I think that is a large over reaction. A short meeting ith the teacher is all it should take to clear that up... or a healthier snack.13
-
I would also like to add that the teacher was acting in what they thought was the best interest of the student. I'm a bit surprised by the strong reactions against the teacher.... Get her fired because she said a pop tart is not a healthy sanck? I think that is a large over reaction. A short meeting ith the teacher is all it should take to clear that up... or a healthier snack.
I think people have lost sight of what is important. This is an opportunity to teach a child about rules and how you can follow a rule and think it is silly. But not everything is a hill to die on. Is your child learning? Safe? Happy and healthy? If so then I'd say that giving a granola bar over a Poptart is really the least of your concerns. After all, not every kid is getting a well-balanced diet outside of school.7 -
If you read the nutrient values on the box, you will realize the teacher is right. Pop Tarts are consists of complex sugar which is worst the simple sugar. The preservative are also bad. With that said, I agree with what your son's teacher is trying to preach, but she is doing it the wrong way. Instead of telling you it's bad, she should be doing constructive criticism, suggesting snacks that are healthy. I am on a low carb, high protein diet to help build more muscles during workout. A good source of protein is nuts of any kind. Offer your son nuts to take to school. If he want something sweet, try blueberries as they are very tasty but not a lot of carbs. If he like juice, buy juice with low or no sugar like Ocean Spray Diet or Low Sugar juice.4
-
We got the fishy cracker reprimand from our kids school. This is just a manifistation of how the majority of people these days feel it's the governments responsibility to parent our kids and also parent the parenting. People sincerely believe the governement knows better than we do on whats best. Not just in parenting but in more and more aspects of our lives. We used to be a country of liberty and freedom, but not anymore.
Sorry, just in one of my rare soap box moods today. Carry on..........0 -
What bothers me a bit is this whole "snack time" thing. For elementary kids school starts at 9am. Perhaps they ate at 8am? Lunch is at 12:00 and the kids are done at 3:00ish. In the morning that is a 4 hour window of no food, and in the afternoon, it is just over 3 hours. Most kids can go that long between meals by time they are a year old. Why the regression?
As long as the kids' meals aren't too high GI, they should be able to go 4 hours without food. Kids used to not snack at school. We weren't even allowed gum. I don't remember it being a problem.Christine_72 wrote: »Aaah gone are the days when kids swapped lunches and snacks, there were no food rules and allergies/sicknesses/intolerance's were rarely heard of. Wtf has happened to our kids since i was in school??
It was still there, but the kids weren't as protected. My neighbour had a peanut allergy that was severe. He ended up the hospital a few times per year because kids ate peanut butter around him.
It depends-our old (elementary ) school started at 8:30 and lunch was at noon, school got out 3:38. That's not factoring in bus times, which in our case was around 40 minutes each way. My sister's kids are out the door before 7am and don't get home til after 6pm, due to before /after care.0 -
Ready2Rock206 wrote: »
I have a summer birthday. I never got to have a classroom birthday party. I'm still bitter. My child has a summer birthday too.
I feel your pain. My birthday was always on the last day of spring break To this day, I'm surprised when people actually celebrate it.
As for the OP, it sucks that your son got in trouble. It sucks even more that he was upset enough that he didn't want to eat Pop-tarts again. Hopefully, you have the wisdom to turn this into a teaching moment for him, as well as communicate with the school your wish to be a proactive part of his education.
1 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »What bothers me a bit is this whole "snack time" thing. For elementary kids school starts at 9am. Perhaps they ate at 8am? Lunch is at 12:00 and the kids are done at 3:00ish. In the morning that is a 4 hour window of no food, and in the afternoon, it is just over 3 hours. Most kids can go that long between meals by time they are a year old. Why the regression?
As long as the kids' meals aren't too high GI, they should be able to go 4 hours without food. Kids used to not snack at school. We weren't even allowed gum. I don't remember it being a problem.Christine_72 wrote: »Aaah gone are the days when kids swapped lunches and snacks, there were no food rules and allergies/sicknesses/intolerance's were rarely heard of. Wtf has happened to our kids since i was in school??
It was still there, but the kids weren't as protected. My neighbour had a peanut allergy that was severe. He ended up the hospital a few times per year because kids ate peanut butter around him.
It depends-our old school started at 8:30 and lunch was at noon, school got out 3:38. That's not factoring in bus times, which in our case was around 40 minutes each way. My sister's kids are out the door before 7am and don't get home til after 6pm, due to before /after care.
7:30-12:00 is a bit longer - 4.5 hours without food. If the breakfast was high GI, that would be tough for those kids. Those kids might want a snack. It should be doable for most kids.
I used to work in a before and afterschool care. The kids usually eat there. Long day for the kids though. 0 -
What bothers me a bit is this whole "snack time" thing. For elementary kids school starts at 9am. Perhaps they ate at 8am? Lunch is at 12:00 and the kids are done at 3:00ish. In the morning that is a 4 hour window of no food, and in the afternoon, it is just over 3 hours. Most kids can go that long between meals by time they are a year old. Why the regression?
As long as the kids' meals aren't too high GI, they should be able to go 4 hours without food. Kids used to not snack at school. We weren't even allowed gum. I don't remember it being a problem.Christine_72 wrote: »Aaah gone are the days when kids swapped lunches and snacks, there were no food rules and allergies/sicknesses/intolerance's were rarely heard of. Wtf has happened to our kids since i was in school??
It was still there, but the kids weren't as protected. My neighbour had a peanut allergy that was severe. He ended up the hospital a few times per year because kids ate peanut butter around him.
The bolded is what I've been thinking. I never had snacks at school. I think in Kindergarten we might have had a small milk in the afternoons, but jeez, kids don't need to be eating every couple of hours.
It's amazing how our society has changed in the last generation or so. Parents never got bent out of shape about stuff like this. What happened that parents are now so controlling and get so bent out of shape when someone in authority dares tell their kid something they don't agree with?1 -
We got the fishy cracker reprimand from our kids school. This is just a manifistation of how the majority of people these days feel it's the governments responsibility to parent our kids and also parent the parenting. People sincerely believe the governement knows better than we do on whats best. Not just in parenting but in more and more aspects of our lives. We used to be a country of liberty and freedom, but not anymore.
Sorry, just in one of my rare soap box moods today. Carry on..........
We also didn't used to be a country with 70% of the population overweight/obese, high rates of childhood obesity and the government paying over 50% of healthcare costs.
3 -
What bothers me a bit is this whole "snack time" thing. For elementary kids school starts at 9am. Perhaps they ate at 8am? Lunch is at 12:00 and the kids are done at 3:00ish. In the morning that is a 4 hour window of no food, and in the afternoon, it is just over 3 hours. Most kids can go that long between meals by time they are a year old. Why the regression?
As long as the kids' meals aren't too high GI, they should be able to go 4 hours without food. Kids used to not snack at school. We weren't even allowed gum. I don't remember it being a problem.Christine_72 wrote: »Aaah gone are the days when kids swapped lunches and snacks, there were no food rules and allergies/sicknesses/intolerance's were rarely heard of. Wtf has happened to our kids since i was in school??
It was still there, but the kids weren't as protected. My neighbour had a peanut allergy that was severe. He ended up the hospital a few times per year because kids ate peanut butter around him.
I work at an elementary school. Kids are in their classroom by 7:35 and our day goes until 3:45. A lot of them are there until 6 pm for afterschool. Long day. A little snack is usually needed.
ETA: sorry, dismissal is at 3:20 but half the school is not gone by then.0 -
My thought is that the schools don't like sugary snacks because some kids may get hyper. I could be mistaken though.... I don't think it's ok for teacher to be criticizing what kids bring to school.
I got so pissed when my son was going to camp and they would discuss healthy foods. Kids that brought "healthy" foods got to wear a healthy hat. My son was all upset one day because when the camp counselor saw his lunch he didn't get a hat. Mind you I'm paying this camp good money and they're inspecting my kids lunch!
To sum it up, I would be aggravated too.
I keep seeing the "teachers are avoiding hyperactivity" excuse in this thread a lot. Sugar does not cause hyperactivity. It's a strongly held onto old wives tale. Science says that belief is bunk.
http://www.yalescientific.org/2010/09/mythbusters-does-sugar-really-make-children-hyper/
Stop blaming bad behavior on sugar. The poor nutrient is unfairly blamed for so much already.
My friends ex makes sure to load up the kids with sugary drinks and lollies right before he drops them back off to her on Sunday nights, just to *kitten* her off! I swear sometimes he drops them off and their pupils have turned a blood red and their heads are spinning 360 round and round... Just kidding, but they are definitely pinging off the walls and overly hyper 0 -
Our school district lunches started at 10am so it could be a long time between meals but there still wasn't scheduled snacks. We'd come home starving but if dinner was at 5pm we had to wait to eat as not to spoil our appetite. If dinner was going to be later than that we'd be allowed a snack to tide us over. So it could be a good 6 or 7 hours between lunch and dinner.
Everyone lived. Almost no one was overweight - let alone obese - despite having sugary cereal and juice for breakfast and horrible school food. It was also no big deal to have cupcakes for someones birthday. Instead of healthy snacks they'd do better to eliminate the snacks altogether, IMO. (Not that I think high sugar diets are healthful I just think eating every couple of hours is worse.)1 -
What bothers me a bit is this whole "snack time" thing. For elementary kids school starts at 9am. Perhaps they ate at 8am? Lunch is at 12:00 and the kids are done at 3:00ish. In the morning that is a 4 hour window of no food, and in the afternoon, it is just over 3 hours. Most kids can go that long between meals by time they are a year old. Why the regression?
As long as the kids' meals aren't too high GI, they should be able to go 4 hours without food. Kids used to not snack at school. We weren't even allowed gum. I don't remember it being a problem.
.
They do lunch in shifts though - school starts at 7:30, some kids eat lunch at 10:30AM, and then don't get home till 4, latest shift may eat at 1:30pm, etc. They don't all get to have lunch at the exact same time, at the exact midpoint of the day; many do athletics after school, others are in aftercare till 6, since parents generally have to work to support a family. I don't think snack time should be mandated OR banned, it's reasonable to have it as an option. Not everyone can get home in time for afternoon tea.0 -
Here school starts at 9, recess is around 11am and lunch is usually 12:30 or 1pm, and that's it. No eating in the classrooms.
ETA: This is primary and high school, i cant remember how it was in kindy. My kids are 21 and 24, so it's been a while, but there was never a ban on food when they were in school, they could bring in peanuts or whatever they wanted.0 -
What bothers me a bit is this whole "snack time" thing. For elementary kids school starts at 9am. Perhaps they ate at 8am? Lunch is at 12:00 and the kids are done at 3:00ish. In the morning that is a 4 hour window of no food, and in the afternoon, it is just over 3 hours. Most kids can go that long between meals by time they are a year old. Why the regression?
As long as the kids' meals aren't too high GI, they should be able to go 4 hours without food. Kids used to not snack at school. We weren't even allowed gum. I don't remember it being a problem.
.
They do lunch in shifts though - school starts at 7:30, some kids eat lunch at 10:30AM, and then don't get home till 4, latest shift may eat at 1:30pm, etc. They don't all get to have lunch at the exact same time, at the exact midpoint of the day; many do athletics after school, others are in aftercare till 6, since parents generally have to work to support a family. I don't think snack time should be mandated OR banned, it's reasonable to have it as an option. Not everyone can get home in time for afternoon tea.
0 -
I would also like to add that the teacher was acting in what they thought was the best interest of the student. I'm a bit surprised by the strong reactions against the teacher.... Get her fired because she said a pop tart is not a healthy sanck? I think that is a large over reaction. A short meeting ith the teacher is all it should take to clear that up... or a healthier snack.
Well that is the problem with the snowflakes of this country. You make too much sense for them.2 -
What bothers me a bit is this whole "snack time" thing. For elementary kids school starts at 9am. Perhaps they ate at 8am? Lunch is at 12:00 and the kids are done at 3:00ish. In the morning that is a 4 hour window of no food, and in the afternoon, it is just over 3 hours. Most kids can go that long between meals by time they are a year old. Why the regression?
As long as the kids' meals aren't too high GI, they should be able to go 4 hours without food. Kids used to not snack at school. We weren't even allowed gum. I don't remember it being a problem.Christine_72 wrote: »Aaah gone are the days when kids swapped lunches and snacks, there were no food rules and allergies/sicknesses/intolerance's were rarely heard of. Wtf has happened to our kids since i was in school??
It was still there, but the kids weren't as protected. My neighbour had a peanut allergy that was severe. He ended up the hospital a few times per year because kids ate peanut butter around him.
The bolded is what I've been thinking. I never had snacks at school. I think in Kindergarten we might have had a small milk in the afternoons, but jeez, kids don't need to be eating every couple of hours.
It's amazing how our society has changed in the last generation or so. Parents never got bent out of shape about stuff like this. What happened that parents are now so controlling and get so bent out of shape when someone in authority dares tell their kid something they don't agree with?
Yes, big change in the last generation. We had morning milk in 1st through 3rd grades IIRC (Kindergarten was afternoon only for me and I didn't do pre-school). It was provided by the school. So we all had 1 carton (8 oz.) of milk. I ate at 7:30a in the school cafeteria before the day started at 8:15a. Lunch varied by year (not everybody ate the the same time) from 11:40a to 1:10p. We didn't bring in extra snacks and there was supposed to be no food or drink in classrooms, with the exception for the milk mentioned above and a rare holiday event. By high school, some students would have snacks outside of class, but still only between classes. We didn't have much time, so even then it was limited. Usually didn't happen until after school.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »hawkmancody wrote: »There is 16 g of sugar in a cherry poptart. And 4.5 g sugar per oz of grapes. So 1 poptart is equal to not quit 4 oz of grapes. That's like what 10-15 grapes if even that many. Sure grapes have other vitamins but still both can be in a good diet. Besides sugar is sugar doesn't matter if you get it from a soda or fruit it all becomes the same thing.
Some nutrition study is needed if you're saying 4 oz of grapes are the same quality snack as a pop tart
Same amount of sugar, different micronutrients, neither being particularly outstanding.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fruits-and-fruit-juices/1920/2
Ask 100 registered dietitians their recommendation for a snack and I would be willing to bet 95%+ of them would pick the grapes over Pop Tarts.
So you don't care about the actual nutrient contained but rather go for the "duh, of course grapes are healthy"?
Which do you think dietitians would pick as the better snack choice?
Instead of using the old Call to authority fallacy, try to think about WHY you think they'd pick grapes as a better snack choice and why you think they're a better snack choice. I outlined the nutrients in both to you as to why neither is particularly outstanding nutritionally, they're about equal if you compare them, so it certainly isn't because they're so much better nutritionally.
So you forgot to answer my question.
I personally have no problem listening to the advice of experts, especially when the experts would be in virtually unanimous agreement.
I have not problem if someone want to eat Pop Tarts (I sure as hell am not) but saying Pop Tarts and grapes are the same nutritionally/have the same effect on the body is IIFYM gone horribly wrong.
Look at the star rating for pop tarts from your own source:
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/baked-products/5212/2
Pop Tarts get 1 or 2 stars, the grapes get 3 stars across the board, so according to your source grapes are better.
Also, the information from your source is for 100 calories of grapes vs 200 calories of Pop Tarts so the nutrient values for the grapes are doubled.
Sure, go for 200 calories of grapes then. Suddenly the grapes have double the sugar of the pop tart.
Do some research (oh but that involves listening to experts which apparently yo don't like) about added sugars in foods.
A snowflake NEVER does their own research, they just look at Facebook, and believe the information is the truth.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 925 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions