Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Elementary School Gym teachers telling kids to restrict calories!
Replies
-
WinoGelato wrote: »Why doesn't she just teach the portion plate?
With that being said I don't know how to teach kids that donuts, poptarts, chips, candy, pizza etc are "junk" without teaching them to look at the label and see how many calories are in the food.
This suggests that the deciding factor of if something is "junk" or not, is how many calories are in it. There are plenty of calorie dense Whole Foods as well, the nuts that the teacher ate, things like avocado, banana, etc - could have more calories than a serving of chips or a piece of candy.
Additionally, why is pizza "junk"? I'm actually trying to avoid labeling food "junk" with my kids. I'm trying to teach them that foods have different nutritional content and that some things should be reserved as treats, but really any food can be part of a healthy diet if eaten in moderation.
I consider junk food to be low in nutrients and high in calories. I see your point with pizza because it go either ways. For example, if you make pizza, you could use a whole grain crust with tomato sauce then top the pizza with lots of veggies and a small handful of cheese. There are lots of nutrients here and I would consider this healthy. When I look at the nutrition facts for a pizza from Papa Johns (different restaurants may vary) I don't see any nutrients. It is high in sodium, has some saturated fat, 1 gram of fiber, and 7 grams of protein. What nutrients is this pizza from a restaurant providing that you couldn't get from a lower calorie (and lower in sodium) source?
For high calorie foods like avocados or nuts, I don't consider them to be junk because they are high in nutrition but the need to be eaten in moderation. You can't get your poly and monounsaturated fats from any food that will be low in calories because fats by nature are high in calories.
Why couldn't you order a pizza from Papa Johns (or Dominos or any other pizza place) and top it with lots of veggies? Wouldn't it have nutrients then? Does the fact that Papa Johns made the pizza suddenly negate any nutritional value in the pizza? I don't order from Papa Johns very often, but I often get Domino's and my pizza of choice is chicken, spinach, and roasted red pepper. When I make pizza at home, as I also often do, I make a thin crust with grilled chicken, spinach, artichokes and roasted red pepper. How is one acceptable from a nutrient standpoint, and one isn't?
1 -
@WinoGelato here is an easy way to determine if something is healthy or not. Ask yourself, is this something I should be eating everyday? I think people should be eating fruits, vegetables, healthy fats in the form of nuts or avocado or oil, dairy, and whole grains, and lean protein everyday. I do not think people should be eating pizza everyday.
I don't really think this is a good test, because it comes down to how you define the food and amounts. Should I be having cake everyday? Maybe not (I rarely have it, personally). Should I have dessert every day or a sweet every day, if I want to? Let's say it's a 50 cal piece of good chocolate or a cup of hot chocolate I like to have before bed or a glass of wine after dinner (just one). Problem?
I think that's similar to the healthy fat thing -- yes, you need healthy fats daily. Do most people need to be having avocado daily? Probably not. Would it hurt if it were a strong preference? Of course not.
Is steak junk food? I don't think so. Is it a good idea to eat it for dinner every evening? Probably not.
I wouldn't eat pizza every day because I'd be bored, but it's basically identical to pasta and can be as variable. If I were obsessed with it and varied between cheeseless and not, white and not, whole grain crust, cauliflower crust, quinoa based crust, portobella mushroom crust, etc., different protein-based toppings (shrimp, lean beef, chicken, proscuitto, even egg), a variety of veg, etc., why not. Good pizza places here (or just local Italian places) will often have a huge variety of ideas for types of pizza, you certainly could at home.1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Why doesn't she just teach the portion plate?
With that being said I don't know how to teach kids that donuts, poptarts, chips, candy, pizza etc are "junk" without teaching them to look at the label and see how many calories are in the food.
This suggests that the deciding factor of if something is "junk" or not, is how many calories are in it. There are plenty of calorie dense Whole Foods as well, the nuts that the teacher ate, things like avocado, banana, etc - could have more calories than a serving of chips or a piece of candy.
Additionally, why is pizza "junk"? I'm actually trying to avoid labeling food "junk" with my kids. I'm trying to teach them that foods have different nutritional content and that some things should be reserved as treats, but really any food can be part of a healthy diet if eaten in moderation.
I consider junk food to be low in nutrients and high in calories. I see your point with pizza because it go either ways. For example, if you make pizza, you could use a whole grain crust with tomato sauce then top the pizza with lots of veggies and a small handful of cheese. There are lots of nutrients here and I would consider this healthy. When I look at the nutrition facts for a pizza from Papa Johns (different restaurants may vary) I don't see any nutrients. It is high in sodium, has some saturated fat, 1 gram of fiber, and 7 grams of protein. What nutrients is this pizza from a restaurant providing that you couldn't get from a lower calorie (and lower in sodium) source?
For high calorie foods like avocados or nuts, I don't consider them to be junk because they are high in nutrition but the need to be eaten in moderation. You can't get your poly and monounsaturated fats from any food that will be low in calories because fats by nature are high in calories.
Why couldn't you order a pizza from Papa Johns (or Dominos or any other pizza place) and top it with lots of veggies? Wouldn't it have nutrients then? Does the fact that Papa Johns made the pizza suddenly negate any nutritional value in the pizza? I don't order from Papa Johns very often, but I often get Domino's and my pizza of choice is chicken, spinach, and roasted red pepper. When I make pizza at home, as I also often do, I make a thin crust with grilled chicken, spinach, artichokes and roasted red pepper. How is one acceptable from a nutrient standpoint, and one isn't?
You could order a pizza from Papa Johns and add vegetables to it. You would be adding nutrition to it. But the pizza you are making at at home, you are getting just as much nutrition from it for less calories, saturated fat, and salt. When I had written my original post I was thinking restaurant pizza. I was thinking about an article I had read listing the top ten foods Americans eat and pizza was one of them.
We are going to have to agree to disagree. I consider those foods junk because I do not feel that for all the calories they provide, they give adequate nutrition. I think people can work them into their diet and be healthy despite the fact they are eating those foods, not because of them. Do you believe eating a donut before a hike is healthy? Are you telling your kids, "It is healthy to have this donut before our hike"? Or is it something you enjoy doing and know that because you diet is overall very good and you are active you can work it in? Also, I am not saying I never eat those things. I eat those foods the foods I describe as junk because I enjoy them. But I don't for one second consider them healthy.
I am going to call those foods junk food because I work in health care (dietitian and going to nursing school). I see what the American diet is doing the American population. I had a kid pull a bag of Cheetos out of his pocket the other day that had 3.5 servings in it, so 560 calories. I am tired of working with kids who are prediabetic and have to take metformin, have fatty liver disease, and/or high cholesterol. No child should have to deal with these health problems. If you don't like that I call the foods you are eating junk, fine, but those foods are poisoning our population and I am going to call it like I see it.
I am looking at my original comment and I think I should have put more thought into it. I think kids should be taught to read nutrition facts, especially the serving size, to get a general idea of the calories in the food so they understand some foods are more calorically dense then others. There should also be a discussion of the nutrients in the food. What vitamins and minerals are we getting? Is this a food high in antioxidants and fiber? Healthy fats?
Finally, the word moderation means different things to different people. She is holding 2 cupcakes and considers this moderation.
1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Why doesn't she just teach the portion plate?
With that being said I don't know how to teach kids that donuts, poptarts, chips, candy, pizza etc are "junk" without teaching them to look at the label and see how many calories are in the food.
This suggests that the deciding factor of if something is "junk" or not, is how many calories are in it. There are plenty of calorie dense Whole Foods as well, the nuts that the teacher ate, things like avocado, banana, etc - could have more calories than a serving of chips or a piece of candy.
Additionally, why is pizza "junk"? I'm actually trying to avoid labeling food "junk" with my kids. I'm trying to teach them that foods have different nutritional content and that some things should be reserved as treats, but really any food can be part of a healthy diet if eaten in moderation.
I consider junk food to be low in nutrients and high in calories. I see your point with pizza because it go either ways. For example, if you make pizza, you could use a whole grain crust with tomato sauce then top the pizza with lots of veggies and a small handful of cheese. There are lots of nutrients here and I would consider this healthy. When I look at the nutrition facts for a pizza from Papa Johns (different restaurants may vary) I don't see any nutrients. It is high in sodium, has some saturated fat, 1 gram of fiber, and 7 grams of protein. What nutrients is this pizza from a restaurant providing that you couldn't get from a lower calorie (and lower in sodium) source?
For high calorie foods like avocados or nuts, I don't consider them to be junk because they are high in nutrition but the need to be eaten in moderation. You can't get your poly and monounsaturated fats from any food that will be low in calories because fats by nature are high in calories.
Why couldn't you order a pizza from Papa Johns (or Dominos or any other pizza place) and top it with lots of veggies? Wouldn't it have nutrients then? Does the fact that Papa Johns made the pizza suddenly negate any nutritional value in the pizza? I don't order from Papa Johns very often, but I often get Domino's and my pizza of choice is chicken, spinach, and roasted red pepper. When I make pizza at home, as I also often do, I make a thin crust with grilled chicken, spinach, artichokes and roasted red pepper. How is one acceptable from a nutrient standpoint, and one isn't?
I am going to call those foods junk food because I work in health care (dietitian and going to nursing school). I see what the American diet is doing the American population. I had a kid pull a bag of Cheetos out of his pocket the other day that had 3.5 servings in it, so 560 calories. I am tired of working with kids who are prediabetic and have to take metformin, have fatty liver disease, and/or high cholesterol. No child should have to deal with these health problems. If you don't like that I call the foods you are eating junk, fine, but those foods are poisoning our population and I am going to call it like I see it.
I am looking at my original comment and I think I should have put more thought into it. I think kids should be taught to read nutrition facts, especially the serving size, to get a general idea of the calories in the food so they understand some foods are more calorically dense then others. There should also be a discussion of the nutrients in the food. What vitamins and minerals are we getting? Is this a food high in antioxidants and fiber? Healthy fats?
Finally, the word moderation means different things to different people. She is holding 2 cupcakes and considers this moderation.
Bless you. Hopefully you're not fighting a lost cause.
Is the picture you posted a real thing from Health at Every Size? If it is, there is nothing healthy about anything in it.0 -
I don't know where that pic is from but because she is holding one up couldn't it also mean just one cupcake?
In real life because someone bakes 2 dozen cookies doesn't mean they eat them all in one sitting.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Why doesn't she just teach the portion plate?
With that being said I don't know how to teach kids that donuts, poptarts, chips, candy, pizza etc are "junk" without teaching them to look at the label and see how many calories are in the food.
This suggests that the deciding factor of if something is "junk" or not, is how many calories are in it. There are plenty of calorie dense Whole Foods as well, the nuts that the teacher ate, things like avocado, banana, etc - could have more calories than a serving of chips or a piece of candy.
Additionally, why is pizza "junk"? I'm actually trying to avoid labeling food "junk" with my kids. I'm trying to teach them that foods have different nutritional content and that some things should be reserved as treats, but really any food can be part of a healthy diet if eaten in moderation.
I consider junk food to be low in nutrients and high in calories. I see your point with pizza because it go either ways. For example, if you make pizza, you could use a whole grain crust with tomato sauce then top the pizza with lots of veggies and a small handful of cheese. There are lots of nutrients here and I would consider this healthy. When I look at the nutrition facts for a pizza from Papa Johns (different restaurants may vary) I don't see any nutrients. It is high in sodium, has some saturated fat, 1 gram of fiber, and 7 grams of protein. What nutrients is this pizza from a restaurant providing that you couldn't get from a lower calorie (and lower in sodium) source?
For high calorie foods like avocados or nuts, I don't consider them to be junk because they are high in nutrition but the need to be eaten in moderation. You can't get your poly and monounsaturated fats from any food that will be low in calories because fats by nature are high in calories.
Why couldn't you order a pizza from Papa Johns (or Dominos or any other pizza place) and top it with lots of veggies? Wouldn't it have nutrients then? Does the fact that Papa Johns made the pizza suddenly negate any nutritional value in the pizza? I don't order from Papa Johns very often, but I often get Domino's and my pizza of choice is chicken, spinach, and roasted red pepper. When I make pizza at home, as I also often do, I make a thin crust with grilled chicken, spinach, artichokes and roasted red pepper. How is one acceptable from a nutrient standpoint, and one isn't?
You could order a pizza from Papa Johns and add vegetables to it. You would be adding nutrition to it. But the pizza you are making at at home, you are getting just as much nutrition from it for less calories, saturated fat, and salt. When I had written my original post I was thinking restaurant pizza. I was thinking about an article I had read listing the top ten foods Americans eat and pizza was one of them.
I like making pizza at home, but the crust is usually better (because of the ovens and maybe the flour and practice) at restaurants. Many restaurant pizzas have things like lean meat and lots of vegetables (and you can get a salad or greens too). I don't know why one would assume that a restaurant pizza is void of nutrition. OF COURSE, you can certainly make a lower cal pizza at home (which matters if one is short of calories), but that's the same with any dish, not just pizza. Does that make restaurants always a bad choice, even if one enjoys them?
I recently got Ethiopian delivery, because I was tired and wanted something easy and because I like Ethiopian food and while I could make a lower cal version it wouldn't be as good. Does that make what I ordered (a mix of dishes based on collard greens, lentils, spinach, and cabbage and carrots) BAD or nutritionally void or junk food? That seems crazy, and yet I don't see how such a claim would be any different than the one you made about pizza.
As for restaurant pizza, it's diverse. I like a variety of kinds (not Pizza John's, which I've never had and can't say I want to try). One I mentioned in a recent thread is this new NYC-style place here, Robert's. You can build your own pizza with favorite ingredients, but some of the options on the menu are:
Seafood
Roasted clams, calamari, shrimp, fresh mozzarella, garlic, EVOO
Huevos Rancheros
Black bean, chorizo, queso fresco, scallion, cilantro, salsa verde and eggs ( gluten free crust n/a)
Brussels Sprout and Applewood Smoked Bacon
with dates, smoked mozzarella and balsamic glaze
Chicken Breast and Spinach
with artichoke hearts, Fontina cheese and lemon zest
I don't see how that's much different than a normal restaurant meal, and you can add more veg, if you want to.
Most local Italian places have good pizza too, with lean meat, eggs, arugula, asparagus, broccoli, artichoke, a huge variety -- not nutrient void at all.
Also, I think of the day as a whole, not one meal. I'm more of a vegetarian pizza person so my pizza might be lower protein than I like, so I eat more protein and veg at other meals. Not that complicated.We are going to have to agree to disagree. I consider those foods junk because I do not feel that for all the calories they provide, they give adequate nutrition. I think people can work them into their diet and be healthy despite the fact they are eating those foods, not because of them. Do you believe eating a donut before a hike is healthy? Are you telling your kids, "It is healthy to have this donut before our hike"? Or is it something you enjoy doing and know that because you diet is overall very good and you are active you can work it in? Also, I am not saying I never eat those things. I eat those foods the foods I describe as junk because I enjoy them. But I don't for one second consider them healthy.
I call foods "junk foods" because it's a commonly understood term. I don't consider them unhealthy (if eaten in context and moderation) or "bad." You seem to be saying that what your overall diet is is less important than that you call foods "bad" or "junk." I don't get that. I have NEVER seen any evidence that thinking specific foods that you happen to enjoy and want to eat are BAD makes you eat less of them. It's not so for me. For me, focusing on overall diet and nutrition and not labeling specific foods is what makes me eat better overall.
I don't feel compelled to go on about how bad Cheetos or fast food is, but I never consume the first and rarely the second, so I guess it doesn't hurt me. I find the obsession with saying certain foods are bad as if that has some kind of beneficial property in itself to be, well, confusing. Why not teach people to understand nutrition and to be rational about food. That in itself would be sufficient to demonstrate that huge amounts of Cheetos is not a smart idea. And for at least many people, thinking eating ice cream is "bad" and "ruins a day" seems to mean that if they have some it's green light to have all, since they've already "been bad" and the day is a write-off. I used to have some of that kind of thinking myself, and I've seen it in many others. Getting rid of that and focusing on the overall nutrition of the day is IMO often quite helpful. (And for those prone to shame, thinking "I want to eat a cookie dough and cookie dough is a bad food, I must be a bad person for wanting it then" is really not surprising and can lead to a negative spiral.)2 -
Talking about healthy calories and the idea of counting calories, ie calories in calories out is appropriate. Teaching kids that there is a calorie threshold is also ok. Giving them the knowledge about calories at a young age will help them. Maybe some will go home and talk to their parent who may not know this. If they are learning they should eat healthy fruits and vegetables at school, they may ask for those things to be bought at home.1
-
heiliskrimsli wrote: »Why doesn't she just teach the portion plate?
With that being said I don't know how to teach kids that donuts, poptarts, chips, candy, pizza etc are "junk" without teaching them to look at the label and see how many calories are in the food.
I know for me the "portion plate" wasn't the problem. I was eating the right portions of the right foods and having a balanced diet.
And then on top of that, because kids shouldn't count or limit calories, I was eating far too much other crap too. Because why not just tack that on if you have never been told about calories and that there's a limit to how many of them you should consume in a day. There was a single fundamental piece of information missing throughout my entire childhood, and that thing was an upper bound on calories in.
So no one told you that if you wanted to lose weight, don't take so much food?
You don't need to know anything about calories to know that. I knew that as a kid, but in the other direction. I was 'bird legs'. I needed to eat more.
Food at home was put on my plate for me and I was required to eat it all or remain seated at the table until I did. My parents had terrible eating habits (and still do), so when I gained weight as a kid they pretty much said that's how it is, and they were happy enough to load stuff with high calorie "toppings" as well. It was not unsual at all to see butter on top of deep fried food at home which would be washed down with a pint of full sugar soda, without any indication that consuming so many calories was not so great.
My parents did not "diet" themselves and were appalled at any suggestion of putting a child on a calorie restricted diet, and since "I'm not hungry [anymore]." was a sentence to sit at the table for potentially hours, I learned to shut up and eat what I was given.0 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Why doesn't she just teach the portion plate?
With that being said I don't know how to teach kids that donuts, poptarts, chips, candy, pizza etc are "junk" without teaching them to look at the label and see how many calories are in the food.
I know for me the "portion plate" wasn't the problem. I was eating the right portions of the right foods and having a balanced diet.
And then on top of that, because kids shouldn't count or limit calories, I was eating far too much other crap too. Because why not just tack that on if you have never been told about calories and that there's a limit to how many of them you should consume in a day. There was a single fundamental piece of information missing throughout my entire childhood, and that thing was an upper bound on calories in.
So no one told you that if you wanted to lose weight, don't take so much food?
You don't need to know anything about calories to know that. I knew that as a kid, but in the other direction. I was 'bird legs'. I needed to eat more.
Food at home was put on my plate for me and I was required to eat it all or remain seated at the table until I did. My parents had terrible eating habits (and still do), so when I gained weight as a kid they pretty much said that's how it is, and they were happy enough to load stuff with high calorie "toppings" as well. It was not unsual at all to see butter on top of deep fried food at home which would be washed down with a pint of full sugar soda, without any indication that consuming so many calories was not so great.
My parents did not "diet" themselves and were appalled at any suggestion of putting a child on a calorie restricted diet, and since "I'm not hungry [anymore]." was a sentence to sit at the table for potentially hours, I learned to shut up and eat what I was given.
If that is the typical attitude your parents had toward food and meal time, how would a teacher teaching you about CICO and how to count the calories in the foods you eat, have been received at home? How would that have changed the outcome for you at meal time?0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Why doesn't she just teach the portion plate?
With that being said I don't know how to teach kids that donuts, poptarts, chips, candy, pizza etc are "junk" without teaching them to look at the label and see how many calories are in the food.
I know for me the "portion plate" wasn't the problem. I was eating the right portions of the right foods and having a balanced diet.
And then on top of that, because kids shouldn't count or limit calories, I was eating far too much other crap too. Because why not just tack that on if you have never been told about calories and that there's a limit to how many of them you should consume in a day. There was a single fundamental piece of information missing throughout my entire childhood, and that thing was an upper bound on calories in.
So no one told you that if you wanted to lose weight, don't take so much food?
You don't need to know anything about calories to know that. I knew that as a kid, but in the other direction. I was 'bird legs'. I needed to eat more.
Food at home was put on my plate for me and I was required to eat it all or remain seated at the table until I did. My parents had terrible eating habits (and still do), so when I gained weight as a kid they pretty much said that's how it is, and they were happy enough to load stuff with high calorie "toppings" as well. It was not unsual at all to see butter on top of deep fried food at home which would be washed down with a pint of full sugar soda, without any indication that consuming so many calories was not so great.
My parents did not "diet" themselves and were appalled at any suggestion of putting a child on a calorie restricted diet, and since "I'm not hungry [anymore]." was a sentence to sit at the table for potentially hours, I learned to shut up and eat what I was given.
If that is the typical attitude your parents had toward food and meal time, how would a teacher teaching you about CICO and how to count the calories in the foods you eat, have been received at home? How would that have changed the outcome for you at meal time?
When you have two options and one of them involves a consequence that is unpleasant for hours and one of them seems to just be that you'll feel a little stuffed for a couple minutes, the choice you make about which consequence is less desirable might be different than if you know what you're really in for by over eating. You may not understand that, or agree with it, but it would've been preferable to have that knowledge.1 -
@heiliskrimsli I am not you and have not lived your life, so I cannot say how you would have reacted. I will not venture to disagree with you on how it would have affected your life.
But in general, I think the combination of eat-till-your-plate-is-clear at home and CICO at school (especially if the CICO message is delivered in an emotionally charged 'Pay attention kids, this is very important for your health' manner, rather than a neutral 'This is how much energy people of different ages need' way) is how to induce bulimic purging, and probably shame-fuelled binging, in as many teens as possible.1 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »@heiliskrimsli I am not you and have not lived your life, so I cannot say how you would have reacted. I will not venture to disagree with you on how it would have affected your life.
But in general, I think the combination of eat-till-your-plate-is-clear at home and CICO at school (especially if the CICO message is delivered in an emotionally charged 'Pay attention kids, this is very important for your health' manner, rather than a neutral 'This is how much energy people of different ages need' way) is how to induce bulimic purging, and probably shame-fuelled binging, in as many teens as possible.
You're right about not being me.
Knowledge is half the battle. Knowledge helps people know when to fight and when not to. There is a serious problem with overweight and obesity in this country and it continues to get worse, particularly in children. It's time to give them the actual knowledge and stop coddling them so much.0 -
Because there's no way an increase in eating disorders might correlate with an increase in the numbers of people who are overweight, amirite? /sarcastic
People with eating disorders are all romantically skinny, yeah?
3 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Because there's no way an increase in eating disorders might correlate with an increase in the numbers of people who are overweight, amirite? /sarcastic
People with eating disorders are all romantically skinny, yeah?
People with bulimia are frequently within the normal weight range or are underweight. People with anorexia nervosa are by definition significantly underweight.
Unless you're talking about compulsive overeating or binge eating, which both require caloric restriction to stop doing.0 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »I don't know where that pic is from but because she is holding one up couldn't it also mean just one cupcake?
In real life because someone bakes 2 dozen cookies doesn't mean they eat them all in one sitting.
I feel most people seeing that picture would consider that since she is holding 2 cupcakes she is going to eat the 500-1000 worth of cupcakes.
Wouldn't a better picture indicating moderation be the obese teen holding half a cupcake?1 -
Yees. That would be why I didn't specify anorexia or bulimia.heiliskrimsli wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Because there's no way an increase in eating disorders might correlate with an increase in the numbers of people who are overweight, amirite? /sarcastic
People with eating disorders are all romantically skinny, yeah?
People with bulimia are frequently within the normal weight range or are underweight. People with anorexia nervosa are by definition significantly underweight.
Unless you're talking about compulsive overeating or binge eating, which both require caloric restriction to stop doing.
Would you prefer the words the other way around, as in "disordered eating"?
EDIT: "which both require caloric restriction to stop doing"
*raised eyebrow*
Really? I rather thought calorific restriction, i.e. not binging, came about after treatment and intervention, including, but not limited to, cognitive behavioural therapy, support groups, etc.
Treating binge-eating disorder with restriction sounds a bit like helping someone to stop smoking by hiding the cigarettes- they can just buy more.
1 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »@heiliskrimsli I am not you and have not lived your life, so I cannot say how you would have reacted. I will not venture to disagree with you on how it would have affected your life.
But in general, I think the combination of eat-till-your-plate-is-clear at home and CICO at school (especially if the CICO message is delivered in an emotionally charged 'Pay attention kids, this is very important for your health' manner, rather than a neutral 'This is how much energy people of different ages need' way) is how to induce bulimic purging, and probably shame-fuelled binging, in as many teens as possible.
You're right about not being me.
Knowledge is half the battle. Knowledge helps people know when to fight and when not to. There is a serious problem with overweight and obesity in this country and it continues to get worse, particularly in children. It's time to give them the actual knowledge and stop coddling them so much.
I agree with you 100%. I see so many parents worried that their child might develop an eating disorder. What about the type 2 diabetes they have right now? What about their fatty liver that they have right now? You are setting you child up for a lifetime of avoidable health problems because you are afraid you will hurt their self-esteem?
@leanjogree18- She is holding 2. I don’t consider eating 2 cupcakes in one sitting moderation. I was confused the first time I saw it as well I until someone pointed out she is holding 2 cupcakes. @Packerjohn mentioned an obese teen holding half a cupcake and I agree with him. That's what moderation is. Or have 2 teens splitting a cupcake. That's moderation.
@lemurcat12- The problem with restaurant food is that the portions are often very large. They can usually feed 2-3 people. Restaurants make money by getting people to buy their food and are designed to try and get you to eat as much as possible. Furthermore chefs will add extra fat, salt, and sugar to dishes to make them taste better. Unless you are in the kitchen watching them prepare the food, you don’t know what is being added to it. This is why eating at home, in general, is healthier then eating out. Again, I recognize not everyone has time to do this, which is why I think using MyFitness Pal is great. People can make better decisions when they eat out but it is healthier to eat at home.
I agree with you that it is important to look at your diet overall. However, junk foods provide little to no nutrition but usually are high in calories. Again, I believe it is possible to be healthy in spite of eating those foods. Overall diet quality is important. If my message is coming across as don’t eat these foods and you will be healthy, then I apologize, because that is not what I am trying to say. I feel myplate is the best tool to teach children, because it focuses on overall diet. Myplate.gov has a tracking system that looks at calories, but also protein, veggies, fruit, refined and whole grains, and dairy. What I am seeing is that kids snack constantly in between meals. This is why they need to learn about calories. If they understand they need 1,800 calories a day and each meal is about 500-600 calories, then they have having several snacks of 600+ calories, they are eating too much and that is not healthy.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with labeling a food as unhealthy or junk. I do recognize what you are saying about the green light to have it all because they have already been bad and this is something I try and frequently combat with my clients. I don’t tell them they need to eliminate anything, just practice moderation, but I am not going to recommend high calorie, low nutrition food as part of a healthy diet, I am just going to teach them how to work these foods in without causing health problems.
3 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
Yees. That would be why I didn't specify anorexia or bulimia.heiliskrimsli wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Because there's no way an increase in eating disorders might correlate with an increase in the numbers of people who are overweight, amirite? /sarcastic
People with eating disorders are all romantically skinny, yeah?
People with bulimia are frequently within the normal weight range or are underweight. People with anorexia nervosa are by definition significantly underweight.
Unless you're talking about compulsive overeating or binge eating, which both require caloric restriction to stop doing. Would you prefer the words the other way around, as in "disordered eating"?
EDIT: "which both require caloric restriction to stop doing"
*raised eyebrow*
Really? I rather thought calorific restriction, i.e. not binging, came about after treatment and intervention, including, but not limited to, cognitive behavioural therapy, support groups, etc.
Treating binge-eating disorder with restriction sounds a bit like helping someone to stop smoking by hiding the cigarettes- they can just buy more.
Are you serious?
Alcohol addiction is treated by stopping drinking alcohol.
Drug addiction is treated by stopping doing drugs.
Nicotine addiction is treated by quitting smoking and/or chewing tobacco.
We absolutely do help people stop addictive behaviors by removing them from the things they are addicted to. There is an entire industry built around it, where people go to stay for a month or more just to be kept away from the things they are addicted to. While not the only part of the treatment, it's most definitely a necessary part of it.I agree with you 100%. I see so many parents worried that their child might develop an eating disorder. What about the type 2 diabetes they have right now?
Before Type II Diabetes was solely known by that name, it had another moniker. One we can't use anymore because of how many overweight and obese children are now getting what used to be a disease that only struck later in life. It used to be known as adult onset diabetes. What that tells me is not only should we (society as a whole) be teaching kids not to over eat (yep, calories), we waited way too long to start.1 -
@heiliskrimsli That says something, doesn't? It used to be called adult onset and then they had to change the name because kids started developing it.
Doctors don't know how to dose the medications for Type 2 Diabetes in children because there is no research on how to dose it since it never it used to develop in children. They just have to make educated guesses because the consequences of diabetes are so severe.0 -
Yes. I am absolutely serious. The result of successful treatment for alcohol dependence and similar is that they stop drinking long-term even when they're free to go out and buy it.heiliskrimsli wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
Yees. That would be why I didn't specify anorexia or bulimia.heiliskrimsli wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Because there's no way an increase in eating disorders might correlate with an increase in the numbers of people who are overweight, amirite? /sarcastic
People with eating disorders are all romantically skinny, yeah?
People with bulimia are frequently within the normal weight range or are underweight. People with anorexia nervosa are by definition significantly underweight.
Unless you're talking about compulsive overeating or binge eating, which both require caloric restriction to stop doing. Would you prefer the words the other way around, as in "disordered eating"?
EDIT: "which both require caloric restriction to stop doing"
*raised eyebrow*
Really? I rather thought calorific restriction, i.e. not binging, came about after treatment and intervention, including, but not limited to, cognitive behavioural therapy, support groups, etc.
Treating binge-eating disorder with restriction sounds a bit like helping someone to stop smoking by hiding the cigarettes- they can just buy more.
Are you serious?
Alcohol addiction is treated by stopping drinking alcohol.
Drug addiction is treated by stopping doing drugs.
Nicotine addiction is treated by quitting smoking and/or chewing tobacco.
We absolutely do help people stop addictive behaviors by removing them from the things they are addicted to. There is an entire industry built around it, where people go to stay for a month or more just to be kept away from the things they are addicted to. While not the only part of the treatment, it's most definitely a necessary part of it.
Temporarily preventing someone from binging is not treatment! I don't think 'cold turkey' programs are very effective on their own and this is particularly so with addictions that are more psychologically addictive than physically.
2 -
T2D, or adult onset diabetes, is also called "sugar", as in you have "the sugar".... That says something too, eh?
Avoiding sugar and refined carbs is the way I have successfully treated my problem. It works for many. I suppose that you could call it a temporary fix because as soon as I eat sugars and refined carbs my BG goes up again and I find I want to eat more. But this is true of many health issues - as soon as you stop treatment it returns.3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »I don't know where that pic is from but because she is holding one up couldn't it also mean just one cupcake?
In real life because someone bakes 2 dozen cookies doesn't mean they eat them all in one sitting.
I feel most people seeing that picture would consider that since she is holding 2 cupcakes she is going to eat the 500-1000 worth of cupcakes.
Wouldn't a better picture indicating moderation be the obese teen holding half a cupcake?
The photo is not really about moderation. HAES is not who I'd go to for a discussion of moderation.
That does not discredit the concept of moderation.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »I don't know where that pic is from but because she is holding one up couldn't it also mean just one cupcake?
In real life because someone bakes 2 dozen cookies doesn't mean they eat them all in one sitting.
I feel most people seeing that picture would consider that since she is holding 2 cupcakes she is going to eat the 500-1000 worth of cupcakes.
Wouldn't a better picture indicating moderation be the obese teen holding half a cupcake?
The photo is not really about moderation. HAES is not who I'd go to for a discussion of moderation.
That does not discredit the concept of moderation.
Agree moderation is fine. The picture, IMO, does claim to be about moderation. If not why would the caption under the obese teen holding 2 cupcakes, says "I stand for moderation".
The picture is not a good example of moderation.0 -
@lemurcat12- The problem with restaurant food is that the portions are often very large. They can usually feed 2-3 people.
Restaurants are quite varied, but on average I agree. That's why most people I know understand this and get 2-3 meals out of a restaurant meal. (Some don't care, of course.)
That does not mean that the same foods -- let's say the collard greens, lentils, and spinach I mentioned, cease having nutrients because they are prepared by a restaurant.Restaurants make money by getting people to buy their food and are designed to try and get you to eat as much as possible.
No, this is inaccurate and shows a really limited understanding of what restaurants do. Some (many) restaurants in the US sell large portions because that, for whatever reason related to our culture's weird ideas about both money and food, the idea of getting a deal (even for less good food) tends to be beneficial in obtaining customers. The restaurant itself has no particular reason to want you to eat large portions unless customers were demanding that or responding to it. They'd make more money selling smaller portions for more money (as many fine restaurants do). All of this is rather beside the point with Ethiopian (which is often family style, eat as much or little as you want) or pizza, where you choose the number of pieces you eat.Furthermore chefs will add extra fat, salt, and sugar to dishes to make them taste better.
Depending on the restaurant or the dish, yes. So do home cooks. This is not some special restaurant perfidy. Adding more butter when cooking to make food taste better is, well, a pretty common thing. I cook differently when I have a big feast for company than when I am just cooking for myself. It's important to understand that restaurant meals are often indulgent (there are exceptions), but that does not -- contrary to your prior claims -- make anything from a restaurant without nutrients or junk food. Should you be aware of extra calories? Sure. (Do they sprinkle sugar on a pizza at any halfway decent restaurant? Certainly not, so if you are imagining that's the case I disagree with you. Will they cook with olive oil and the like? Yeah.)I agree with you that it is important to look at your diet overall. However, junk foods provide little to no nutrition but usually are high in calories.
Depends on amount. If I eat a little something after dinner (cheese or fruit or a sweet), it could be a 50 cal piece of good chocolate (junk food, but hardly a huge source of calories) or it could be 250 calories of ice cream if I have room. Or something in-between. Or I might skip sweets and after dinner cheese for a week to have calories for a restaurant meal that is more indulgent on the weekend. I am planning to have certain high cal things on Easter (big breakfast with pancakes and eggs and bacon, dinner with rack of lamb and lots of vegetables, garlic mashed potatoes with butter and lemon lavender cupcakes). Should I feel bad that I am eating "junk food" when it's a holiday and fits fine in my week anyway? What's the point.
Should I be aware, which one is if one focuses on a healthful diet and understands calories and portions? Of course.Again, I believe it is possible to be healthy in spite of eating those foods.
This suggests that you should feel bad and guilty for eating those foods. And the same logic suggests I should feel bad for eating chicken with skin as I could just have skinless chicken breast, for having red meat when I could have white fish, for having cheese when I could go without, for getting Berkshire pork raised on a farm when the grocery sells leaner pork, etc. For having potatoes and sweet potatoes or some naan, sometimes, when I could just have more carrots. It leads to obsessing about whether some other choice might have fewer cals and more nutrients. Why not instill a healthful understanding of what a good diet requires, what sensible amounts are, and what a reasonable amount to spend on extras (of any sort) is, rather than saying it's okay to eat "junk" so long as you know it's bad and feel bad about it? That doesn't seem healthy to me. Certainly not an inherently more healthy approach than what Wino Gelato is suggesting or what I am.Overall diet quality is important. If my message is coming across as don’t eat these foods and you will be healthy, then I apologize, because that is not what I am trying to say.
That 100% was how it was coming across, because otherwise I don't understand what you were even arguing with WinoGelato about.I feel myplate is the best tool to teach children, because it focuses on overall diet. Myplate.gov has a tracking system that looks at calories, but also protein, veggies, fruit, refined and whole grains, and dairy.
I like myplate. I like the Harvard healthy eating plate even better, but I think myplate is pretty good and a reasonable source.What I am seeing is that kids snack constantly in between meals. This is why they need to learn about calories.
I also perceive that people (including kids) on average snack more and eat more than they used to (there are major exceptions -- where I live most kids seem to be healthy weights and the stats are that obesity is pretty low -- income plays unfortunately a huge role if you look at stats).
However, we didn't do that, and we weren't fat (I grew up in the '80s, so old) and we didn't need to be told to count calories and I think it would have been bad for me to do so as a pre teen, actually. We we taught about (and modeled) reasonable eating patterns, and you can do that easily without telling 11 year olds to count calories.
That said, I am in favor of teaching kids how calories work, as part of teaching them about nutrition. (I also am in favor of doctors referring obese and overweight kids to dietitians for more help, although that assumes we have the health care in place.) I'm pretty open to healthy people talking to kids about how they maintain their weight too, as part of a school unit. I think it's weird this thread seems to be seen by some as a debate about that, as the OP told a story about one teacher NOT teaching a planned unit, but going off with her own stuff.If they understand they need 1,800 calories a day and each meal is about 500-600 calories, then they have having several snacks of 600+ calories, they are eating too much and that is not healthy.
I'm not actually arguing against this. I think it needs to be part of a unit that covers nutrition and ways besides calorie counting to do this, though. I don't think a teacher off the cuff should be doing things like telling pre teen kids (who were not fat, from the example) to worry about being fat and to skip meals if they are (or eat only nuts, when other more balanced choices are actually probably lower cal anyway). That sounds like "I am punishing myself by being hungry" even if I think that nuts can be an okay substitute for a meal in other contexts (I've had them instead of lunch sometimes, when busy). Am I in favor of teaching nutrition and about calories in school? Sure, but I don't think anyone else was arguing against that either, although I would respect the middle school teachers and those with experience on what is appropriate at different levels.3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »I don't know where that pic is from but because she is holding one up couldn't it also mean just one cupcake?
In real life because someone bakes 2 dozen cookies doesn't mean they eat them all in one sitting.
I feel most people seeing that picture would consider that since she is holding 2 cupcakes she is going to eat the 500-1000 worth of cupcakes.
Wouldn't a better picture indicating moderation be the obese teen holding half a cupcake?
The photo is not really about moderation. HAES is not who I'd go to for a discussion of moderation.
That does not discredit the concept of moderation.
Agree moderation is fine. The picture, IMO, does claim to be about moderation. If not why would the caption under the obese teen holding 2 cupcakes, says "I stand for moderation".
The picture is not a good example of moderation.
Isn't that what I said?
Again, HAES is not who I'd go to as a credible source about moderation.
That HAES puts out silly stuff that they claim is about "moderation" is about as surprising as that some dictator claims to win 95% of the vote in a "free" election. Neither is a credible source, neither actually discredits the words that they pervert when those words are used by other, more credible people, so I don't see how "HAES says something stupid" is relevant here. The apparent claim was "HAES misuses moderation" so anyone else talking aout "moderation" really is pro staying fat, and that's just false, of course.2 -
HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
Yes. I am absolutely serious. The result of successful treatment for alcohol dependence and similar is that they stop drinking long-term even when they're free to go out and buy it.heiliskrimsli wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
Yees. That would be why I didn't specify anorexia or bulimia.heiliskrimsli wrote: »HeliumIsNoble wrote: »Because there's no way an increase in eating disorders might correlate with an increase in the numbers of people who are overweight, amirite? /sarcastic
People with eating disorders are all romantically skinny, yeah?
People with bulimia are frequently within the normal weight range or are underweight. People with anorexia nervosa are by definition significantly underweight.
Unless you're talking about compulsive overeating or binge eating, which both require caloric restriction to stop doing. Would you prefer the words the other way around, as in "disordered eating"?
EDIT: "which both require caloric restriction to stop doing"
*raised eyebrow*
Really? I rather thought calorific restriction, i.e. not binging, came about after treatment and intervention, including, but not limited to, cognitive behavioural therapy, support groups, etc.
Treating binge-eating disorder with restriction sounds a bit like helping someone to stop smoking by hiding the cigarettes- they can just buy more.
Are you serious?
Alcohol addiction is treated by stopping drinking alcohol.
Drug addiction is treated by stopping doing drugs.
Nicotine addiction is treated by quitting smoking and/or chewing tobacco.
We absolutely do help people stop addictive behaviors by removing them from the things they are addicted to. There is an entire industry built around it, where people go to stay for a month or more just to be kept away from the things they are addicted to. While not the only part of the treatment, it's most definitely a necessary part of it.
Temporarily preventing someone from binging is not treatment! I don't think 'cold turkey' programs are very effective on their own and this is particularly so with addictions that are more psychologically addictive than physically.
Then why do they not let drug addicts have drugs in rehab? (No, I'm not talking about withdrawl medications like suboxone)lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »I don't know where that pic is from but because she is holding one up couldn't it also mean just one cupcake?
In real life because someone bakes 2 dozen cookies doesn't mean they eat them all in one sitting.
I feel most people seeing that picture would consider that since she is holding 2 cupcakes she is going to eat the 500-1000 worth of cupcakes.
Wouldn't a better picture indicating moderation be the obese teen holding half a cupcake?
The photo is not really about moderation. HAES is not who I'd go to for a discussion of moderation.
That does not discredit the concept of moderation.
Agree moderation is fine. The picture, IMO, does claim to be about moderation. If not why would the caption under the obese teen holding 2 cupcakes, says "I stand for moderation".
The picture is not a good example of moderation.
Isn't that what I said?
Again, HAES is not who I'd go to as a credible source about moderation.
That HAES puts out silly stuff that they claim is about "moderation" is about as surprising as that some dictator claims to win 95% of the vote in a "free" election. Neither is a credible source, neither actually discredits the words that they pervert when those words are used by other, more credible people, so I don't see how "HAES says something stupid" is relevant here. The apparent claim was "HAES misuses moderation" so anyone else talking aout "moderation" really is pro staying fat, and that's just false, of course.
All the more reason to counter that kind of thing in school by teaching facts about calorie intake and real moderation.0 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Why doesn't she just teach the portion plate?
With that being said I don't know how to teach kids that donuts, poptarts, chips, candy, pizza etc are "junk" without teaching them to look at the label and see how many calories are in the food.
I know for me the "portion plate" wasn't the problem. I was eating the right portions of the right foods and having a balanced diet.
And then on top of that, because kids shouldn't count or limit calories, I was eating far too much other crap too. Because why not just tack that on if you have never been told about calories and that there's a limit to how many of them you should consume in a day. There was a single fundamental piece of information missing throughout my entire childhood, and that thing was an upper bound on calories in.
So no one told you that if you wanted to lose weight, don't take so much food?
You don't need to know anything about calories to know that. I knew that as a kid, but in the other direction. I was 'bird legs'. I needed to eat more.
Food at home was put on my plate for me and I was required to eat it all or remain seated at the table until I did. My parents had terrible eating habits (and still do), so when I gained weight as a kid they pretty much said that's how it is, and they were happy enough to load stuff with high calorie "toppings" as well. It was not unsual at all to see butter on top of deep fried food at home which would be washed down with a pint of full sugar soda, without any indication that consuming so many calories was not so great.
My parents did not "diet" themselves and were appalled at any suggestion of putting a child on a calorie restricted diet, and since "I'm not hungry [anymore]." was a sentence to sit at the table for potentially hours, I learned to shut up and eat what I was given.
But clearly knowledge of calories wouldn't have helped you. Most kids in that situation would behave like you did and just eat what was given to them even if they don't want it. If you weren't willing to sit at the table for a couple of hours because you didn't want to feel stuffed, would you have done it for some future intangible benefit of not gaining more weight? People in general are not great at weighing current discomfort vs future benefit, and kids even less so.
And your concept of 'properly portioned' as a child seems to have been pretty skewed. Properly portioned isn't just about what percentage of the plate is covered, there is also the total volume of food to consider. Toppings factor in and beverage is included as well. I don't recall any 'properly portioned' meal ever including a pint of soda.2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Why doesn't she just teach the portion plate?
With that being said I don't know how to teach kids that donuts, poptarts, chips, candy, pizza etc are "junk" without teaching them to look at the label and see how many calories are in the food.
This suggests that the deciding factor of if something is "junk" or not, is how many calories are in it. There are plenty of calorie dense Whole Foods as well, the nuts that the teacher ate, things like avocado, banana, etc - could have more calories than a serving of chips or a piece of candy.
Additionally, why is pizza "junk"? I'm actually trying to avoid labeling food "junk" with my kids. I'm trying to teach them that foods have different nutritional content and that some things should be reserved as treats, but really any food can be part of a healthy diet if eaten in moderation.
I consider junk food to be low in nutrients and high in calories. I see your point with pizza because it go either ways. For example, if you make pizza, you could use a whole grain crust with tomato sauce then top the pizza with lots of veggies and a small handful of cheese. There are lots of nutrients here and I would consider this healthy. When I look at the nutrition facts for a pizza from Papa Johns (different restaurants may vary) I don't see any nutrients. It is high in sodium, has some saturated fat, 1 gram of fiber, and 7 grams of protein. What nutrients is this pizza from a restaurant providing that you couldn't get from a lower calorie (and lower in sodium) source?
For high calorie foods like avocados or nuts, I don't consider them to be junk because they are high in nutrition but the need to be eaten in moderation. You can't get your poly and monounsaturated fats from any food that will be low in calories because fats by nature are high in calories.
Why couldn't you order a pizza from Papa Johns (or Dominos or any other pizza place) and top it with lots of veggies? Wouldn't it have nutrients then? Does the fact that Papa Johns made the pizza suddenly negate any nutritional value in the pizza? I don't order from Papa Johns very often, but I often get Domino's and my pizza of choice is chicken, spinach, and roasted red pepper. When I make pizza at home, as I also often do, I make a thin crust with grilled chicken, spinach, artichokes and roasted red pepper. How is one acceptable from a nutrient standpoint, and one isn't?
You could order a pizza from Papa Johns and add vegetables to it. You would be adding nutrition to it. But the pizza you are making at at home, you are getting just as much nutrition from it for less calories, saturated fat, and salt. When I had written my original post I was thinking restaurant pizza. I was thinking about an article I had read listing the top ten foods Americans eat and pizza was one of them.
We are going to have to agree to disagree. I consider those foods junk because I do not feel that for all the calories they provide, they give adequate nutrition. I think people can work them into their diet and be healthy despite the fact they are eating those foods, not because of them. Do you believe eating a donut before a hike is healthy? Are you telling your kids, "It is healthy to have this donut before our hike"? Or is it something you enjoy doing and know that because you diet is overall very good and you are active you can work it in? Also, I am not saying I never eat those things. I eat those foods the foods I describe as junk because I enjoy them. But I don't for one second consider them healthy.
I am going to call those foods junk food because I work in health care (dietitian and going to nursing school). I see what the American diet is doing the American population. I had a kid pull a bag of Cheetos out of his pocket the other day that had 3.5 servings in it, so 560 calories. I am tired of working with kids who are prediabetic and have to take metformin, have fatty liver disease, and/or high cholesterol. No child should have to deal with these health problems. If you don't like that I call the foods you are eating junk, fine, but those foods are poisoning our population and I am going to call it like I see it.
I am looking at my original comment and I think I should have put more thought into it. I think kids should be taught to read nutrition facts, especially the serving size, to get a general idea of the calories in the food so they understand some foods are more calorically dense then others. There should also be a discussion of the nutrients in the food. What vitamins and minerals are we getting? Is this a food high in antioxidants and fiber? Healthy fats?
Finally, the word moderation means different things to different people. She is holding 2 cupcakes and considers this moderation.
So again, is the measure of whether something is healthy - the amount of calories in it? I can make a calorie dense pizza at home, just like I can order a lighter calorie option from a delivery chain, or a local Italian restaurant. I just don't agree that by preparing it at home, it is inherently "healthier". I live in an Italian neighborhood. When I buy pizza crusts from the local Italian grocer, and the cheese blend from the local Italian grocer, and the sausage from the salumeria - these are the same places that are supplying the restaurants in my neighborhood. How does it become less nutritious simply if I go to the restaurant up the street and ask them to prepare the pizza for me? Even if I order delivery from a chain pizza place - why is the crust, tomato sauce, cheese, chicken, spinach and red peppers at Dominos nutritionally less valuable than if I were to prepare that myself? It sounds like you are suggesting that food made at home is better, and that people should always choose to prepare foods themselves rather than eating in restaurants? That's just not realistic, nor necessary, in my opinion. I enjoy cooking at home, and we made homemade pizzas just last week in fact. But I also enjoy eating in restaurants, and sometimes I rely on the convenience of delivery services too. That doesn't make those foods inherently unhealthy, simply because someone else prepared them for me.
I don't think the doughnut (singular - one each) that my family and I eat before a hike is healthy. I don't think it is unhealthy. I don't think you can measure the "value" of foods in isolation. It is part of our overall healthy lifestyle, and it fits in nicely on a weekly or biweekly basis.
I think to the discussion about "healthy" and "unhealthy" or "Junk" foods - then yeah, maybe it is semantics, but I don't look at individual foods in isolation to determine if they are healthy or unhealthy. I believe that any food, can be part of an overall healthy diet, if consumed in moderation. And if it makes you feel better about the choices you make, simply to call something "junk" and feel that I'm deluding myself to NOT label foods that way - then yeah, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. But as @lemurcat12 has pointed out, there are many users that have an all or nothing approach - they take things to such extremes that IF (or likely WHEN) they choose to have two cookies, because they thought they HAD to eat healthy and CAN'T eat "junk" in any quantity and achieve that; then they feel they have failed and therefore, either continue to eat ALL the cookies, or they give up on their efforts to lose weight.
So out of curiosity, what did you tell the kid who pulled out the large bag of Cheetohs? Did you tell him that was junk, that he shouldn't be eating it, and that it is foods like that that are 'poisoning our population'? Or did you say "hey Cheetohs! Crazy how orange your fingers get, isn't it? Did you know that bag has about 3 servings in it? I like to eat tortilla chips and stuff too, with my other foods that have a lot of nutrients in them, but it's good to try to keep those foods as a smaller portion of your overall diet".
To the HAES image - I really don't have a comment about that. I don't think it's salient to the discussion, and I think you posting it is perpetuating the fat shaming that is what spawned it to begin with.
2 -
The picture source is poo.
But TO ME it's a photo op so she's holding 2 cupcakes showing cupcakes in general and in moderation are ok. But she's only holding one up high like one cupcake is moderation. Thats what I get from this pic.
Side note I hate cupcakes so maybe I look at it as who would even eat 2:)?
2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions