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
-
coreyreichle wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »First of all kids need proper calorie intake for proper growth. If kids are active they should be able to eat what they want. If concerned about eating healthy teach healthy eating habits. They should not be counting calories and going to the extremes this teacher is teaching them.
She is setting those kids up for an eating disorder and she should be reported to the administration. I think that is absolutely horrible.
I would disagree with most of this. Children should never be allowed to eat what they want. They'd likely live on chips and candy. Parents should teach children how to eat properly - proper portions along with proper nutrition.
I should revise what I said. I certainly don't advocate them eating junk food all day long. I meant eat as much as they want until they are full. Not feeling like they should have to restrict calories. My sons played sports throughout their youth so when we had dinner if they were hungry I let them eat until they were full. And my oldest could put away some food. Because they are so active they burn it off fast. They are grown men and they make good food choices and they very active by working out.
I bolded a very problematic statement here.
Nobody should be eating until they are full. If you are getting the "full feeling", you've ate too much. And, because we are teaching lessons like this to our kids, they are becoming obese.
Well my sons are 25 and 22. They have very little body fat, lift weights every day and have no weight problem whatsoever. So it worked in my household.
I think that "eating till you're full" is a good method. However, it needs to be paired with "waiting to eat until you're actually hungry". I think both sensations are important. This is likely the whole story of what you implemented, I just wanted to add a few words.
Nothing wrong with feeling full. Nothing wrong with feeling hungry (healthy hungry... keeping in context of people who have access to food when they need it). It's about balancing the cues from our bodies.1 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »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.
Um, are you trying to argue against something I said against doing that? If so, please quote, because I don't recall doing so.
I do think that it's important to do so in a thoughtful, sensible way, and that a school unit planned to be appropriate for the students' ages makes more sense than some teacher going on about how if you overeat you need to not have dinner outside of any actual planned curriculum. Seems like the school in question agreed too.0 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »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)
I'm not sure you're replying to the substance of my post. Let's just recap here. I said:
and this tangential discussion came about after you said that the treatment for emotional eating and binge eating was calorific restriction. (I was rather expecting you to clarify your sentence, btw.)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.
Given this context, telling me either that 'cold turkey' programs exist, or that clinics with an integrated approach exist (I'm not sure which you meant) doesn't really have any relevance to my opinion.1 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »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)
The current primary model of drug treatment is abstinence always. Obviously treatment would involve abstinence.
Not everyone with an addiction goes to treatment (most do not, actually).
Also, suboxone is more than a withdrawal medication, for many it is used similarly to methadone, I believe -- basically substituting what is believed to be a less harmful and controlled and legal under some circumstances addiction rather than getting the person off drugs.
The problem with the comparison with bingeing or compulsive overeating, is that it typically involves cycles of restrict and binge. Encouraging the restrictive impulses without more seems counterproductive (and also EDs aren't the reason most people are obese, I don't think, it wasn't what got me fat, but then neither was complete ignorance that eating lots of high cal foods outside of meals would cause weight gain -- I am skeptical that most people are actually ignorant of that).
In any event, while rehab involves abstinence, of course (as would the vast majority of mainstream forms of treatment, even outpatient or much more informal), it also involves treatment.1 -
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.
No.
Changes in knowledge cause changes in which battles we choose to fight.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.
I did it for other things that I considered worthwhile.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.
Which is exactly why knowing the proper amount of calories to consume and what foods contain how much would be helpful.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »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)
The current primary model of drug treatment is abstinence always. Obviously treatment would involve abstinence.
Not everyone with an addiction goes to treatment (most do not, actually).
Also, suboxone is more than a withdrawal medication, for many it is used similarly to methadone, I believe -- basically substituting what is believed to be a less harmful and controlled and legal under some circumstances addiction rather than getting the person off drugs.
The problem with the comparison with bingeing or compulsive overeating, is that it typically involves cycles of restrict and binge. Encouraging the restrictive impulses without more seems counterproductive (and also EDs aren't the reason most people are obese, I don't think, it wasn't what got me fat, but then neither was complete ignorance that eating lots of high cal foods outside of meals would cause weight gain -- I am skeptical that most people are actually ignorant of that).
In any event, while rehab involves abstinence, of course (as would the vast majority of mainstream forms of treatment, even outpatient or much more informal), it also involves treatment.
So you are now saying that you can't stop overeating or binge eating without calorie restriction?
By definition stopping overeating and binge eating is intake restriction.1 -
I really wouldn't have a problem with it. Telling a kid to not eat any and everything around them is not a bad thing. If my coaches had been better at their jobs I may not be the mess I am today. We ate cupcakes in P.E., CUPCAKES!!! Where were all the helicopter parents then?2
-
I'm late to the discussion, and I'm sure someone has already said it, but you only got your son's interpretation of what the health teacher said. Two people can listen to, watch, or read the same exact presentation, but come away with totally different understandings and and perspectives of the source material. Before you judge the teacher too harshly send an email to her stating your concern. She should be able to provide you with the lesson plan for the day. The truth probably lies somewhere between the teacher's account and your son's account of that lesson.0
-
heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »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)
The current primary model of drug treatment is abstinence always. Obviously treatment would involve abstinence.
Not everyone with an addiction goes to treatment (most do not, actually).
Also, suboxone is more than a withdrawal medication, for many it is used similarly to methadone, I believe -- basically substituting what is believed to be a less harmful and controlled and legal under some circumstances addiction rather than getting the person off drugs.
The problem with the comparison with bingeing or compulsive overeating, is that it typically involves cycles of restrict and binge. Encouraging the restrictive impulses without more seems counterproductive (and also EDs aren't the reason most people are obese, I don't think, it wasn't what got me fat, but then neither was complete ignorance that eating lots of high cal foods outside of meals would cause weight gain -- I am skeptical that most people are actually ignorant of that).
In any event, while rehab involves abstinence, of course (as would the vast majority of mainstream forms of treatment, even outpatient or much more informal), it also involves treatment.
So you are now saying that you can't stop overeating or binge eating without calorie restriction?
No, I did not say that. Are you just trying to argue rather than to understand what people are saying?
If someone has an ED, it's best to get some kind of therapy. If someone is bingeing, overall calories may or may not be a problem, but the bingeing needs to be addressed.
Overeating is not normally an ED, and calorie restriction (overt or not) is obviously an excellent solution. For bingeing, the problem is more stopping the bingeing. This is separate from the question of how to teach kids about nutrition, as teachers aren't the right ones to be helping kids lose weight, but are to teach them information.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »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)
The current primary model of drug treatment is abstinence always. Obviously treatment would involve abstinence.
Not everyone with an addiction goes to treatment (most do not, actually).
Also, suboxone is more than a withdrawal medication, for many it is used similarly to methadone, I believe -- basically substituting what is believed to be a less harmful and controlled and legal under some circumstances addiction rather than getting the person off drugs.
The problem with the comparison with bingeing or compulsive overeating, is that it typically involves cycles of restrict and binge. Encouraging the restrictive impulses without more seems counterproductive (and also EDs aren't the reason most people are obese, I don't think, it wasn't what got me fat, but then neither was complete ignorance that eating lots of high cal foods outside of meals would cause weight gain -- I am skeptical that most people are actually ignorant of that).
In any event, while rehab involves abstinence, of course (as would the vast majority of mainstream forms of treatment, even outpatient or much more informal), it also involves treatment.
So you are now saying that you can't stop overeating or binge eating without calorie restriction?
No, I did not say that. Are you just trying to argue rather than to understand what people are saying?
If someone has an ED, it's best to get some kind of therapy.
Overeating is not normally an ED, and calorie restriction (overt or not) is obviously an excellent solution. For bingeing, the problem is more stopping the bingeing.
Until someone can limit their calories to an appropriate amount, the problem isn't solved.1 -
Pssst! Different people!heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »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)
The current primary model of drug treatment is abstinence always. Obviously treatment would involve abstinence.
Not everyone with an addiction goes to treatment (most do not, actually).
Also, suboxone is more than a withdrawal medication, for many it is used similarly to methadone, I believe -- basically substituting what is believed to be a less harmful and controlled and legal under some circumstances addiction rather than getting the person off drugs.
The problem with the comparison with bingeing or compulsive overeating, is that it typically involves cycles of restrict and binge. Encouraging the restrictive impulses without more seems counterproductive (and also EDs aren't the reason most people are obese, I don't think, it wasn't what got me fat, but then neither was complete ignorance that eating lots of high cal foods outside of meals would cause weight gain -- I am skeptical that most people are actually ignorant of that).
In any event, while rehab involves abstinence, of course (as would the vast majority of mainstream forms of treatment, even outpatient or much more informal), it also involves treatment.
So you are now saying that you can't stop overeating or binge eating without calorie restriction?
By definition stopping overeating and binge eating is intake restriction.
I am saying that calorific restriction as a treatment plan for someone who binges sounds about as useful as a chocolate teapot! @lemurcat12 has already explained why far better than I had so far, so I won't reiterate that.
So perhaps consider what would happen if someone tried to deal with an alcoholic spouse by pouring the bottles down the sink. The spouse would go out and buy more.
Similarly, although I don't have the figures to hand, short-term stays in older-style drying-out programs had/have awful rates of relapse once the patients were discharged.
On that note, modern nicotine replacement therapy (e-cig/vaping, patches, et cetera) has been far more effective than the "just stoppit" model. Of course, tobacco is a bit different as the health problems associated so strongly with smoking are not caused by nicotine, but by all the other components in cigarettes.
1 -
You are correct that if someone is binging, they still have a binging problem.heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »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)
The current primary model of drug treatment is abstinence always. Obviously treatment would involve abstinence.
Not everyone with an addiction goes to treatment (most do not, actually).
Also, suboxone is more than a withdrawal medication, for many it is used similarly to methadone, I believe -- basically substituting what is believed to be a less harmful and controlled and legal under some circumstances addiction rather than getting the person off drugs.
The problem with the comparison with bingeing or compulsive overeating, is that it typically involves cycles of restrict and binge. Encouraging the restrictive impulses without more seems counterproductive (and also EDs aren't the reason most people are obese, I don't think, it wasn't what got me fat, but then neither was complete ignorance that eating lots of high cal foods outside of meals would cause weight gain -- I am skeptical that most people are actually ignorant of that).
In any event, while rehab involves abstinence, of course (as would the vast majority of mainstream forms of treatment, even outpatient or much more informal), it also involves treatment.
So you are now saying that you can't stop overeating or binge eating without calorie restriction?
No, I did not say that. Are you just trying to argue rather than to understand what people are saying?
If someone has an ED, it's best to get some kind of therapy.
Overeating is not normally an ED, and calorie restriction (overt or not) is obviously an excellent solution. For bingeing, the problem is more stopping the bingeing.
Until someone can limit their calories to an appropriate amount, the problem isn't solved.
(May I ask, are you translating from one language to another as you type? Or perhaps just me being unclear?)
However, someone who has a BED needs more than being preventing from binging for a short-term period. This is a psychological disorder, not a purely physical addiction.
To recover, they need tools to help them learn to eat appropriate amounts each day without either unrealistic restrictions OR binging.
1 -
How did we get from what is or isn't appropriate to teach elementary aged school children regarding calories and weight control methods, to a discussion on treating various addictions, to the appropriate course of action for someone suffering from BED?
I truly am perplexed how this particular tangent came about.2 -
*puts hand up*
It was my fault, I'm afraid. One of those thoughts that should have remained in my head with all the others when I was scrolling through the day's posts so far.0 -
sgfwinters wrote: »TL;DR - Kids aren't just getting junk food at home, they're getting it from school too.
I'm seeing comments to the tune of 'parents are the ones buying the junk food in the first place,' and I want to play the devil's advocate a little bit.
While I agree that good food choices begin at home, I think school-provided meals should be taken into consideration. They are almost uniformly high calorie and low nutrition; I'm talking a pack of mini powdered doughnuts for breakfast and then a 1,200 calorie lunch level unhealthy here. And many, many children are eating two meals and sometimes snacks five days a week at school.
I think that most of the time the parents are completely uninformed about what their kids are eating at school, and it's true that's on them if they choose to stay uninformed, but I can understand how they trust the schools to do their due diligence and provide appropriate foods for their little ones.
@sgfwinters - amen to your post. We eat lots of fruits and veggies at home, white milk and water to drink for the kids, etc. We teach our children about "always/green light" and "sometimes/yellow light" foods.
Their daycare feeds them snacks twice a day, which I would be okay with if it was an apple or carrot sticks - but they got poptarts and chocolate milk the other day. I've asked if I could send in my own food for the kids but the facility discourages it because they have to hold certain "nutritional standards" to abide by state regulations and if all parents started sending meals they couldn't guarantee the standards for inspections or something.
I don't know what standards chocolate milk and poptarts meet that sliced apple and carrot sticks and hummus don't, but it drives me crazy!0 -
heiliskrimsli 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.
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.
No.
Changes in knowledge cause changes in which battles we choose to fight.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.
I did it for other things that I considered worthwhile.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.
Which is exactly why knowing the proper amount of calories to consume and what foods contain how much would be helpful.
And this is where I'm confused. If you weren't able to eyeball your typical plate of food and see that it obviously wasn't 'properly portioned' and contained too much, why would you think that you'd be better at eyeballing the calories in the food you were served and had no control over prep or portion?
To me, there is a disconnect. Somehow, you didn't connect 'I'm overweight or gaining weight' is evidence that 'I eat too much'. If you had and were willing to put up with sitting at the table for hours, the obvious first step would have been to not eat everything on your plate. That would have ensured you were eating less than you had been.
This side discussion reminds me of the threads with people arguing back and forth whether it's necessary to count calories to lose weight. Obviously it helps, but prior to calorie info being convenient, people still dieted successfully - and it wasn't all whackadoo elimination diets either.2 -
heiliskrimsli 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.
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.
No.
Changes in knowledge cause changes in which battles we choose to fight.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.
I did it for other things that I considered worthwhile.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.
Which is exactly why knowing the proper amount of calories to consume and what foods contain how much would be helpful.
And this is where I'm confused. If you weren't able to eyeball your typical plate of food and see that it obviously wasn't 'properly portioned' and contained too much, why would you think that you'd be better at eyeballing the calories in the food you were served and had no control over prep or portion?
To me, there is a disconnect. Somehow, you didn't connect 'I'm overweight or gaining weight' is evidence that 'I eat too much'. If you had and were willing to put up with sitting at the table for hours, the obvious first step would have been to not eat everything on your plate. That would have ensured you were eating less than you had been.
This side discussion reminds me of the threads with people arguing back and forth whether it's necessary to count calories to lose weight. Obviously it helps, but prior to calorie info being convenient, people still dieted successfully - and it wasn't all whackadoo elimination diets either.
I don't think attempting to erase your confusion by continuing to point out that arming someone with knowledge is generally considered to be a good thing, especially when that knowledge is factual information will provide any further benefit, so I'm going to stop wasting my time.0 -
@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 eat pizza many times per week. My weight is in a healthy range, I run 4-5 miles daily, resting HR is ~48bpm, best pace is 8:24'ish or so for an 8K. Last year, cholesterol and A1C came back clean.
I showed my doc my food journal, and she showed no concern. So, what is unhealthy about it?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.
She obviously eats more than 1 cup cake at a sitting, and likely often.4 -
Moderation means different things to different people. If you ask ten people what moderation looks like you will get ten different answers. You must be able to quantify it when you explain it to someone. In this example, this woman feels 2 cupcakes is moderation. I disagree and do not consider that to be moderation.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.
3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I am in absolute shock that you feel that way. Restaurants are absolutely in the business of trying to get people to buy their food. A patron who orders an appetizer, a drink, an entrée, and dessert will generate more revenue than a patron who orders an entrée and only eats half. There is a plethora of research indicating that everything from the descriptions of items used on menus (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010880401810119) to the environment, including lighting and music (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/01.PR0.111.4.228-232). (Yes, I recognize that the last study they manipulated the environment to get people to eat less, but that still proves the point that the environment influences how much you are eat.) This article summarizes Brian Wansink’s research of how restaurants get you eat more and thus spend more: http://www.rgj.com/story/life/food/2015/11/13/diet-detective-restaurant-tricks-make-you-eat-more/75737866/
Furthermore, your point about collard greens and spinach comes back to how it was prepared. Vegetables boiled in water will have less nutrition then vegetables steamed because the water leeches out the nutrients. If you are making them at home, you know how they are prepared. If you eat in a restaurant, you have no know way of knowing how they were prepared unless you watched the chef. This is why I will continue to assert that (most) meals cooked at home are healthier then meals eaten in restaurants.
I am reading over my previous comments. I do not see anything about how restaurant food has no nutrients. I made a comment that I don’t think people should be eating pizza every day and another comment that if you don’t think you should eat a particular food every day, it is probably junk. When I made the pizza comment, I was not thinking of all the variations you listed, I was thinking of (http://www.mysticpizza.com/admin/resources/pizza-pepperoni-w857h456.jpg). I am going to guess that the vast majority of people eating pizza are not eating cauliflower crust pizza topped with veggies. However I do feel you made good points so I would like to change my stance on that comment. I don’t believe restaurant is junk food, but I believe eating at home, in general, is healthier. I think it is possible to make better choices at restaurants but I believe most foods made at home will always be healthier.lemurcat12 wrote: »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.)
This quote is an excellent example of moderation and how fluid diets can be.lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I am not sure what to tell you about feeling bad. If you ate like that every day, what do you think would happen? I understand what you are saying earlier about people thinking, “Well, I had a bad food, screw it, might as well eat all of it.” I am aware of research that shows when people tell themselves they can’t have something, they end up eating more of it. I am not saying people should never eat certain foods, but I am not going to label these foods as healthy either. I feel that people can work them into to their diets and be healthy despite eating them, not because of them. If labeling these foods as junk causes people to spiral into depression and eat everything then they should not do that. But not everyone is so fragile that when you label a food as junk they have a nervous breakdown and gorge themselves.lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I am looking through my comments again and am not seeing were I said people should feel bad about eating those foods, unless you are feeling that because I called certain foods junk foods people should feel bad. What is wrong with thinking, “Yes, it would be healthier to eat chicken without the skin, but I want to eat it like this today?” What is wrong with recognizing that there is a healthier choice, but today I want to treat myself and I am not going to feel bad about it because I usually make good decisions?lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
My original quote said to teach portion plate, meaning myplate, then I said I wasn’t sure how to teach kids about “junk” food without teaching them about calories. WinoGelato doesn’t like my use of the word junk. I don’t feel it is a problem. However since it has caused so much disruption I would like to rephrase my comment to teach kids myplate and use supertracker.gov to make sure they aren’t eating too much or too little and getting a balance of everything they need.
1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »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 feel the Mediterranean style diet is the healthiest diet pattern to follow as it has consistently been shown to be linked to lower risk of heart disease, diabetes, stroke, cancer, and Alzheimer’s. (http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/050112p30.shtml). When picking a food item, is this something that is commonly found in this diet? If you made a pizza with a whole grain crust (or quonia or cauliflower as @lemurcat12 pointed out, topped with veggies and serving of low fat cheese, yes, it would be healthy. The pizza from most restaurants? Probably not.
Restaurants add extra fat and salt to meals. They frequently serve bigger portions and try to get you buy more. For example, add a liter of pop for only $1. The last time I saw a veggie pizza at a restaurant, they added a couple leaves of spinach to it and tomato. When I made mine, I use an entire bag of baby spinach among other vegetables. This is why I believe eating at home is healthier. I understand it is difficult to always cook meals at home and it is also nice to go out as a family. But I don’t think this something that should be done every day.
Noted the singular, excellent.WinoGelato wrote: »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.WinoGelato wrote: »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.
Different approaches for different people. I grew up with my mother calling pop and sugary cereals poison. I don’t feel I have an unhealthy relationship with food and am fine with my weight. I enjoy junk, in portions as specified by the package. I also don’t have metabolic syndrome or other health problems that could most likely be avoided with lifestyle.
Would you feel better if I said treats? What if that leads kids to start “treating” themselves when they have a bad day and using food as a crutch for their emotions? I see the black and white thinking and gorging when they were "bad" but I also see using food as a way to cope with past trauma and depression.
We really are just arguing about semantics, but I think we both agree overall diet quality is king.WinoGelato wrote: »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".
We were practicing reading labels so it was an excellent teaching moment. We looked at how many servings there was and how many calories per serving. We compared that to the recommended calories he should be getting each day.
I strive to treat all those I work with compassion and kindness. I would never tell someone else’s child they are eating junk. I don’t know all that is going on at home. But FYI, I have also had parents tell me that they feel the kids are eating too much junk. And I don't tell them they shouldn't label foods like that, only that we can work it into their diet and they can still be healthy.WinoGelato wrote: »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.
It is relevant. Moderation means different things to different people. In this example, she feels moderation means 2 cupcakes. This is why you must teach kids what moderation looks like, and having 2 cupcakes is not moderation. I do not feel this picture is fat shaming. It is an example of different perspectives.
1 -
coreyreichle 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.
She obviously eats more than 1 cup cake at a sitting, and likely often.
So silly to take a photo and suggest she is overweight due to cupcakes. She is a model pure and simple.
Does she eat more than she burns ummm yeah.
But cupcakes, surely you can't think a model in a picture eats what she is portraying in a photo op?
I'd model dog poo if it paid enough. Doesn't mean I'd eat it!4 -
-
leanjogreen18 wrote: »
OMG he ate this? See what I mean man. A photo means nothing!
How does this photo in anyway imply that he ate this? There is no caption saying he stands for moderation. He is wearing a chef's uniform and in the kitchen, indicating that he at work. Chef's cook food for others for a living. This picture does not in anyway indicate this food is for him.
If he was at what appeared to be a home wearing casual clothes, then I would guess he was making it for himself.
This is a strawman arguement and does not negate the original argument that moderation means different things to different people and must be explained carefully.
5 -
Also he should be wearing gloves.1
-
I would write a polite, but pointed, letter to both the PE teacher and the school counselor or psychologist. The School Psychologist could help you deal with your son's potential eating disorder. The PE teacher needs to know that her kids are the age most vulnerable to eating disorders. (Note: My 12 yr old son's appetite did decrease substantially around age 10-11. He still eats less than his 8 yr old sister. This'll change very shortly.)
Most PE teachers do touch on health issues. You say he is 11, so late elementary. In Middle School, he'll have a Health Teacher. But in elementary, the PE teacher teaches health issues. She is doing a poor job. Anorexia has taken a back seat to obesity in our collective-conscious. I think this is dangerous, because it is still a growing concern.
Talk to your son with facts, as a matter of regular conversation--not necessarily big drama talks. Look them up & present them to him. Show him how many more calories a day he needs than a middle-aged woman (i.e. mom or PE teacher). Talk to him about the need for protein to build his muscles. Talk to him about what kind of foods he needs to do the stuff he wants to do. (i.e. sports, arts, math, all works better with proper nutrition.)
A preteen should NOT be calorie counting! I recently looked up my preteen boys calorie count compared to mine. After puberty hits, it'll be 3000 a day! Almost 3 times mine! How does one calorie count for 3000 calories?!?!0 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »
OMG he ate this? See what I mean man. A photo means nothing!
The photo is not relevant. A photo with a caption declaring the person in the photo stands for something is. Even if the person is a paid model that couldn't give a rat's *kitten* about what the caption says. Whoever produced the picture is spewing a message implying 2 cupcakes is moderation.
I questioned if the picture was suppose to be a joke/parody when I saw it. I mean an obese teen holding 2 cupcakes with a caption about eating things in moderation?0 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »coreyreichle 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.
She obviously eats more than 1 cup cake at a sitting, and likely often.
So silly to take a photo and suggest she is overweight due to cupcakes. She is a model pure and simple.
Does she eat more than she burns ummm yeah.
But cupcakes, surely you can't think a model in a picture eats what she is portraying in a photo op?
I'd model dog poo if it paid enough. Doesn't mean I'd eat it!
I doubt she got fat huffing spinach.Also he should be wearing gloves.
Clean hands are better than dirty gloves every day. Wearing gloves does not automatically mean "sanitary", but what I have seen is it make people far more lax with hand washing than they should be.A preteen should NOT be calorie counting! I recently looked up my preteen boys calorie count compared to mine. After puberty hits, it'll be 3000 a day! Almost 3 times mine! How does one calorie count for 3000 calories?!?!
The same way you count for any other target intake. By using arithmetic.0 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »coreyreichle 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.
She obviously eats more than 1 cup cake at a sitting, and likely often.
So silly to take a photo and suggest she is overweight due to cupcakes. She is a model pure and simple.
Does she eat more than she burns ummm yeah.
But cupcakes, surely you can't think a model in a picture eats what she is portraying in a photo op?
I'd model dog poo if it paid enough. Doesn't mean I'd eat it!
I've seen the photo numerous before, and looked into her blog. She overeats cupcakes. And cake. And chocolate. She has several articles with her and another HAES activist binging on pastries in hotel rooms.1
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