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.
What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?
Options
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »JaydedMiss wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Your family should not be forced to diet with you- it's no one's fault but your own if you sit there and eat an entire bag of chips or sleeve of cookies. Just because you have no self control doesn't mean your partner/kids should get punished.
No but if a family has a shred of compassion for the one dieting they would support them and not blame them...
I didn't see mention of blame.
Support <>giving up the stuff they want/love
"it's no one's fault but your own if you sit there and eat an entire bag of chips or sleeve of cookies. Just because you have no self control doesn't mean your partner/kids should get punished..."
Really?
When people don't understand that removing junk food from a diet is a huge benefit and not a punishment it always makes me raise a concerned look.
If a person or family eats a primarily nutrient dense diet, but has things like oreos or cheezits in the pantry available for consumption in moderation, what benefits would that family or person see if they no longer consume an oreo or two after dinner? Telling the family that those things will no longer be in the house, because one person has difficulty moderating them or has chosen to cut them out in favor of other food choices, you don't think that would be seen as a negative and unnecessary consequence for other family members?
While I agree that having an occasional treat of not-so-healthy food is not detrimental to health, I don't think I'd go so far as to say it's a negative consequence to not have it. Unless they live in a bubble or some type of commune away from general society, kids are going to eat junk food. Not having it in the house isn't going to stop that.
But, not having it in the house might make them see that as the norm. Then again, it might not. Hard to judge something like that but every parent should do what they feel is right, even if it differs from what I feel is right.
well my mom chose nutrient dense foods for 1 reason and 1 only...we were poor.
After a while when we weren't...there was a diabetic in the house so that made her choose differently as well so as to not impact him too much...
however we were allowed ice cream in the house, chips ahoy and the odd envelope of tang...but rarely my fav of fruitloops...or anything like that...anythign people would consider "unhealthy"
what impact did it have on us...we meaning all 7 of the kids (save the diabetic) got overweight...some obese..some are getting gastic bypass...why because yup we were told you want it you go buy it..and we did and we ate it all...we ate lots of nutrient dense foods as well...
food is fuel it is not healthy vs unhealthy...it's the amount that is eaten that is unhealthy...allowing for treats in the house can allow for people to learn to moderate..
for example my son at 14 I let him drink reasonable amounts under my supervision...as he grew he learned to moderate and hardly drinks at all now...where as a lot of my family are daily drinkers...even some alcoholics...so yes not allowing for this can have adverse effects.
Okay. There are just as many examples of the opposite reactions.
could be but human nature says you want what you are denied or as kids told is bad...esp if you never get it...or so rarely that it can be counted on 1 hand....
I dunno i want whats easy and in my house. Thats the world we live in. Easy and fast is what we reach for. If kids have all the "bad" foods within easy reach thats what they learn to grab for. Like really what kid is going to pick an apple over a chocolate bar unless thats what they get taught to reach for.
If its not there to grab they wont grab it. Seems pretty simple to me. No ones saying to tell them its bad or they cant have it just not agreeing with having it so easily within reach constantly just because kids like it. Of course they like it, Doesnt mean i HAVE to buy it for them whenever i shop. Id be the adult itd be my job to make good choices.
Again not saying to never have it around but seems like kids would have way less obesity problems if parents would stop buying them everything they want and teach them to reach for healthy snacks.
Can argue both extremes it should be all about middle ground i guess. Not smacking chocolate bars our of kids hands and shoving an orange in it. But teaching kids to reach for the healthier versions and to consider the lesser healthy options either a special occasion or something to work for i cant see how that can be argued against- Seeing how most of us on here have struggled with weight issues why would we teach our kids to be the same way?
Kids have parents there when they are reaching for food.
We raised our kids in a way to not interfere with their hunger signals, so we weren't very strict with making them wait for meal times or forcing them to eat if they weren't hungry.
We had both healthy and "unhealthy" foods available to grab, but they were available to them with context.
They were taught that cookies and such were sometimes foods and came after the healthy foods which were always foods.
My kids are the only kids I know who will refuse candy, cookies, or cake. They've been known to eat half a cookie and stop because they're full.
So no, your whole idea if "it's not there, they won't grab it" didn't play out in our house. My kids were allowed to grab, within reason. Removing the allure of something being forbidden fruit made it not overly appealing to them.
I would bet that is not the norm. I would be curious if they refused this stuff when mom was around to know.
We have a similar approach as @GottaBurnEmAll . We talk about all the time foods and sometimes foods. My kids also have had giant shopping bags of halloween candy sitting on the floor in our kitchen, largely untouched since the 31st, because they just aren't that into it. They will have one small piece in their lunch box when we pack lunches for school, sometimes a piece after dinner. We usually have half eating bags of skittles or m&ms in our pantry for weeks at a time because they eat a couple of pieces and then put it away. Now if I tell them I'm donating it or taking it to work, they balk a little, but it's more that they don't want to lose the option to have it. My oldest really isn't a sweets kid and is always the one at birthday parties who eats a half piece of cake and then says he's finished. My youngest has never asked for seconds on sweets. They do eat cereal like crazy, and I buy fruit loops and captain crunch but also things like raisin bran, protein cheerios, etc. But again, I don't really see that as unhealthy and it isn't as if they are gorging themselves because they are concerned it isn't going to be there - they eat that for breakfast and it takes a couple of bowls to fill them up.
I have no reason to think that they would behave differently when not in my presence. We have shelves in the basement where we keep packaged snacks for lunches and busy weekends when we are bouncing from one activity to another - things like goldfish, cheezits, vanilla wafers, teddy grahams, etc. They could go in and get stuff any time, but they don't. On the other hand, we've hosted play dates and I've gone downstairs to find crumpled wrappers and crumbs - when I've asked my kids about it they said that friend XYZ went crazy with the snacks because their mom doesn't let them have that stuff at home.
So I'm on the side of making it about good/bad or telling them that they can't have something except on super special occasions, creates more problems and opportunities for going overboard than just telling my kids that if they want a bag of teddy grahams now, that's fine, but after dinner they won't have dessert, or we will have fruit instead.
I did the sometimes food thing with my kids too. But I never kidded myself. I knew they would (and likely did) pig out on that stuff if given the chance.
I love how you think we're kidding ourselves, but it's just not true.
My son is more likely to pig out on goldfish, and my daughter's vice is cheese.
Both of them have a very low tolerance for sweet things and just tire of them after a reasonable portion.
I've seen it when we go on vacation and let the reins loose. They just stop.
Perhaps we are just talking about different subjects. I would consider goldfish in the same category as chips. I don't see junk food only as sweets.
I've just never met a kid that wouldn't shovel in junk food. Regardless of how much was in their house. It's not until they are older that what they learned at home kicks in. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I do not think it's the norm.
I just got back from my sister's house and my young nephew is allowed to get Goldfish and M&Ms when he wants to have some. I saw a small bowl of Goldfish sit on the counter for several hours after he ate about 10 of them and my sister eventually put them away. He was more interested in counting his M&Ms (he gets 5 or 6 at a time) than eating them. I think maybe he ate 15-20 total the three days I was there (I was spending most of my time with him because I was taking care of him while my sister focused on her new baby). Half the time he got some, he'd eat half and we'd collect up the rest after he wandered off and left them.
Some kids do shovel in junk food, I have no doubt of that. But I don't think it's a universal thing. My nephew isn't the first kid I've met who seems to treat it just like any other food. Of course, he is the same kid who took an hour to eat a piece of pizza, so I think it's fair to say that he just isn't incredibly food-motivated right now. Maybe he'll change in the future.
Is this a small child? If so, then this sounds completely normal to me. I was thinking more school age through puberty. But it's a pointless argument. Everyone's children are perfect eaters even when mom is not around.
Mine weren't. None of their friends were (though I now wonder how many of their parents thought they were). I've never known a kid that wouldn't overeat whatever junk food they loved best if given the chance. That's why parents don't give them the chance.3 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »JaydedMiss wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Your family should not be forced to diet with you- it's no one's fault but your own if you sit there and eat an entire bag of chips or sleeve of cookies. Just because you have no self control doesn't mean your partner/kids should get punished.
No but if a family has a shred of compassion for the one dieting they would support them and not blame them...
I didn't see mention of blame.
Support <>giving up the stuff they want/love
"it's no one's fault but your own if you sit there and eat an entire bag of chips or sleeve of cookies. Just because you have no self control doesn't mean your partner/kids should get punished..."
Really?
When people don't understand that removing junk food from a diet is a huge benefit and not a punishment it always makes me raise a concerned look.
If a person or family eats a primarily nutrient dense diet, but has things like oreos or cheezits in the pantry available for consumption in moderation, what benefits would that family or person see if they no longer consume an oreo or two after dinner? Telling the family that those things will no longer be in the house, because one person has difficulty moderating them or has chosen to cut them out in favor of other food choices, you don't think that would be seen as a negative and unnecessary consequence for other family members?
While I agree that having an occasional treat of not-so-healthy food is not detrimental to health, I don't think I'd go so far as to say it's a negative consequence to not have it. Unless they live in a bubble or some type of commune away from general society, kids are going to eat junk food. Not having it in the house isn't going to stop that.
But, not having it in the house might make them see that as the norm. Then again, it might not. Hard to judge something like that but every parent should do what they feel is right, even if it differs from what I feel is right.
well my mom chose nutrient dense foods for 1 reason and 1 only...we were poor.
After a while when we weren't...there was a diabetic in the house so that made her choose differently as well so as to not impact him too much...
however we were allowed ice cream in the house, chips ahoy and the odd envelope of tang...but rarely my fav of fruitloops...or anything like that...anythign people would consider "unhealthy"
what impact did it have on us...we meaning all 7 of the kids (save the diabetic) got overweight...some obese..some are getting gastic bypass...why because yup we were told you want it you go buy it..and we did and we ate it all...we ate lots of nutrient dense foods as well...
food is fuel it is not healthy vs unhealthy...it's the amount that is eaten that is unhealthy...allowing for treats in the house can allow for people to learn to moderate..
for example my son at 14 I let him drink reasonable amounts under my supervision...as he grew he learned to moderate and hardly drinks at all now...where as a lot of my family are daily drinkers...even some alcoholics...so yes not allowing for this can have adverse effects.
Okay. There are just as many examples of the opposite reactions.
could be but human nature says you want what you are denied or as kids told is bad...esp if you never get it...or so rarely that it can be counted on 1 hand....
I dunno i want whats easy and in my house. Thats the world we live in. Easy and fast is what we reach for. If kids have all the "bad" foods within easy reach thats what they learn to grab for. Like really what kid is going to pick an apple over a chocolate bar unless thats what they get taught to reach for.
If its not there to grab they wont grab it. Seems pretty simple to me. No ones saying to tell them its bad or they cant have it just not agreeing with having it so easily within reach constantly just because kids like it. Of course they like it, Doesnt mean i HAVE to buy it for them whenever i shop. Id be the adult itd be my job to make good choices.
Again not saying to never have it around but seems like kids would have way less obesity problems if parents would stop buying them everything they want and teach them to reach for healthy snacks.
Can argue both extremes it should be all about middle ground i guess. Not smacking chocolate bars our of kids hands and shoving an orange in it. But teaching kids to reach for the healthier versions and to consider the lesser healthy options either a special occasion or something to work for i cant see how that can be argued against- Seeing how most of us on here have struggled with weight issues why would we teach our kids to be the same way?
Kids have parents there when they are reaching for food.
We raised our kids in a way to not interfere with their hunger signals, so we weren't very strict with making them wait for meal times or forcing them to eat if they weren't hungry.
We had both healthy and "unhealthy" foods available to grab, but they were available to them with context.
They were taught that cookies and such were sometimes foods and came after the healthy foods which were always foods.
My kids are the only kids I know who will refuse candy, cookies, or cake. They've been known to eat half a cookie and stop because they're full.
So no, your whole idea if "it's not there, they won't grab it" didn't play out in our house. My kids were allowed to grab, within reason. Removing the allure of something being forbidden fruit made it not overly appealing to them.
I would bet that is not the norm. I would be curious if they refused this stuff when mom was around to know.
We have a similar approach as @GottaBurnEmAll . We talk about all the time foods and sometimes foods. My kids also have had giant shopping bags of halloween candy sitting on the floor in our kitchen, largely untouched since the 31st, because they just aren't that into it. They will have one small piece in their lunch box when we pack lunches for school, sometimes a piece after dinner. We usually have half eating bags of skittles or m&ms in our pantry for weeks at a time because they eat a couple of pieces and then put it away. Now if I tell them I'm donating it or taking it to work, they balk a little, but it's more that they don't want to lose the option to have it. My oldest really isn't a sweets kid and is always the one at birthday parties who eats a half piece of cake and then says he's finished. My youngest has never asked for seconds on sweets. They do eat cereal like crazy, and I buy fruit loops and captain crunch but also things like raisin bran, protein cheerios, etc. But again, I don't really see that as unhealthy and it isn't as if they are gorging themselves because they are concerned it isn't going to be there - they eat that for breakfast and it takes a couple of bowls to fill them up.
I have no reason to think that they would behave differently when not in my presence. We have shelves in the basement where we keep packaged snacks for lunches and busy weekends when we are bouncing from one activity to another - things like goldfish, cheezits, vanilla wafers, teddy grahams, etc. They could go in and get stuff any time, but they don't. On the other hand, we've hosted play dates and I've gone downstairs to find crumpled wrappers and crumbs - when I've asked my kids about it they said that friend XYZ went crazy with the snacks because their mom doesn't let them have that stuff at home.
So I'm on the side of making it about good/bad or telling them that they can't have something except on super special occasions, creates more problems and opportunities for going overboard than just telling my kids that if they want a bag of teddy grahams now, that's fine, but after dinner they won't have dessert, or we will have fruit instead.
I did the sometimes food thing with my kids too. But I never kidded myself. I knew they would (and likely did) pig out on that stuff if given the chance.
I love how you think we're kidding ourselves, but it's just not true.
My son is more likely to pig out on goldfish, and my daughter's vice is cheese.
Both of them have a very low tolerance for sweet things and just tire of them after a reasonable portion.
I've seen it when we go on vacation and let the reins loose. They just stop.
Perhaps we are just talking about different subjects. I would consider goldfish in the same category as chips. I don't see junk food only as sweets.
I've just never met a kid that wouldn't shovel in junk food. Regardless of how much was in their house. It's not until they are older that what they learned at home kicks in. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I do not think it's the norm.
I think it is the norm for kids whose parents taught them about proper nutrition etc. instead of elimination etc.
my son is the same way...he could care less most of the time....
and really wasn't one to eat lots...it wasn't until he was out working he thought he was moving enough but he wasn't and he gained...mind you he lost it easy enough...he just moves more now.
Well that does sounds abnormal to me. In my experience boys, especially, tend to go in spurts. They either eat everything in site, or they eat very little.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »JaydedMiss wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Your family should not be forced to diet with you- it's no one's fault but your own if you sit there and eat an entire bag of chips or sleeve of cookies. Just because you have no self control doesn't mean your partner/kids should get punished.
No but if a family has a shred of compassion for the one dieting they would support them and not blame them...
I didn't see mention of blame.
Support <>giving up the stuff they want/love
"it's no one's fault but your own if you sit there and eat an entire bag of chips or sleeve of cookies. Just because you have no self control doesn't mean your partner/kids should get punished..."
Really?
When people don't understand that removing junk food from a diet is a huge benefit and not a punishment it always makes me raise a concerned look.
If a person or family eats a primarily nutrient dense diet, but has things like oreos or cheezits in the pantry available for consumption in moderation, what benefits would that family or person see if they no longer consume an oreo or two after dinner? Telling the family that those things will no longer be in the house, because one person has difficulty moderating them or has chosen to cut them out in favor of other food choices, you don't think that would be seen as a negative and unnecessary consequence for other family members?
While I agree that having an occasional treat of not-so-healthy food is not detrimental to health, I don't think I'd go so far as to say it's a negative consequence to not have it. Unless they live in a bubble or some type of commune away from general society, kids are going to eat junk food. Not having it in the house isn't going to stop that.
But, not having it in the house might make them see that as the norm. Then again, it might not. Hard to judge something like that but every parent should do what they feel is right, even if it differs from what I feel is right.
well my mom chose nutrient dense foods for 1 reason and 1 only...we were poor.
After a while when we weren't...there was a diabetic in the house so that made her choose differently as well so as to not impact him too much...
however we were allowed ice cream in the house, chips ahoy and the odd envelope of tang...but rarely my fav of fruitloops...or anything like that...anythign people would consider "unhealthy"
what impact did it have on us...we meaning all 7 of the kids (save the diabetic) got overweight...some obese..some are getting gastic bypass...why because yup we were told you want it you go buy it..and we did and we ate it all...we ate lots of nutrient dense foods as well...
food is fuel it is not healthy vs unhealthy...it's the amount that is eaten that is unhealthy...allowing for treats in the house can allow for people to learn to moderate..
for example my son at 14 I let him drink reasonable amounts under my supervision...as he grew he learned to moderate and hardly drinks at all now...where as a lot of my family are daily drinkers...even some alcoholics...so yes not allowing for this can have adverse effects.
Okay. There are just as many examples of the opposite reactions.
could be but human nature says you want what you are denied or as kids told is bad...esp if you never get it...or so rarely that it can be counted on 1 hand....
I dunno i want whats easy and in my house. Thats the world we live in. Easy and fast is what we reach for. If kids have all the "bad" foods within easy reach thats what they learn to grab for. Like really what kid is going to pick an apple over a chocolate bar unless thats what they get taught to reach for.
If its not there to grab they wont grab it. Seems pretty simple to me. No ones saying to tell them its bad or they cant have it just not agreeing with having it so easily within reach constantly just because kids like it. Of course they like it, Doesnt mean i HAVE to buy it for them whenever i shop. Id be the adult itd be my job to make good choices.
Again not saying to never have it around but seems like kids would have way less obesity problems if parents would stop buying them everything they want and teach them to reach for healthy snacks.
Can argue both extremes it should be all about middle ground i guess. Not smacking chocolate bars our of kids hands and shoving an orange in it. But teaching kids to reach for the healthier versions and to consider the lesser healthy options either a special occasion or something to work for i cant see how that can be argued against- Seeing how most of us on here have struggled with weight issues why would we teach our kids to be the same way?
Kids have parents there when they are reaching for food.
We raised our kids in a way to not interfere with their hunger signals, so we weren't very strict with making them wait for meal times or forcing them to eat if they weren't hungry.
We had both healthy and "unhealthy" foods available to grab, but they were available to them with context.
They were taught that cookies and such were sometimes foods and came after the healthy foods which were always foods.
My kids are the only kids I know who will refuse candy, cookies, or cake. They've been known to eat half a cookie and stop because they're full.
So no, your whole idea if "it's not there, they won't grab it" didn't play out in our house. My kids were allowed to grab, within reason. Removing the allure of something being forbidden fruit made it not overly appealing to them.
I would bet that is not the norm. I would be curious if they refused this stuff when mom was around to know.
We have a similar approach as @GottaBurnEmAll . We talk about all the time foods and sometimes foods. My kids also have had giant shopping bags of halloween candy sitting on the floor in our kitchen, largely untouched since the 31st, because they just aren't that into it. They will have one small piece in their lunch box when we pack lunches for school, sometimes a piece after dinner. We usually have half eating bags of skittles or m&ms in our pantry for weeks at a time because they eat a couple of pieces and then put it away. Now if I tell them I'm donating it or taking it to work, they balk a little, but it's more that they don't want to lose the option to have it. My oldest really isn't a sweets kid and is always the one at birthday parties who eats a half piece of cake and then says he's finished. My youngest has never asked for seconds on sweets. They do eat cereal like crazy, and I buy fruit loops and captain crunch but also things like raisin bran, protein cheerios, etc. But again, I don't really see that as unhealthy and it isn't as if they are gorging themselves because they are concerned it isn't going to be there - they eat that for breakfast and it takes a couple of bowls to fill them up.
I have no reason to think that they would behave differently when not in my presence. We have shelves in the basement where we keep packaged snacks for lunches and busy weekends when we are bouncing from one activity to another - things like goldfish, cheezits, vanilla wafers, teddy grahams, etc. They could go in and get stuff any time, but they don't. On the other hand, we've hosted play dates and I've gone downstairs to find crumpled wrappers and crumbs - when I've asked my kids about it they said that friend XYZ went crazy with the snacks because their mom doesn't let them have that stuff at home.
So I'm on the side of making it about good/bad or telling them that they can't have something except on super special occasions, creates more problems and opportunities for going overboard than just telling my kids that if they want a bag of teddy grahams now, that's fine, but after dinner they won't have dessert, or we will have fruit instead.
I did the sometimes food thing with my kids too. But I never kidded myself. I knew they would (and likely did) pig out on that stuff if given the chance.
I love how you think we're kidding ourselves, but it's just not true.
My son is more likely to pig out on goldfish, and my daughter's vice is cheese.
Both of them have a very low tolerance for sweet things and just tire of them after a reasonable portion.
I've seen it when we go on vacation and let the reins loose. They just stop.
Perhaps we are just talking about different subjects. I would consider goldfish in the same category as chips. I don't see junk food only as sweets.
I've just never met a kid that wouldn't shovel in junk food. Regardless of how much was in their house. It's not until they are older that what they learned at home kicks in. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I do not think it's the norm.
I just got back from my sister's house and my young nephew is allowed to get Goldfish and M&Ms when he wants to have some. I saw a small bowl of Goldfish sit on the counter for several hours after he ate about 10 of them and my sister eventually put them away. He was more interested in counting his M&Ms (he gets 5 or 6 at a time) than eating them. I think maybe he ate 15-20 total the three days I was there (I was spending most of my time with him because I was taking care of him while my sister focused on her new baby). Half the time he got some, he'd eat half and we'd collect up the rest after he wandered off and left them.
Some kids do shovel in junk food, I have no doubt of that. But I don't think it's a universal thing. My nephew isn't the first kid I've met who seems to treat it just like any other food. Of course, he is the same kid who took an hour to eat a piece of pizza, so I think it's fair to say that he just isn't incredibly food-motivated right now. Maybe he'll change in the future.
Is this a small child? If so, then this sounds completely normal to me. I was thinking more school age through puberty. But it's a pointless argument. Everyone's children are perfect eaters even when mom is not around.
Mine weren't. None of their friends were (though I now wonder how many of their parents thought they were). I've never known a kid that wouldn't overeat whatever junk food they loved best if given the chance. That's why parents don't give them the chance.
He is pretty young and it's true that he could change as he gets older.
But my experience with my siblings (I'm the oldest and I took care of several of them) is that all kids aren't equally into "junk food." I mean, some of my siblings had things they liked, but not all of them would eat unreasonable portions whenever they got the chance (and, of course, some of them would eat way too much of certain foods if they got the chance and they would have to be watched).
I'm not sure why the idea that children, just like adults, are individuals and respond to food in different ways (especially given the variety of their home lives and exposure to different foods) is so objectionable to you. Nobody is arguing that *all children* are this way, just pointing out that some seem to be.
And if the response is "those parents are just lying to themselves," I guess that can be used to shut down just about any argument. But it doesn't seem reasonable. The parents in this thread that are sharing their various observations -- it seems less reasonable to me to conclude that they don't have accurate observations of their own children or that they are blatantly lying to us here than it does to conclude that children behave in a wide variety of ways (and can even change as they develop).2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »JaydedMiss wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Your family should not be forced to diet with you- it's no one's fault but your own if you sit there and eat an entire bag of chips or sleeve of cookies. Just because you have no self control doesn't mean your partner/kids should get punished.
No but if a family has a shred of compassion for the one dieting they would support them and not blame them...
I didn't see mention of blame.
Support <>giving up the stuff they want/love
"it's no one's fault but your own if you sit there and eat an entire bag of chips or sleeve of cookies. Just because you have no self control doesn't mean your partner/kids should get punished..."
Really?
When people don't understand that removing junk food from a diet is a huge benefit and not a punishment it always makes me raise a concerned look.
If a person or family eats a primarily nutrient dense diet, but has things like oreos or cheezits in the pantry available for consumption in moderation, what benefits would that family or person see if they no longer consume an oreo or two after dinner? Telling the family that those things will no longer be in the house, because one person has difficulty moderating them or has chosen to cut them out in favor of other food choices, you don't think that would be seen as a negative and unnecessary consequence for other family members?
While I agree that having an occasional treat of not-so-healthy food is not detrimental to health, I don't think I'd go so far as to say it's a negative consequence to not have it. Unless they live in a bubble or some type of commune away from general society, kids are going to eat junk food. Not having it in the house isn't going to stop that.
But, not having it in the house might make them see that as the norm. Then again, it might not. Hard to judge something like that but every parent should do what they feel is right, even if it differs from what I feel is right.
well my mom chose nutrient dense foods for 1 reason and 1 only...we were poor.
After a while when we weren't...there was a diabetic in the house so that made her choose differently as well so as to not impact him too much...
however we were allowed ice cream in the house, chips ahoy and the odd envelope of tang...but rarely my fav of fruitloops...or anything like that...anythign people would consider "unhealthy"
what impact did it have on us...we meaning all 7 of the kids (save the diabetic) got overweight...some obese..some are getting gastic bypass...why because yup we were told you want it you go buy it..and we did and we ate it all...we ate lots of nutrient dense foods as well...
food is fuel it is not healthy vs unhealthy...it's the amount that is eaten that is unhealthy...allowing for treats in the house can allow for people to learn to moderate..
for example my son at 14 I let him drink reasonable amounts under my supervision...as he grew he learned to moderate and hardly drinks at all now...where as a lot of my family are daily drinkers...even some alcoholics...so yes not allowing for this can have adverse effects.
Okay. There are just as many examples of the opposite reactions.
could be but human nature says you want what you are denied or as kids told is bad...esp if you never get it...or so rarely that it can be counted on 1 hand....
I dunno i want whats easy and in my house. Thats the world we live in. Easy and fast is what we reach for. If kids have all the "bad" foods within easy reach thats what they learn to grab for. Like really what kid is going to pick an apple over a chocolate bar unless thats what they get taught to reach for.
If its not there to grab they wont grab it. Seems pretty simple to me. No ones saying to tell them its bad or they cant have it just not agreeing with having it so easily within reach constantly just because kids like it. Of course they like it, Doesnt mean i HAVE to buy it for them whenever i shop. Id be the adult itd be my job to make good choices.
Again not saying to never have it around but seems like kids would have way less obesity problems if parents would stop buying them everything they want and teach them to reach for healthy snacks.
Can argue both extremes it should be all about middle ground i guess. Not smacking chocolate bars our of kids hands and shoving an orange in it. But teaching kids to reach for the healthier versions and to consider the lesser healthy options either a special occasion or something to work for i cant see how that can be argued against- Seeing how most of us on here have struggled with weight issues why would we teach our kids to be the same way?
Kids have parents there when they are reaching for food.
We raised our kids in a way to not interfere with their hunger signals, so we weren't very strict with making them wait for meal times or forcing them to eat if they weren't hungry.
We had both healthy and "unhealthy" foods available to grab, but they were available to them with context.
They were taught that cookies and such were sometimes foods and came after the healthy foods which were always foods.
My kids are the only kids I know who will refuse candy, cookies, or cake. They've been known to eat half a cookie and stop because they're full.
So no, your whole idea if "it's not there, they won't grab it" didn't play out in our house. My kids were allowed to grab, within reason. Removing the allure of something being forbidden fruit made it not overly appealing to them.
I would bet that is not the norm. I would be curious if they refused this stuff when mom was around to know.
We have a similar approach as @GottaBurnEmAll . We talk about all the time foods and sometimes foods. My kids also have had giant shopping bags of halloween candy sitting on the floor in our kitchen, largely untouched since the 31st, because they just aren't that into it. They will have one small piece in their lunch box when we pack lunches for school, sometimes a piece after dinner. We usually have half eating bags of skittles or m&ms in our pantry for weeks at a time because they eat a couple of pieces and then put it away. Now if I tell them I'm donating it or taking it to work, they balk a little, but it's more that they don't want to lose the option to have it. My oldest really isn't a sweets kid and is always the one at birthday parties who eats a half piece of cake and then says he's finished. My youngest has never asked for seconds on sweets. They do eat cereal like crazy, and I buy fruit loops and captain crunch but also things like raisin bran, protein cheerios, etc. But again, I don't really see that as unhealthy and it isn't as if they are gorging themselves because they are concerned it isn't going to be there - they eat that for breakfast and it takes a couple of bowls to fill them up.
I have no reason to think that they would behave differently when not in my presence. We have shelves in the basement where we keep packaged snacks for lunches and busy weekends when we are bouncing from one activity to another - things like goldfish, cheezits, vanilla wafers, teddy grahams, etc. They could go in and get stuff any time, but they don't. On the other hand, we've hosted play dates and I've gone downstairs to find crumpled wrappers and crumbs - when I've asked my kids about it they said that friend XYZ went crazy with the snacks because their mom doesn't let them have that stuff at home.
So I'm on the side of making it about good/bad or telling them that they can't have something except on super special occasions, creates more problems and opportunities for going overboard than just telling my kids that if they want a bag of teddy grahams now, that's fine, but after dinner they won't have dessert, or we will have fruit instead.
I did the sometimes food thing with my kids too. But I never kidded myself. I knew they would (and likely did) pig out on that stuff if given the chance.
I love how you think we're kidding ourselves, but it's just not true.
My son is more likely to pig out on goldfish, and my daughter's vice is cheese.
Both of them have a very low tolerance for sweet things and just tire of them after a reasonable portion.
I've seen it when we go on vacation and let the reins loose. They just stop.
Perhaps we are just talking about different subjects. I would consider goldfish in the same category as chips. I don't see junk food only as sweets.
I've just never met a kid that wouldn't shovel in junk food. Regardless of how much was in their house. It's not until they are older that what they learned at home kicks in. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I do not think it's the norm.
I just got back from my sister's house and my young nephew is allowed to get Goldfish and M&Ms when he wants to have some. I saw a small bowl of Goldfish sit on the counter for several hours after he ate about 10 of them and my sister eventually put them away. He was more interested in counting his M&Ms (he gets 5 or 6 at a time) than eating them. I think maybe he ate 15-20 total the three days I was there (I was spending most of my time with him because I was taking care of him while my sister focused on her new baby). Half the time he got some, he'd eat half and we'd collect up the rest after he wandered off and left them.
Some kids do shovel in junk food, I have no doubt of that. But I don't think it's a universal thing. My nephew isn't the first kid I've met who seems to treat it just like any other food. Of course, he is the same kid who took an hour to eat a piece of pizza, so I think it's fair to say that he just isn't incredibly food-motivated right now. Maybe he'll change in the future.
Is this a small child? If so, then this sounds completely normal to me. I was thinking more school age through puberty. But it's a pointless argument. Everyone's children are perfect eaters even when mom is not around.
Mine weren't. None of their friends were (though I now wonder how many of their parents thought they were). I've never known a kid that wouldn't overeat whatever junk food they loved best if given the chance. That's why parents don't give them the chance.
He is pretty young and it's true that he could change as he gets older.
But my experience with my siblings (I'm the oldest and I took care of several of them) is that all kids aren't equally into "junk food." I mean, some of my siblings had things they liked, but not all of them would eat unreasonable portions whenever they got the chance (and, of course, some of them would eat way too much of certain foods if they got the chance and they would have to be watched).
I'm not sure why the idea that children, just like adults, are individuals and respond to food in different ways (especially given the variety of their home lives and exposure to different foods) is so objectionable to you. Nobody is arguing that *all children* are this way, just pointing out that some seem to be.
And if the response is "those parents are just lying to themselves," I guess that can be used to shut down just about any argument. But it doesn't seem reasonable. The parents in this thread that are sharing their various observations -- it seems less reasonable to me to conclude that they don't have accurate observations of their own children or that they are blatantly lying to us here than it does to conclude that children behave in a wide variety of ways (and can even change as they develop).
I never said anyone was lying to themselves. We have a couple of parents whose children may not be the norm. That would not change the norm, if I am right about the norm.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »JaydedMiss wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Your family should not be forced to diet with you- it's no one's fault but your own if you sit there and eat an entire bag of chips or sleeve of cookies. Just because you have no self control doesn't mean your partner/kids should get punished.
No but if a family has a shred of compassion for the one dieting they would support them and not blame them...
I didn't see mention of blame.
Support <>giving up the stuff they want/love
"it's no one's fault but your own if you sit there and eat an entire bag of chips or sleeve of cookies. Just because you have no self control doesn't mean your partner/kids should get punished..."
Really?
When people don't understand that removing junk food from a diet is a huge benefit and not a punishment it always makes me raise a concerned look.
If a person or family eats a primarily nutrient dense diet, but has things like oreos or cheezits in the pantry available for consumption in moderation, what benefits would that family or person see if they no longer consume an oreo or two after dinner? Telling the family that those things will no longer be in the house, because one person has difficulty moderating them or has chosen to cut them out in favor of other food choices, you don't think that would be seen as a negative and unnecessary consequence for other family members?
While I agree that having an occasional treat of not-so-healthy food is not detrimental to health, I don't think I'd go so far as to say it's a negative consequence to not have it. Unless they live in a bubble or some type of commune away from general society, kids are going to eat junk food. Not having it in the house isn't going to stop that.
But, not having it in the house might make them see that as the norm. Then again, it might not. Hard to judge something like that but every parent should do what they feel is right, even if it differs from what I feel is right.
well my mom chose nutrient dense foods for 1 reason and 1 only...we were poor.
After a while when we weren't...there was a diabetic in the house so that made her choose differently as well so as to not impact him too much...
however we were allowed ice cream in the house, chips ahoy and the odd envelope of tang...but rarely my fav of fruitloops...or anything like that...anythign people would consider "unhealthy"
what impact did it have on us...we meaning all 7 of the kids (save the diabetic) got overweight...some obese..some are getting gastic bypass...why because yup we were told you want it you go buy it..and we did and we ate it all...we ate lots of nutrient dense foods as well...
food is fuel it is not healthy vs unhealthy...it's the amount that is eaten that is unhealthy...allowing for treats in the house can allow for people to learn to moderate..
for example my son at 14 I let him drink reasonable amounts under my supervision...as he grew he learned to moderate and hardly drinks at all now...where as a lot of my family are daily drinkers...even some alcoholics...so yes not allowing for this can have adverse effects.
Okay. There are just as many examples of the opposite reactions.
could be but human nature says you want what you are denied or as kids told is bad...esp if you never get it...or so rarely that it can be counted on 1 hand....
I dunno i want whats easy and in my house. Thats the world we live in. Easy and fast is what we reach for. If kids have all the "bad" foods within easy reach thats what they learn to grab for. Like really what kid is going to pick an apple over a chocolate bar unless thats what they get taught to reach for.
If its not there to grab they wont grab it. Seems pretty simple to me. No ones saying to tell them its bad or they cant have it just not agreeing with having it so easily within reach constantly just because kids like it. Of course they like it, Doesnt mean i HAVE to buy it for them whenever i shop. Id be the adult itd be my job to make good choices.
Again not saying to never have it around but seems like kids would have way less obesity problems if parents would stop buying them everything they want and teach them to reach for healthy snacks.
Can argue both extremes it should be all about middle ground i guess. Not smacking chocolate bars our of kids hands and shoving an orange in it. But teaching kids to reach for the healthier versions and to consider the lesser healthy options either a special occasion or something to work for i cant see how that can be argued against- Seeing how most of us on here have struggled with weight issues why would we teach our kids to be the same way?
Kids have parents there when they are reaching for food.
We raised our kids in a way to not interfere with their hunger signals, so we weren't very strict with making them wait for meal times or forcing them to eat if they weren't hungry.
We had both healthy and "unhealthy" foods available to grab, but they were available to them with context.
They were taught that cookies and such were sometimes foods and came after the healthy foods which were always foods.
My kids are the only kids I know who will refuse candy, cookies, or cake. They've been known to eat half a cookie and stop because they're full.
So no, your whole idea if "it's not there, they won't grab it" didn't play out in our house. My kids were allowed to grab, within reason. Removing the allure of something being forbidden fruit made it not overly appealing to them.
I would bet that is not the norm. I would be curious if they refused this stuff when mom was not around to know.
If we are talking about little kids (not teens), we had sweet foods around usually when I was a kid, but I never just grabbed food, and neither did my sister. We weren't allowed to just eat stuff without asking. My mom would often say "have an apple if you are hungry," and I don't particular recall us begging for sweets in general.
When I was a teen we'd maybe grab something sweet after school (and maybe a non sweet snack -- I recall having cheese and crackers). That sweet stuff was there didn't mean we went crazy.
I don't really keep sweets around the house now, since I'm not that interested in them, although I enjoy baking and homebaked foods on occasion (like a holiday). My sister has no sweet tooth at all (and she totally did as a kid, loved sugary cereal).
My mom didn't buy soda, though, and I was never interested in soda as forbidden fruit (but it wasn't, we weren't a family where we weren't allowed to eat unhealthy foods, it just wasn't something kids drank in our house).
I'm sure it's all individual, but I don't buy the idea that if you have high cal treats in the home that the kids will be grabbing and eating them, let alone that they will be eating lots of them (as jayed miss seemed to be saying). That was not my experience.
(I have no opinion on whether others with kids should have treats in their house. Their deal. But having sweets does not mean the kids are taught to eat them indiscriminately. I find it more shocking how many people claim they never ate vegetables growing up.)2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm sure it's all individual, but I don't buy the idea that if you have high cal treats in the home that the kids will be grabbing and eating them, let alone that they will be eating lots of them (as jayed miss seemed to be saying). That was not my experience.
I don't buy that either. Well, I do with some as I know kids who will do this at home (because they are not taught not to, which does back up my theory). I thought I made it pretty clear that I was not talking about what children do when under the watchful eye of parents who have taught them good food rules. But maybe I did not.0 -
magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Your family should not be forced to diet with you- it's no one's fault but your own if you sit there and eat an entire bag of chips or sleeve of cookies. Just because you have no self control doesn't mean your partner/kids should get punished.
No but if a family has a shred of compassion for the one dieting they would support them and not blame them...
I didn't see mention of blame.
Support <>giving up the stuff they want/love
"it's no one's fault but your own if you sit there and eat an entire bag of chips or sleeve of cookies. Just because you have no self control doesn't mean your partner/kids should get punished..."
Really?
When people don't understand that removing junk food from a diet is a huge benefit and not a punishment it always makes me raise a concerned look.
If a person or family eats a primarily nutrient dense diet, but has things like oreos or cheezits in the pantry available for consumption in moderation, what benefits would that family or person see if they no longer consume an oreo or two after dinner? Telling the family that those things will no longer be in the house, because one person has difficulty moderating them or has chosen to cut them out in favor of other food choices, you don't think that would be seen as a negative and unnecessary consequence for other family members?
While I agree that having an occasional treat of not-so-healthy food is not detrimental to health, I don't think I'd go so far as to say it's a negative consequence to not have it. Unless they live in a bubble or some type of commune away from general society, kids are going to eat junk food. Not having it in the house isn't going to stop that.
But, not having it in the house might make them see that as the norm. Then again, it might not. Hard to judge something like that but every parent should do what they feel is right, even if it differs from what I feel is right.
well my mom chose nutrient dense foods for 1 reason and 1 only...we were poor.
After a while when we weren't...there was a diabetic in the house so that made her choose differently as well so as to not impact him too much...
however we were allowed ice cream in the house, chips ahoy and the odd envelope of tang...but rarely my fav of fruitloops...or anything like that...anythign people would consider "unhealthy"
what impact did it have on us...we meaning all 7 of the kids (save the diabetic) got overweight...some obese..some are getting gastic bypass...why because yup we were told you want it you go buy it..and we did and we ate it all...we ate lots of nutrient dense foods as well...
food is fuel it is not healthy vs unhealthy...it's the amount that is eaten that is unhealthy...allowing for treats in the house can allow for people to learn to moderate..
for example my son at 14 I let him drink reasonable amounts under my supervision...as he grew he learned to moderate and hardly drinks at all now...where as a lot of my family are daily drinkers...even some alcoholics...so yes not allowing for this can have adverse effects.
Okay. There are just as many examples of the opposite reactions.
could be but human nature says you want what you are denied or as kids told is bad...esp if you never get it...or so rarely that it can be counted on 1 hand....
Human nature also says that if you are continually fed those calorie dense foods it becomes a habit. The point I think most people are trying to make is that these foods do not need to be in the house all the time. It is okay to have them occasionally and in moderation.
so is it calorie dense or is it unhealthy that you don't like? because it was about healthy not weight at first.
I have nothing against calorie dense foods...in moderation. I think it's safe to say that most people don't like to be unhealthy. I also think it depends on your definition of "unhealthy". In my opinion eating too many calorie dense foods is unhealthy. Having those calorie dense foods in moderation can be a part of a healthy lifestyle. When I made my first comment I stated that I was not dieting but changing to a healthy lifestyle, therefore I am not forcing my family to diet.
so the following foods are only in moderation at your house then? Yes
butter
peanut butter
oils
seeds/nuts
dark chocolate
dried fruits
pasta
avocado
beef
duck
pizza
granola
hummus
fruit juice
and regardless eating calorie dense food everyday is not unhealthy... I eat calorie dense foods everyday...in moderation.
healthy <> low calorie
healthy lifestyle = balance.
okay so what is defined as "too many" or "too much" then? as you said eating "too many" is unhealthy?
because daily could be seen as continually which in your opinion means a habit will be formed for calorie dense foods. And if you eat them daily how is it that you said they don't need to be in the house all the time????
I see a progression with you from unhealthy food not being in your house to calorie dense not being in your house to I eat calorie dense foods everyday....
What is an unhealthy food? I have never called anything an unhealthy food.
you said too many calorie dense foods was unhealthy...
This is true. Eating too many calorie dense foods is unhealthy. That doesn't mean that calorie dense foods are "unhealthy".
right and that was my point...but you went from "unhealthy food" (you never gave an example of what was unheathy just that if your family wanted something not deemed healthy you were not buying it) not being in your house to "calories dense" not being in your house to eating them everyday in moderation...so I asked what do you define at too many or too much??? another question left unanswered...
and you did say that eating calorie dense foods continually will cause habits to form...but you eat them everyday...so yah confused as to the rules you follow except you don't diet...that is loud and clear.
eating too much of anything is unhealthy....
When did I ever say that I do not let calorie dense foods in my house?
wow okay phrases like "eating calorie dense foods continually forms habits" therefore they do not need to be in the house all the time....need to be spelled out okay.
So again let me see if I can get this typed out correctly.....
you went from not having calorie dense food in your house "continually" and available as it can form habits...to eating calorie dense foods everyday.
You are not seeing the forest for the trees here you are too busy only reading parts of what I am saying and focusing in on a few words/sentences that you deem invalid.
So be it.
I have asked a couple questions more than once and you choose not to answer or even go back and read them when I reference them again so your the confusion created by the things you have said can't get clarification so whatever...
4 -
CommonBiped wrote: »I abhor being told that losing weight is easy. That finding time, energy, money, which workouts won't kill your knees/feet/chest, is just a snap and anyone who can't immediately do these things is just lazy. That healthy food is cheap or that cooking food at home is quick. The reality is, these are true if you're making your health your part-time job/hobby.
Reality is, working out even for 20 minutes is more than 20 minutes. You have find and get into gear, go where you're working out, work out, shower, redo your hair, redo your makeup, pack up your stuff etc. Adds at least a load of laundry a week and will likely cost you money in either equipment, membership or gear/clothing. Where can you find workout gear that isn't for a size 2, you know something you can actually try on and know that it fits instead of playing internet size roulette. What exercises do you do? In what amount? Are you doing them correctly? Are they effective? How effective? Shouldn't you be seeing some results by now? How boring is working out really? I hear there's a runners high, but they must've been high before it started because running is the most boring activity on the face of the planet.
Cooking at home includes the finding of recipes, the dithering of whether or not it is something you can/will eat, finding food at between 1-3 stores because 3 out 4 times 1 store won't have all the ingredients, the money that all this good for you food costs, food prep (which doesn't actually go fast, it is hard work, there's a reason chefs get paid), the actual cooking, the dishes from initially eating it, the tupperware you ended up storing the extras in that you never end up eating because it is horrible reheated, the pots, the pans, the measuring devices, you can destroy a kitchen and walk away with enough food for two meals. Even with all that, is it something you can eat in 5 minutes before you have to be out the door for work? Is it something you can bring to work that doesn't require ridiculous number of containers or at work kitchen prep? Will it taste god frickin awful once microwaved? Will it stink up the office and make you a pariah? Do you count calories or carbs, or sugar grams, or fat grams? Is the apple in my hand considered a medium apple? How many freakin calories are actually in this apple?
Most people aren't lazy and they care about their health. But come on, the healthier than thou attitudes thrown at people and the condescension is frickin brutal. If you are the kind of people that inhabit a gym, why on earth would anyone want to go there? I know people who work their buts off in life, they just don't work it off at the gym. Who are you to judge these people? My grandmother was easily between 250 and 300 her whole adult life. She worked on her feet every day and cooked dinner for everyone at night. You would rarely see her sit. But apparently according to this thread she was simply lazy. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Perhaps instead of working on your looks while claiming your'e working on your health, you should be working on your compassion and attitudes towards others. You may be getting prettier on the outside, but apparently your insides have a long ways to go.
Yes, I work out, yes I watch what I eat and generally go for healthy. But I would never be foolish or arrogant enough to claim that it is easy because the truth is it is hard work and time consuming, or that everyones metabolism or body works the same way, or that today's lifestyle doesn't play a huge roll in everyone's weight increase. If everyones bodies worked exactly the same way then the same dosage of meds would work for everyone. So running marathons or whatever is your hobby, good for you, that does not make you a better persone than someone who finds that mind numbingly boring and prefers to create something or spend their time elsewhere.
But I was cooking (finding recipes, purchasing food, etc) even when I was heavier. It's not like I started just to lose weight. The time is going to be spent either way -- everyone has to eat.
If I didn't want to cook, if it didn't fit into my life or I didn't enjoy it, I just would have found a way to count calories and reach a deficit on whatever it was I was eating before I wanted to lose weight.
If I have to eat in five minutes before I go to work, I can choose to eat something that fits into my plan or something that doesn't. If I'm having to microwave something, I can choose to eat something that fits into my plan or something that doesn't. Issues of storing leftovers, cleaning measuring cups -- these aren't "issues" (if they can even be called that) that are limited to those who are trying to lose weight.
I don't really care if someone doesn't want to lose weight and I don't think I'm a better person because I choose to run marathons (like you, I agree it's just one of many choices for a hobby). But I don't think we should over-complicate what is involved in losing weight either.
Working out -- optional for losing weight.
Going to several stores to buy food -- optional for losing weight.
Microwaving food and/or eating leftovers -- optional for losing weight.
Counting macros -- optional for losing weight.
7 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »JaydedMiss wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Your family should not be forced to diet with you- it's no one's fault but your own if you sit there and eat an entire bag of chips or sleeve of cookies. Just because you have no self control doesn't mean your partner/kids should get punished.
No but if a family has a shred of compassion for the one dieting they would support them and not blame them...
I didn't see mention of blame.
Support <>giving up the stuff they want/love
"it's no one's fault but your own if you sit there and eat an entire bag of chips or sleeve of cookies. Just because you have no self control doesn't mean your partner/kids should get punished..."
Really?
When people don't understand that removing junk food from a diet is a huge benefit and not a punishment it always makes me raise a concerned look.
If a person or family eats a primarily nutrient dense diet, but has things like oreos or cheezits in the pantry available for consumption in moderation, what benefits would that family or person see if they no longer consume an oreo or two after dinner? Telling the family that those things will no longer be in the house, because one person has difficulty moderating them or has chosen to cut them out in favor of other food choices, you don't think that would be seen as a negative and unnecessary consequence for other family members?
While I agree that having an occasional treat of not-so-healthy food is not detrimental to health, I don't think I'd go so far as to say it's a negative consequence to not have it. Unless they live in a bubble or some type of commune away from general society, kids are going to eat junk food. Not having it in the house isn't going to stop that.
But, not having it in the house might make them see that as the norm. Then again, it might not. Hard to judge something like that but every parent should do what they feel is right, even if it differs from what I feel is right.
well my mom chose nutrient dense foods for 1 reason and 1 only...we were poor.
After a while when we weren't...there was a diabetic in the house so that made her choose differently as well so as to not impact him too much...
however we were allowed ice cream in the house, chips ahoy and the odd envelope of tang...but rarely my fav of fruitloops...or anything like that...anythign people would consider "unhealthy"
what impact did it have on us...we meaning all 7 of the kids (save the diabetic) got overweight...some obese..some are getting gastic bypass...why because yup we were told you want it you go buy it..and we did and we ate it all...we ate lots of nutrient dense foods as well...
food is fuel it is not healthy vs unhealthy...it's the amount that is eaten that is unhealthy...allowing for treats in the house can allow for people to learn to moderate..
for example my son at 14 I let him drink reasonable amounts under my supervision...as he grew he learned to moderate and hardly drinks at all now...where as a lot of my family are daily drinkers...even some alcoholics...so yes not allowing for this can have adverse effects.
Okay. There are just as many examples of the opposite reactions.
could be but human nature says you want what you are denied or as kids told is bad...esp if you never get it...or so rarely that it can be counted on 1 hand....
I dunno i want whats easy and in my house. Thats the world we live in. Easy and fast is what we reach for. If kids have all the "bad" foods within easy reach thats what they learn to grab for. Like really what kid is going to pick an apple over a chocolate bar unless thats what they get taught to reach for.
If its not there to grab they wont grab it. Seems pretty simple to me. No ones saying to tell them its bad or they cant have it just not agreeing with having it so easily within reach constantly just because kids like it. Of course they like it, Doesnt mean i HAVE to buy it for them whenever i shop. Id be the adult itd be my job to make good choices.
Again not saying to never have it around but seems like kids would have way less obesity problems if parents would stop buying them everything they want and teach them to reach for healthy snacks.
Can argue both extremes it should be all about middle ground i guess. Not smacking chocolate bars our of kids hands and shoving an orange in it. But teaching kids to reach for the healthier versions and to consider the lesser healthy options either a special occasion or something to work for i cant see how that can be argued against- Seeing how most of us on here have struggled with weight issues why would we teach our kids to be the same way?
Kids have parents there when they are reaching for food.
We raised our kids in a way to not interfere with their hunger signals, so we weren't very strict with making them wait for meal times or forcing them to eat if they weren't hungry.
We had both healthy and "unhealthy" foods available to grab, but they were available to them with context.
They were taught that cookies and such were sometimes foods and came after the healthy foods which were always foods.
My kids are the only kids I know who will refuse candy, cookies, or cake. They've been known to eat half a cookie and stop because they're full.
So no, your whole idea if "it's not there, they won't grab it" didn't play out in our house. My kids were allowed to grab, within reason. Removing the allure of something being forbidden fruit made it not overly appealing to them.
I would bet that is not the norm. I would be curious if they refused this stuff when mom was around to know.
We have a similar approach as @GottaBurnEmAll . We talk about all the time foods and sometimes foods. My kids also have had giant shopping bags of halloween candy sitting on the floor in our kitchen, largely untouched since the 31st, because they just aren't that into it. They will have one small piece in their lunch box when we pack lunches for school, sometimes a piece after dinner. We usually have half eating bags of skittles or m&ms in our pantry for weeks at a time because they eat a couple of pieces and then put it away. Now if I tell them I'm donating it or taking it to work, they balk a little, but it's more that they don't want to lose the option to have it. My oldest really isn't a sweets kid and is always the one at birthday parties who eats a half piece of cake and then says he's finished. My youngest has never asked for seconds on sweets. They do eat cereal like crazy, and I buy fruit loops and captain crunch but also things like raisin bran, protein cheerios, etc. But again, I don't really see that as unhealthy and it isn't as if they are gorging themselves because they are concerned it isn't going to be there - they eat that for breakfast and it takes a couple of bowls to fill them up.
I have no reason to think that they would behave differently when not in my presence. We have shelves in the basement where we keep packaged snacks for lunches and busy weekends when we are bouncing from one activity to another - things like goldfish, cheezits, vanilla wafers, teddy grahams, etc. They could go in and get stuff any time, but they don't. On the other hand, we've hosted play dates and I've gone downstairs to find crumpled wrappers and crumbs - when I've asked my kids about it they said that friend XYZ went crazy with the snacks because their mom doesn't let them have that stuff at home.
So I'm on the side of making it about good/bad or telling them that they can't have something except on super special occasions, creates more problems and opportunities for going overboard than just telling my kids that if they want a bag of teddy grahams now, that's fine, but after dinner they won't have dessert, or we will have fruit instead.
I did the sometimes food thing with my kids too. But I never kidded myself. I knew they would (and likely did) pig out on that stuff if given the chance.
I love how you think we're kidding ourselves, but it's just not true.
My son is more likely to pig out on goldfish, and my daughter's vice is cheese.
Both of them have a very low tolerance for sweet things and just tire of them after a reasonable portion.
I've seen it when we go on vacation and let the reins loose. They just stop.
Perhaps we are just talking about different subjects. I would consider goldfish in the same category as chips. I don't see junk food only as sweets.
I've just never met a kid that wouldn't shovel in junk food. Regardless of how much was in their house. It's not until they are older that what they learned at home kicks in. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I do not think it's the norm.
I just got back from my sister's house and my young nephew is allowed to get Goldfish and M&Ms when he wants to have some. I saw a small bowl of Goldfish sit on the counter for several hours after he ate about 10 of them and my sister eventually put them away. He was more interested in counting his M&Ms (he gets 5 or 6 at a time) than eating them. I think maybe he ate 15-20 total the three days I was there (I was spending most of my time with him because I was taking care of him while my sister focused on her new baby). Half the time he got some, he'd eat half and we'd collect up the rest after he wandered off and left them.
Some kids do shovel in junk food, I have no doubt of that. But I don't think it's a universal thing. My nephew isn't the first kid I've met who seems to treat it just like any other food. Of course, he is the same kid who took an hour to eat a piece of pizza, so I think it's fair to say that he just isn't incredibly food-motivated right now. Maybe he'll change in the future.
Is this a small child? If so, then this sounds completely normal to me. I was thinking more school age through puberty. But it's a pointless argument. Everyone's children are perfect eaters even when mom is not around.
Mine weren't. None of their friends were (though I now wonder how many of their parents thought they were). I've never known a kid that wouldn't overeat whatever junk food they loved best if given the chance. That's why parents don't give them the chance.
He is pretty young and it's true that he could change as he gets older.
But my experience with my siblings (I'm the oldest and I took care of several of them) is that all kids aren't equally into "junk food." I mean, some of my siblings had things they liked, but not all of them would eat unreasonable portions whenever they got the chance (and, of course, some of them would eat way too much of certain foods if they got the chance and they would have to be watched).
I'm not sure why the idea that children, just like adults, are individuals and respond to food in different ways (especially given the variety of their home lives and exposure to different foods) is so objectionable to you. Nobody is arguing that *all children* are this way, just pointing out that some seem to be.
And if the response is "those parents are just lying to themselves," I guess that can be used to shut down just about any argument. But it doesn't seem reasonable. The parents in this thread that are sharing their various observations -- it seems less reasonable to me to conclude that they don't have accurate observations of their own children or that they are blatantly lying to us here than it does to conclude that children behave in a wide variety of ways (and can even change as they develop).
I never said anyone was lying to themselves. We have a couple of parents whose children may not be the norm. That would not change the norm, if I am right about the norm.
I apologize, I misunderstood you when you made the comment about "kidding yourself."0 -
magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Your family should not be forced to diet with you- it's no one's fault but your own if you sit there and eat an entire bag of chips or sleeve of cookies. Just because you have no self control doesn't mean your partner/kids should get punished.
No but if a family has a shred of compassion for the one dieting they would support them and not blame them...
I didn't see mention of blame.
Support <>giving up the stuff they want/love
"it's no one's fault but your own if you sit there and eat an entire bag of chips or sleeve of cookies. Just because you have no self control doesn't mean your partner/kids should get punished..."
Really?
When people don't understand that removing junk food from a diet is a huge benefit and not a punishment it always makes me raise a concerned look.
If a person or family eats a primarily nutrient dense diet, but has things like oreos or cheezits in the pantry available for consumption in moderation, what benefits would that family or person see if they no longer consume an oreo or two after dinner? Telling the family that those things will no longer be in the house, because one person has difficulty moderating them or has chosen to cut them out in favor of other food choices, you don't think that would be seen as a negative and unnecessary consequence for other family members?
While I agree that having an occasional treat of not-so-healthy food is not detrimental to health, I don't think I'd go so far as to say it's a negative consequence to not have it. Unless they live in a bubble or some type of commune away from general society, kids are going to eat junk food. Not having it in the house isn't going to stop that.
But, not having it in the house might make them see that as the norm. Then again, it might not. Hard to judge something like that but every parent should do what they feel is right, even if it differs from what I feel is right.
well my mom chose nutrient dense foods for 1 reason and 1 only...we were poor.
After a while when we weren't...there was a diabetic in the house so that made her choose differently as well so as to not impact him too much...
however we were allowed ice cream in the house, chips ahoy and the odd envelope of tang...but rarely my fav of fruitloops...or anything like that...anythign people would consider "unhealthy"
what impact did it have on us...we meaning all 7 of the kids (save the diabetic) got overweight...some obese..some are getting gastic bypass...why because yup we were told you want it you go buy it..and we did and we ate it all...we ate lots of nutrient dense foods as well...
food is fuel it is not healthy vs unhealthy...it's the amount that is eaten that is unhealthy...allowing for treats in the house can allow for people to learn to moderate..
for example my son at 14 I let him drink reasonable amounts under my supervision...as he grew he learned to moderate and hardly drinks at all now...where as a lot of my family are daily drinkers...even some alcoholics...so yes not allowing for this can have adverse effects.
Okay. There are just as many examples of the opposite reactions.
could be but human nature says you want what you are denied or as kids told is bad...esp if you never get it...or so rarely that it can be counted on 1 hand....
Human nature also says that if you are continually fed those calorie dense foods it becomes a habit. The point I think most people are trying to make is that these foods do not need to be in the house all the time. It is okay to have them occasionally and in moderation.
so is it calorie dense or is it unhealthy that you don't like? because it was about healthy not weight at first.
I have nothing against calorie dense foods...in moderation. I think it's safe to say that most people don't like to be unhealthy. I also think it depends on your definition of "unhealthy". In my opinion eating too many calorie dense foods is unhealthy. Having those calorie dense foods in moderation can be a part of a healthy lifestyle. When I made my first comment I stated that I was not dieting but changing to a healthy lifestyle, therefore I am not forcing my family to diet.
so the following foods are only in moderation at your house then? Yes
butter
peanut butter
oils
seeds/nuts
dark chocolate
dried fruits
pasta
avocado
beef
duck
pizza
granola
hummus
fruit juice
and regardless eating calorie dense food everyday is not unhealthy... I eat calorie dense foods everyday...in moderation.
healthy <> low calorie
healthy lifestyle = balance.
okay so what is defined as "too many" or "too much" then? as you said eating "too many" is unhealthy?
because daily could be seen as continually which in your opinion means a habit will be formed for calorie dense foods. And if you eat them daily how is it that you said they don't need to be in the house all the time????
I see a progression with you from unhealthy food not being in your house to calorie dense not being in your house to I eat calorie dense foods everyday....
What is an unhealthy food? I have never called anything an unhealthy food.
you said too many calorie dense foods was unhealthy...
This is true. Eating too many calorie dense foods is unhealthy. That doesn't mean that calorie dense foods are "unhealthy".
right and that was my point...but you went from "unhealthy food" (you never gave an example of what was unheathy just that if your family wanted something not deemed healthy you were not buying it) not being in your house to "calories dense" not being in your house to eating them everyday in moderation...so I asked what do you define at too many or too much??? another question left unanswered...
and you did say that eating calorie dense foods continually will cause habits to form...but you eat them everyday...so yah confused as to the rules you follow except you don't diet...that is loud and clear.
eating too much of anything is unhealthy....
When did I ever say that I do not let calorie dense foods in my house?
To be fair, that's the kind of post that Reiser seemed to be talking about: having treats that you love in the house is not sabotaging your partner (as many seem to claim) and just because someone is dieting, their partner need not also diet. You responded and said you weren't dieting, but having a lifestyle change, and so you weren't forcing your family to diet, just not enabling an unhealthy lifestyle. Since Reiser's post seemed to be about people complaining about food being brought into the house, it seemed like you were saying it was valid to object to "unhealthy" food being brought in.
I understand that's not what you were saying, but given the context I think it makes sense that the discussion went in that direction.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »JaydedMiss wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Your family should not be forced to diet with you- it's no one's fault but your own if you sit there and eat an entire bag of chips or sleeve of cookies. Just because you have no self control doesn't mean your partner/kids should get punished.
No but if a family has a shred of compassion for the one dieting they would support them and not blame them...
I didn't see mention of blame.
Support <>giving up the stuff they want/love
"it's no one's fault but your own if you sit there and eat an entire bag of chips or sleeve of cookies. Just because you have no self control doesn't mean your partner/kids should get punished..."
Really?
When people don't understand that removing junk food from a diet is a huge benefit and not a punishment it always makes me raise a concerned look.
If a person or family eats a primarily nutrient dense diet, but has things like oreos or cheezits in the pantry available for consumption in moderation, what benefits would that family or person see if they no longer consume an oreo or two after dinner? Telling the family that those things will no longer be in the house, because one person has difficulty moderating them or has chosen to cut them out in favor of other food choices, you don't think that would be seen as a negative and unnecessary consequence for other family members?
While I agree that having an occasional treat of not-so-healthy food is not detrimental to health, I don't think I'd go so far as to say it's a negative consequence to not have it. Unless they live in a bubble or some type of commune away from general society, kids are going to eat junk food. Not having it in the house isn't going to stop that.
But, not having it in the house might make them see that as the norm. Then again, it might not. Hard to judge something like that but every parent should do what they feel is right, even if it differs from what I feel is right.
well my mom chose nutrient dense foods for 1 reason and 1 only...we were poor.
After a while when we weren't...there was a diabetic in the house so that made her choose differently as well so as to not impact him too much...
however we were allowed ice cream in the house, chips ahoy and the odd envelope of tang...but rarely my fav of fruitloops...or anything like that...anythign people would consider "unhealthy"
what impact did it have on us...we meaning all 7 of the kids (save the diabetic) got overweight...some obese..some are getting gastic bypass...why because yup we were told you want it you go buy it..and we did and we ate it all...we ate lots of nutrient dense foods as well...
food is fuel it is not healthy vs unhealthy...it's the amount that is eaten that is unhealthy...allowing for treats in the house can allow for people to learn to moderate..
for example my son at 14 I let him drink reasonable amounts under my supervision...as he grew he learned to moderate and hardly drinks at all now...where as a lot of my family are daily drinkers...even some alcoholics...so yes not allowing for this can have adverse effects.
Okay. There are just as many examples of the opposite reactions.
could be but human nature says you want what you are denied or as kids told is bad...esp if you never get it...or so rarely that it can be counted on 1 hand....
I dunno i want whats easy and in my house. Thats the world we live in. Easy and fast is what we reach for. If kids have all the "bad" foods within easy reach thats what they learn to grab for. Like really what kid is going to pick an apple over a chocolate bar unless thats what they get taught to reach for.
If its not there to grab they wont grab it. Seems pretty simple to me. No ones saying to tell them its bad or they cant have it just not agreeing with having it so easily within reach constantly just because kids like it. Of course they like it, Doesnt mean i HAVE to buy it for them whenever i shop. Id be the adult itd be my job to make good choices.
Again not saying to never have it around but seems like kids would have way less obesity problems if parents would stop buying them everything they want and teach them to reach for healthy snacks.
Can argue both extremes it should be all about middle ground i guess. Not smacking chocolate bars our of kids hands and shoving an orange in it. But teaching kids to reach for the healthier versions and to consider the lesser healthy options either a special occasion or something to work for i cant see how that can be argued against- Seeing how most of us on here have struggled with weight issues why would we teach our kids to be the same way?
Kids have parents there when they are reaching for food.
We raised our kids in a way to not interfere with their hunger signals, so we weren't very strict with making them wait for meal times or forcing them to eat if they weren't hungry.
We had both healthy and "unhealthy" foods available to grab, but they were available to them with context.
They were taught that cookies and such were sometimes foods and came after the healthy foods which were always foods.
My kids are the only kids I know who will refuse candy, cookies, or cake. They've been known to eat half a cookie and stop because they're full.
So no, your whole idea if "it's not there, they won't grab it" didn't play out in our house. My kids were allowed to grab, within reason. Removing the allure of something being forbidden fruit made it not overly appealing to them.
I would bet that is not the norm. I would be curious if they refused this stuff when mom was around to know.
We have a similar approach as @GottaBurnEmAll . We talk about all the time foods and sometimes foods. My kids also have had giant shopping bags of halloween candy sitting on the floor in our kitchen, largely untouched since the 31st, because they just aren't that into it. They will have one small piece in their lunch box when we pack lunches for school, sometimes a piece after dinner. We usually have half eating bags of skittles or m&ms in our pantry for weeks at a time because they eat a couple of pieces and then put it away. Now if I tell them I'm donating it or taking it to work, they balk a little, but it's more that they don't want to lose the option to have it. My oldest really isn't a sweets kid and is always the one at birthday parties who eats a half piece of cake and then says he's finished. My youngest has never asked for seconds on sweets. They do eat cereal like crazy, and I buy fruit loops and captain crunch but also things like raisin bran, protein cheerios, etc. But again, I don't really see that as unhealthy and it isn't as if they are gorging themselves because they are concerned it isn't going to be there - they eat that for breakfast and it takes a couple of bowls to fill them up.
I have no reason to think that they would behave differently when not in my presence. We have shelves in the basement where we keep packaged snacks for lunches and busy weekends when we are bouncing from one activity to another - things like goldfish, cheezits, vanilla wafers, teddy grahams, etc. They could go in and get stuff any time, but they don't. On the other hand, we've hosted play dates and I've gone downstairs to find crumpled wrappers and crumbs - when I've asked my kids about it they said that friend XYZ went crazy with the snacks because their mom doesn't let them have that stuff at home.
So I'm on the side of making it about good/bad or telling them that they can't have something except on super special occasions, creates more problems and opportunities for going overboard than just telling my kids that if they want a bag of teddy grahams now, that's fine, but after dinner they won't have dessert, or we will have fruit instead.
I did the sometimes food thing with my kids too. But I never kidded myself. I knew they would (and likely did) pig out on that stuff if given the chance.
I love how you think we're kidding ourselves, but it's just not true.
My son is more likely to pig out on goldfish, and my daughter's vice is cheese.
Both of them have a very low tolerance for sweet things and just tire of them after a reasonable portion.
I've seen it when we go on vacation and let the reins loose. They just stop.
Perhaps we are just talking about different subjects. I would consider goldfish in the same category as chips. I don't see junk food only as sweets.
I've just never met a kid that wouldn't shovel in junk food. Regardless of how much was in their house. It's not until they are older that what they learned at home kicks in. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I do not think it's the norm.
I just got back from my sister's house and my young nephew is allowed to get Goldfish and M&Ms when he wants to have some. I saw a small bowl of Goldfish sit on the counter for several hours after he ate about 10 of them and my sister eventually put them away. He was more interested in counting his M&Ms (he gets 5 or 6 at a time) than eating them. I think maybe he ate 15-20 total the three days I was there (I was spending most of my time with him because I was taking care of him while my sister focused on her new baby). Half the time he got some, he'd eat half and we'd collect up the rest after he wandered off and left them.
Some kids do shovel in junk food, I have no doubt of that. But I don't think it's a universal thing. My nephew isn't the first kid I've met who seems to treat it just like any other food. Of course, he is the same kid who took an hour to eat a piece of pizza, so I think it's fair to say that he just isn't incredibly food-motivated right now. Maybe he'll change in the future.
Is this a small child? If so, then this sounds completely normal to me. I was thinking more school age through puberty. But it's a pointless argument. Everyone's children are perfect eaters even when mom is not around.
Mine weren't. None of their friends were (though I now wonder how many of their parents thought they were). I've never known a kid that wouldn't overeat whatever junk food they loved best if given the chance. That's why parents don't give them the chance.
He is pretty young and it's true that he could change as he gets older.
But my experience with my siblings (I'm the oldest and I took care of several of them) is that all kids aren't equally into "junk food." I mean, some of my siblings had things they liked, but not all of them would eat unreasonable portions whenever they got the chance (and, of course, some of them would eat way too much of certain foods if they got the chance and they would have to be watched).
I'm not sure why the idea that children, just like adults, are individuals and respond to food in different ways (especially given the variety of their home lives and exposure to different foods) is so objectionable to you. Nobody is arguing that *all children* are this way, just pointing out that some seem to be.
And if the response is "those parents are just lying to themselves," I guess that can be used to shut down just about any argument. But it doesn't seem reasonable. The parents in this thread that are sharing their various observations -- it seems less reasonable to me to conclude that they don't have accurate observations of their own children or that they are blatantly lying to us here than it does to conclude that children behave in a wide variety of ways (and can even change as they develop).
I never said anyone was lying to themselves. We have a couple of parents whose children may not be the norm. That would not change the norm, if I am right about the norm.
I apologize, I misunderstood you when you made the comment about "kidding yourself."
I never kidded myself. (it's all about me)1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »JaydedMiss wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Your family should not be forced to diet with you- it's no one's fault but your own if you sit there and eat an entire bag of chips or sleeve of cookies. Just because you have no self control doesn't mean your partner/kids should get punished.
No but if a family has a shred of compassion for the one dieting they would support them and not blame them...
I didn't see mention of blame.
Support <>giving up the stuff they want/love
"it's no one's fault but your own if you sit there and eat an entire bag of chips or sleeve of cookies. Just because you have no self control doesn't mean your partner/kids should get punished..."
Really?
When people don't understand that removing junk food from a diet is a huge benefit and not a punishment it always makes me raise a concerned look.
If a person or family eats a primarily nutrient dense diet, but has things like oreos or cheezits in the pantry available for consumption in moderation, what benefits would that family or person see if they no longer consume an oreo or two after dinner? Telling the family that those things will no longer be in the house, because one person has difficulty moderating them or has chosen to cut them out in favor of other food choices, you don't think that would be seen as a negative and unnecessary consequence for other family members?
While I agree that having an occasional treat of not-so-healthy food is not detrimental to health, I don't think I'd go so far as to say it's a negative consequence to not have it. Unless they live in a bubble or some type of commune away from general society, kids are going to eat junk food. Not having it in the house isn't going to stop that.
But, not having it in the house might make them see that as the norm. Then again, it might not. Hard to judge something like that but every parent should do what they feel is right, even if it differs from what I feel is right.
well my mom chose nutrient dense foods for 1 reason and 1 only...we were poor.
After a while when we weren't...there was a diabetic in the house so that made her choose differently as well so as to not impact him too much...
however we were allowed ice cream in the house, chips ahoy and the odd envelope of tang...but rarely my fav of fruitloops...or anything like that...anythign people would consider "unhealthy"
what impact did it have on us...we meaning all 7 of the kids (save the diabetic) got overweight...some obese..some are getting gastic bypass...why because yup we were told you want it you go buy it..and we did and we ate it all...we ate lots of nutrient dense foods as well...
food is fuel it is not healthy vs unhealthy...it's the amount that is eaten that is unhealthy...allowing for treats in the house can allow for people to learn to moderate..
for example my son at 14 I let him drink reasonable amounts under my supervision...as he grew he learned to moderate and hardly drinks at all now...where as a lot of my family are daily drinkers...even some alcoholics...so yes not allowing for this can have adverse effects.
Okay. There are just as many examples of the opposite reactions.
could be but human nature says you want what you are denied or as kids told is bad...esp if you never get it...or so rarely that it can be counted on 1 hand....
I dunno i want whats easy and in my house. Thats the world we live in. Easy and fast is what we reach for. If kids have all the "bad" foods within easy reach thats what they learn to grab for. Like really what kid is going to pick an apple over a chocolate bar unless thats what they get taught to reach for.
If its not there to grab they wont grab it. Seems pretty simple to me. No ones saying to tell them its bad or they cant have it just not agreeing with having it so easily within reach constantly just because kids like it. Of course they like it, Doesnt mean i HAVE to buy it for them whenever i shop. Id be the adult itd be my job to make good choices.
Again not saying to never have it around but seems like kids would have way less obesity problems if parents would stop buying them everything they want and teach them to reach for healthy snacks.
Can argue both extremes it should be all about middle ground i guess. Not smacking chocolate bars our of kids hands and shoving an orange in it. But teaching kids to reach for the healthier versions and to consider the lesser healthy options either a special occasion or something to work for i cant see how that can be argued against- Seeing how most of us on here have struggled with weight issues why would we teach our kids to be the same way?
Kids have parents there when they are reaching for food.
We raised our kids in a way to not interfere with their hunger signals, so we weren't very strict with making them wait for meal times or forcing them to eat if they weren't hungry.
We had both healthy and "unhealthy" foods available to grab, but they were available to them with context.
They were taught that cookies and such were sometimes foods and came after the healthy foods which were always foods.
My kids are the only kids I know who will refuse candy, cookies, or cake. They've been known to eat half a cookie and stop because they're full.
So no, your whole idea if "it's not there, they won't grab it" didn't play out in our house. My kids were allowed to grab, within reason. Removing the allure of something being forbidden fruit made it not overly appealing to them.
I would bet that is not the norm. I would be curious if they refused this stuff when mom was not around to know.
If we are talking about little kids (not teens), we had sweet foods around usually when I was a kid, but I never just grabbed food, and neither did my sister. We weren't allowed to just eat stuff without asking. My mom would often say "have an apple if you are hungry," and I don't particular recall us begging for sweets in general.
When I was a teen we'd maybe grab something sweet after school (and maybe a non sweet snack -- I recall having cheese and crackers). That sweet stuff was there didn't mean we went crazy.
I don't really keep sweets around the house now, since I'm not that interested in them, although I enjoy baking and homebaked foods on occasion (like a holiday). My sister has no sweet tooth at all (and she totally did as a kid, loved sugary cereal).
My mom didn't buy soda, though, and I was never interested in soda as forbidden fruit (but it wasn't, we weren't a family where we weren't allowed to eat unhealthy foods, it just wasn't something kids drank in our house).
I'm sure it's all individual, but I don't buy the idea that if you have high cal treats in the home that the kids will be grabbing and eating them, let alone that they will be eating lots of them (as jayed miss seemed to be saying). That was not my experience.
(I have no opinion on whether others with kids should have treats in their house. Their deal. But having sweets does not mean the kids are taught to eat them indiscriminately. I find it more shocking how many people claim they never ate vegetables growing up.)
Was in response to people saying on a common occurnce their kids are asking for those things so they buy it for them, And argueing that not buying for them is somehow unreasonable and forcing "dieting" on them. Was simply stating that its not unreasonable to say no sometimes reach for something healthier. Was majoring in the minors making a point about being the parent, Not the child.
It is true though that -most- children would pick the junkier option but yes there are those who wouldnt overeat them-Which i never made the point- Sadly thats why we have an obesity problem in children becoming a bigger and bigger thing. It really is quite sad parents arent teaching their kids to moderate and choose healthy choices - Even my aunt who runs a lunch program at a public school is so clueless to health she recently replaced their apples with chocolate chip granola bars to save calories (it didnt) she legitimately thinks calories mean everything to health its kind of sad someone like her (who literally put butter in my coffee against my will to help me lose weight..?) Is in charge of childrens lunches.
0 -
CommonBiped wrote: »I abhor being told that losing weight is easy. That finding time, energy, money, which workouts won't kill your knees/feet/chest, is just a snap and anyone who can't immediately do these things is just lazy. That healthy food is cheap or that cooking food at home is quick. The reality is, these are true if you're making your health your part-time job/hobby.
Reality is, working out even for 20 minutes is more than 20 minutes. You have find and get into gear, go where you're working out, work out, shower, redo your hair, redo your makeup, pack up your stuff etc. Adds at least a load of laundry a week and will likely cost you money in either equipment, membership or gear/clothing. Where can you find workout gear that isn't for a size 2, you know something you can actually try on and know that it fits instead of playing internet size roulette. What exercises do you do? In what amount? Are you doing them correctly? Are they effective? How effective? Shouldn't you be seeing some results by now? How boring is working out really? I hear there's a runners high, but they must've been high before it started because running is the most boring activity on the face of the planet.
Cooking at home includes the finding of recipes, the dithering of whether or not it is something you can/will eat, finding food at between 1-3 stores because 3 out 4 times 1 store won't have all the ingredients, the money that all this good for you food costs, food prep (which doesn't actually go fast, it is hard work, there's a reason chefs get paid), the actual cooking, the dishes from initially eating it, the tupperware you ended up storing the extras in that you never end up eating because it is horrible reheated, the pots, the pans, the measuring devices, you can destroy a kitchen and walk away with enough food for two meals. Even with all that, is it something you can eat in 5 minutes before you have to be out the door for work? Is it something you can bring to work that doesn't require ridiculous number of containers or at work kitchen prep? Will it taste god frickin awful once microwaved? Will it stink up the office and make you a pariah? Do you count calories or carbs, or sugar grams, or fat grams? Is the apple in my hand considered a medium apple? How many freakin calories are actually in this apple?
Most people aren't lazy and they care about their health. But come on, the healthier than thou attitudes thrown at people and the condescension is frickin brutal. If you are the kind of people that inhabit a gym, why on earth would anyone want to go there? I know people who work their buts off in life, they just don't work it off at the gym. Who are you to judge these people? My grandmother was easily between 250 and 300 her whole adult life. She worked on her feet every day and cooked dinner for everyone at night. You would rarely see her sit. But apparently according to this thread she was simply lazy. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Perhaps instead of working on your looks while claiming your'e working on your health, you should be working on your compassion and attitudes towards others. You may be getting prettier on the outside, but apparently your insides have a long ways to go.
Yes, I work out, yes I watch what I eat and generally go for healthy. But I would never be foolish or arrogant enough to claim that it is easy because the truth is it is hard work and time consuming, or that everyones metabolism or body works the same way, or that today's lifestyle doesn't play a huge roll in everyone's weight increase. If everyones bodies worked exactly the same way then the same dosage of meds would work for everyone. So running marathons or whatever is your hobby, good for you, that does not make you a better persone than someone who finds that mind numbingly boring and prefers to create something or spend their time elsewhere.
Weight loss isn't easy, but it is simple. In order to lose weight, you need to be in a calorie deficit. None of those things you described - going to the gym, exercising at all, cooking all meals at home, tracking macros - are required for weight loss.
Your post sounds like you feel weight loss is overly complicated and you are potentially overthinking some aspects of what will help you achieve your goals. Eat a little less, move a little more. That really is it. Over time, then the small changes start to become lasting habits and then you build more and more of them.
I don't judge others who aren't making those changes, or who aren't going to extremes - but I do tell people that it is possible to lose weight without running marathons, without eating clean, without meticulously tracking every morsel you consume with a food scale. Because I think that believing that those things are required, can often become a barrier from people starting to lose weight.10 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm sure it's all individual, but I don't buy the idea that if you have high cal treats in the home that the kids will be grabbing and eating them, let alone that they will be eating lots of them (as jayed miss seemed to be saying). That was not my experience.
I don't buy that either. Well, I do with some as I know kids who will do this at home (because they are not taught not to, which does back up my theory). I thought I made it pretty clear that I was not talking about what children do when under the watchful eye of parents who have taught them good food rules. But maybe I did not.
We were latchkey kids (that term, how 80s!) and were home alone a lot, me from the time I was around 9 or 10. We did not get into the sweets and go nuts (and my parents probably would have known if we had). We also did not buy sweets, at least not often or in significant amounts (it was probably harder back then, however).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm sure it's all individual, but I don't buy the idea that if you have high cal treats in the home that the kids will be grabbing and eating them, let alone that they will be eating lots of them (as jayed miss seemed to be saying). That was not my experience.
I don't buy that either. Well, I do with some as I know kids who will do this at home (because they are not taught not to, which does back up my theory). I thought I made it pretty clear that I was not talking about what children do when under the watchful eye of parents who have taught them good food rules. But maybe I did not.
We were latchkey kids (that term, how 80s!) and were home alone a lot, me from the time I was around 9 or 10. We did not get into the sweets and go nuts (and my parents probably would have known if we had). We also did not buy sweets, at least not often or in significant amounts (it was probably harder back then, however).
Bolded the important part.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm sure it's all individual, but I don't buy the idea that if you have high cal treats in the home that the kids will be grabbing and eating them, let alone that they will be eating lots of them (as jayed miss seemed to be saying). That was not my experience.
I don't buy that either. Well, I do with some as I know kids who will do this at home (because they are not taught not to, which does back up my theory). I thought I made it pretty clear that I was not talking about what children do when under the watchful eye of parents who have taught them good food rules. But maybe I did not.
We were latchkey kids (that term, how 80s!) and were home alone a lot, me from the time I was around 9 or 10. We did not get into the sweets and go nuts (and my parents probably would have known if we had). We also did not buy sweets, at least not often or in significant amounts (it was probably harder back then, however).
Bolded the important part.
So basically you are saying that you believe that children are gorging themselves when there's no chance their parents will know about it, and since we can't know about it, then there's no way for us to prove that they aren't? That's some seriously circular logic...3 -
magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Your family should not be forced to diet with you- it's no one's fault but your own if you sit there and eat an entire bag of chips or sleeve of cookies. Just because you have no self control doesn't mean your partner/kids should get punished.
No but if a family has a shred of compassion for the one dieting they would support them and not blame them...
I didn't see mention of blame.
Support <>giving up the stuff they want/love
"it's no one's fault but your own if you sit there and eat an entire bag of chips or sleeve of cookies. Just because you have no self control doesn't mean your partner/kids should get punished..."
Really?
When people don't understand that removing junk food from a diet is a huge benefit and not a punishment it always makes me raise a concerned look.
If a person or family eats a primarily nutrient dense diet, but has things like oreos or cheezits in the pantry available for consumption in moderation, what benefits would that family or person see if they no longer consume an oreo or two after dinner? Telling the family that those things will no longer be in the house, because one person has difficulty moderating them or has chosen to cut them out in favor of other food choices, you don't think that would be seen as a negative and unnecessary consequence for other family members?
While I agree that having an occasional treat of not-so-healthy food is not detrimental to health, I don't think I'd go so far as to say it's a negative consequence to not have it. Unless they live in a bubble or some type of commune away from general society, kids are going to eat junk food. Not having it in the house isn't going to stop that.
But, not having it in the house might make them see that as the norm. Then again, it might not. Hard to judge something like that but every parent should do what they feel is right, even if it differs from what I feel is right.
well my mom chose nutrient dense foods for 1 reason and 1 only...we were poor.
After a while when we weren't...there was a diabetic in the house so that made her choose differently as well so as to not impact him too much...
however we were allowed ice cream in the house, chips ahoy and the odd envelope of tang...but rarely my fav of fruitloops...or anything like that...anythign people would consider "unhealthy"
what impact did it have on us...we meaning all 7 of the kids (save the diabetic) got overweight...some obese..some are getting gastic bypass...why because yup we were told you want it you go buy it..and we did and we ate it all...we ate lots of nutrient dense foods as well...
food is fuel it is not healthy vs unhealthy...it's the amount that is eaten that is unhealthy...allowing for treats in the house can allow for people to learn to moderate..
for example my son at 14 I let him drink reasonable amounts under my supervision...as he grew he learned to moderate and hardly drinks at all now...where as a lot of my family are daily drinkers...even some alcoholics...so yes not allowing for this can have adverse effects.
Okay. There are just as many examples of the opposite reactions.
could be but human nature says you want what you are denied or as kids told is bad...esp if you never get it...or so rarely that it can be counted on 1 hand....
Human nature also says that if you are continually fed those calorie dense foods it becomes a habit. The point I think most people are trying to make is that these foods do not need to be in the house all the time. It is okay to have them occasionally and in moderation.
so is it calorie dense or is it unhealthy that you don't like? because it was about healthy not weight at first.
I have nothing against calorie dense foods...in moderation. I think it's safe to say that most people don't like to be unhealthy. I also think it depends on your definition of "unhealthy". In my opinion eating too many calorie dense foods is unhealthy. Having those calorie dense foods in moderation can be a part of a healthy lifestyle. When I made my first comment I stated that I was not dieting but changing to a healthy lifestyle, therefore I am not forcing my family to diet.
so the following foods are only in moderation at your house then? Yes
butter
peanut butter
oils
seeds/nuts
dark chocolate
dried fruits
pasta
avocado
beef
duck
pizza
granola
hummus
fruit juice
and regardless eating calorie dense food everyday is not unhealthy... I eat calorie dense foods everyday...in moderation.
healthy <> low calorie
healthy lifestyle = balance.
okay so what is defined as "too many" or "too much" then? as you said eating "too many" is unhealthy?
because daily could be seen as continually which in your opinion means a habit will be formed for calorie dense foods. And if you eat them daily how is it that you said they don't need to be in the house all the time????
I see a progression with you from unhealthy food not being in your house to calorie dense not being in your house to I eat calorie dense foods everyday....
What is an unhealthy food? I have never called anything an unhealthy food.
you said too many calorie dense foods was unhealthy...
This is true. Eating too many calorie dense foods is unhealthy. That doesn't mean that calorie dense foods are "unhealthy".
right and that was my point...but you went from "unhealthy food" (you never gave an example of what was unheathy just that if your family wanted something not deemed healthy you were not buying it) not being in your house to "calories dense" not being in your house to eating them everyday in moderation...so I asked what do you define at too many or too much??? another question left unanswered...
and you did say that eating calorie dense foods continually will cause habits to form...but you eat them everyday...so yah confused as to the rules you follow except you don't diet...that is loud and clear.
eating too much of anything is unhealthy....
When did I ever say that I do not let calorie dense foods in my house?
wow okay phrases like "eating calorie dense foods continually forms habits" therefore they do not need to be in the house all the time....need to be spelled out okay.
So again let me see if I can get this typed out correctly.....
you went from not having calorie dense food in your house "continually" and available as it can form habits...to eating calorie dense foods everyday.
You are not seeing the forest for the trees here you are too busy only reading parts of what I am saying and focusing in on a few words/sentences that you deem invalid.
So be it.
I have asked a couple questions more than once and you choose not to answer or even go back and read them when I reference them again so your the confusion created by the things you have said can't get clarification so whatever...
I said eating calorie dense foods continually can make it a habit as a rebuttal to you saying they will automatically eat it if it denied to you. It was meant to show the opposite extreme of what you were stating. Because both those extremes CAN be bad.
Again, I never said that I don't have calorie dense foods in my house.
As soon as you ask a question that isn't based on a mis-quote of mine, I will happily answer it. Otherwise I don't trust that you won't continue to twist my words to fit your narrative.8 -
Yes, of course (to Need2). But again we did not just eat sweets because they were there or sneak them elsewhere. The only thing I am objecting to is the idea that if you have sweets (or some other junk food) in the house kids will eat them to excess. Understanding basic food rules (which will vary by family, but for mine was basically you eat at specific times and mostly nutritious foods and treats are treats) is sufficient, you don't have to keep food off-limits physically for kids to develop an understanding of a proper way to eat.
Again, all I'm disagreeing with is the notion (not yours, I don't think) that if you have junk food in the house kids will eat it to excess or not develop healthy eating habits.
Edit: but I did not think "oh, if only mom did not know I'd eat more." By that point it was in my mind that one cookie was appropriate. We were home alone in the summer and would walk to a mall and I'd buy a book with my allowance. We could have bought candy or cookies without consequences and never did or even thought about it that I recall -- we weren't interested in sneaking food, no reason to.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm sure it's all individual, but I don't buy the idea that if you have high cal treats in the home that the kids will be grabbing and eating them, let alone that they will be eating lots of them (as jayed miss seemed to be saying). That was not my experience.
I don't buy that either. Well, I do with some as I know kids who will do this at home (because they are not taught not to, which does back up my theory). I thought I made it pretty clear that I was not talking about what children do when under the watchful eye of parents who have taught them good food rules. But maybe I did not.
We were latchkey kids (that term, how 80s!) and were home alone a lot, me from the time I was around 9 or 10. We did not get into the sweets and go nuts (and my parents probably would have known if we had). We also did not buy sweets, at least not often or in significant amounts (it was probably harder back then, however).
Bolded the important part.
So basically you are saying that you believe that children are gorging themselves when there's no chance their parents will know about it, and since we can't know about it, then there's no way for us to prove that they aren't? That's some seriously circular logic...
IDK if I'd go as far as gorge. But yes. I think if children are in a situation where they think there won't be consequences that they will behave differently than when they believe they are.
I believe this is true with a number of behaviors in children.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Yes, of course. But again we did not just eat sweets because they were there or sneak them elsewhere. The only thing I am objecting to is the idea that if you have sweets (or some other junk food) in the house kids will eat them to excess. Understanding basic food rules (which will vary by family, but for mine was basically you eat at specific times and mostly nutritious foods and treats are treats) is sufficient, you don't have to keep food off-limits physically for kids to develop an understanding of a proper way to eat.
Again, all I'm disagreeing with is the notion (not yours, I don't think) that if you have junk food in the house kids will eat it to excess or not develop healthy eating habits.
My notion is that if left to their own devices, which ideally means not at home, they will choose whatever they find most pleasurable over what they think mom/dad might want them to choose. That is often not going to be what mom/dad would like them to choose in the amounts mom/dad would like them choose.
I do not believe children want to eat a balanced diet any more than they want to brush their teeth every morning or wash behind their ears.3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 967 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions