Year of No Sugar Reads Like a How-To Manual for an ED
Replies
-
There is also this.. showing we are increasing
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/sugar-and-sweeteners-yearbook-tables.aspx#.U1UtB1VdWnk
Table 20a
And even if there is a valid slight decrease we are still leaps and bounds above recommended daily allowance. that's if the decrease is real and not due to the change is calculation methods.
Truly. But eating the same number of calories, but just changing the sources isn't going to help either.
Eat less. Eat lots of fruit and vegetables. Vary your diet as much as possible. Don't stress over the sugar in basalmic vinegar.0 -
There is also this.. showing we are increasing
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/sugar-and-sweeteners-yearbook-tables.aspx#.U1UtB1VdWnk
Table 20a
And even if there is a valid slight decrease we are still leaps and bounds above recommended daily allowance. that's if the decrease is real and not due to the change is calculation methods.
Truly. But eating the same number of calories, but just changing the sources isn't going to help either.
Eat less. Eat lots of fruit and vegetables. Vary your diet as much as possible. Don't stress over the sugar in basalmic vinegar.
Yes. The biggest issue is quantity of food eaten for weight loss. The amount of added sugar in foods does not help us from a health standpoint. When I really started getting healthy I was appalled at not only the amount of added sugar in some things, but the fact that some things even had sugar added! It is completely unnecessary in a lot of things it is added to. I also think they should call sugar sugar. And not the numerous different names it goes by. I know people who tell me they aren't eating sugar, because the ingredient list didn't say sugar specifically.0 -
Here it is folks: a year-long study proves that lack of sugar will slowly make you go crazy.
I avoided craziness this morning by eating a delicious donut.
:laugh: :drinker: :drinker: :laugh: In for the donut!0 -
if someone is imposing an excessively restrictive diet on children (unless for medical reasons, in which case it should be supervised by a medical professional) then isn't that an issue for child protection services?
ETA: orthorexia by proxy.... I'm not talking about limiting snacks, or even the whole family "going paleo" etc. I'm talking about crazy, unbalanced, orthorexia type diets like eliminating all carbs being imposed on children.
Really? Is there any evidence that this woman's craziness is causing any more harm than the countless number of parents who routinely feed their children unbalanced diets of fast food and premade meals, sometimes to the point of causing disease and permanently raising risk of disease later in life and CPS rarely steps in.0 -
The amount of added sugar in a lot of packaged food items is ridiculous. Worrying about sugar content of balsamic vinegar while eating dates is insane.
If you're going to go full neurotic, might as well get paid for it. Gratz to the author.0 -
if someone is imposing an excessively restrictive diet on children (unless for medical reasons, in which case it should be supervised by a medical professional) then isn't that an issue for child protection services?
ETA: orthorexia by proxy.... I'm not talking about limiting snacks, or even the whole family "going paleo" etc. I'm talking about crazy, unbalanced, orthorexia type diets like eliminating all carbs being imposed on children.
Really? Is there any evidence that this woman's craziness is causing any more harm than the countless number of parents who routinely feed their children unbalanced diets of fast food and premade meals, sometimes to the point of causing disease and permanently raising risk of disease later in life and CPS rarely steps in.
I too feel very sorry for the kids that have hoarder parents, and whose parents are fat and feeding the kids food that is also making them fat. Whenever the news would show a school yard full of kids, many of them were kinda round (fat). THAT is who i feel sorry for the most (thanks to TLC showing these shows!)0 -
if someone is imposing an excessively restrictive diet on children (unless for medical reasons, in which case it should be supervised by a medical professional) then isn't that an issue for child protection services?
ETA: orthorexia by proxy.... I'm not talking about limiting snacks, or even the whole family "going paleo" etc. I'm talking about crazy, unbalanced, orthorexia type diets like eliminating all carbs being imposed on children.
Really? Is there any evidence that this woman's craziness is causing any more harm than the countless number of parents who routinely feed their children unbalanced diets of fast food and premade meals, sometimes to the point of causing disease and permanently raising risk of disease later in life and CPS rarely steps in.
I too feel very sorry for the kids that have hoarder parents, and whose parents are fat and feeding the kids food that is also making them fat. Whenever the news would show a school yard full of kids, many of them were kinda round (fat). THAT is who i feel sorry for the most (thanks to TLC showing these shows!)
And what are these magic foods that makes one fat?0 -
if someone is imposing an excessively restrictive diet on children (unless for medical reasons, in which case it should be supervised by a medical professional) then isn't that an issue for child protection services?
ETA: orthorexia by proxy.... I'm not talking about limiting snacks, or even the whole family "going paleo" etc. I'm talking about crazy, unbalanced, orthorexia type diets like eliminating all carbs being imposed on children.
Really? Is there any evidence that this woman's craziness is causing any more harm than the countless number of parents who routinely feed their children unbalanced diets of fast food and premade meals, sometimes to the point of causing disease and permanently raising risk of disease later in life and CPS rarely steps in.
I too feel very sorry for the kids that have hoarder parents, and whose parents are fat and feeding the kids food that is also making them fat. Whenever the news would show a school yard full of kids, many of them were kinda round (fat). THAT is who i feel sorry for the most (thanks to TLC showing these shows!)
And what are these magic foods that makes one fat?
Beans, I've read somewhere that some of those can be magic!0 -
I had a (crazy) professor in college who mentioned to us that now that his child was 5, she was being invited to birthday parties. They had to explain to her that other children get presents on their birthdays, so they would be going and buying this other 5 year old a present but would continue to not buy any for her. I cannot even imagine being that little girl and realizing that that's kind of messed up. I truly wonder if she was allowed to eat the birthday cake while at the party.
Crazy credentials: He invited his friend, who was banned from several countries as an eco-terrorist and had been in prison in the US many times for the same thing, to come to our class on political philosophy and proceed to show us vegan propaganda for an hour solid. :noway:0 -
if someone is imposing an excessively restrictive diet on children (unless for medical reasons, in which case it should be supervised by a medical professional) then isn't that an issue for child protection services?
ETA: orthorexia by proxy.... I'm not talking about limiting snacks, or even the whole family "going paleo" etc. I'm talking about crazy, unbalanced, orthorexia type diets like eliminating all carbs being imposed on children.
Really? Is there any evidence that this woman's craziness is causing any more harm than the countless number of parents who routinely feed their children unbalanced diets of fast food and premade meals, sometimes to the point of causing disease and permanently raising risk of disease later in life and CPS rarely steps in.
I too feel very sorry for the kids that have hoarder parents, and whose parents are fat and feeding the kids food that is also making them fat. Whenever the news would show a school yard full of kids, many of them were kinda round (fat). THAT is who i feel sorry for the most (thanks to TLC showing these shows!)
And what are these magic foods that makes one fat?
There are a lot of negative eating and movement strategies that parents can teach their kids and that have a big impact down the line.0 -
if someone is imposing an excessively restrictive diet on children (unless for medical reasons, in which case it should be supervised by a medical professional) then isn't that an issue for child protection services?
ETA: orthorexia by proxy.... I'm not talking about limiting snacks, or even the whole family "going paleo" etc. I'm talking about crazy, unbalanced, orthorexia type diets like eliminating all carbs being imposed on children.
Really? Is there any evidence that this woman's craziness is causing any more harm than the countless number of parents who routinely feed their children unbalanced diets of fast food and premade meals, sometimes to the point of causing disease and permanently raising risk of disease later in life and CPS rarely steps in.
In addition, outcomes rates for foster children on pretty much every metric are so negative that I'd be really reluctant to remove a child unless they were not just unhealthy, but at serious risk of permanent damage -- i.e. there's a big difference between a teenager with a BMI of 30 and one with a BMI of 50. There's a big difference between reasonably healthy children whose parents have some strange eating habits and children who are fed a diet that is so bizarre (like the raw vegan parents who were feeding the child fruit juice and powdered nuts in a bottle and had it starve to death) that the child is at serious risk of malnutrition.0 -
Americans are actually consuming LESS sugar than we did 50 years ago, and we are living longer than ever. Countries that consume the most sugar (we are not one of them) have the longest lived peoples. Although I doubt sugar contributes to longevity, the 'we are eating more sugar than ever and our health is worse than ever' is nothing but dogma and, is completely false.
Uh - okay - I hate to be THAT GUY - but.. source, please? That flies in the face of every single thing I have read, ever.
It could be that we've replaced it in ingredient lists with HFCS, "dehydrated cane juice," agave nectar, and so forth, but that's still sugar. It's like my 7yo saying "I didn't HIT my brother! I just TAPPED him!"
the difference is people were a lot more active in the past so burned off the sugar that they ate. 50 years ago most people had jobs that kept them on their feet, and a lot more manual labour jobs......... nowadays many more people have desk jobs. 50 years ago people walked everywhere and even if they got the bus or train, had to walk to the bus stop or station.... nowadays people drive everywhere. 50 years ago if you called a restaurant and asked them to deliver food to your house they would have laughed and told you that you were crazy.0 -
if someone is imposing an excessively restrictive diet on children (unless for medical reasons, in which case it should be supervised by a medical professional) then isn't that an issue for child protection services?
ETA: orthorexia by proxy.... I'm not talking about limiting snacks, or even the whole family "going paleo" etc. I'm talking about crazy, unbalanced, orthorexia type diets like eliminating all carbs being imposed on children.
Really? Is there any evidence that this woman's craziness is causing any more harm than the countless number of parents who routinely feed their children unbalanced diets of fast food and premade meals, sometimes to the point of causing disease and permanently raising risk of disease later in life and CPS rarely steps in.
yes, a) putting them at serious risk of getting eating disorders and b) depriving them of an entire food group = likelihood of their growth being stunted, which is actually worse than a child being obese.. at least obese children still grow in height and go through puberty normally.... kids deprived of sufficient nutrition in childhood can have their growth permanently stunted and may not develop normally through puberty. Sorry but this woman's attitude is eating disorder by proxy.
also, the argument "other parents do worse things" doesn't make it right.
actually in the UK there have been quite a few cases of kids being taken into care because of parents overfeeding them to the point of the child being dangerously obese, and the parents not complying with measures put in place to help them to feed the child properly.
And finally, I didn't say the kids should be taken into care... there are other ways that child protection services can work with families to ensure that kids are being looked after properly.... in the UK they only take kids into care in extreme cases, in most situations they work with families to enable the parents to do their job properly, including getting mental health treatment for parents where necessary0 -
if someone is imposing an excessively restrictive diet on children (unless for medical reasons, in which case it should be supervised by a medical professional) then isn't that an issue for child protection services?
ETA: orthorexia by proxy.... I'm not talking about limiting snacks, or even the whole family "going paleo" etc. I'm talking about crazy, unbalanced, orthorexia type diets like eliminating all carbs being imposed on children.
Really? Is there any evidence that this woman's craziness is causing any more harm than the countless number of parents who routinely feed their children unbalanced diets of fast food and premade meals, sometimes to the point of causing disease and permanently raising risk of disease later in life and CPS rarely steps in.
yes, a) putting them at serious risk of getting eating disorders and b) depriving them of an entire food group = likelihood of their growth being stunted, which is actually worse than a child being obese.. at least obese children still grow in height and go through puberty normally.... kids deprived of sufficient nutrition in childhood can have their growth permanently stunted and may not develop normally through puberty. Sorry but this woman's attitude is eating disorder by proxy.
also, the argument "other parents do worse things" doesn't make it right.
actually in the UK there have been quite a few cases of kids being taken into care because of parents overfeeding them to the point of the child being dangerously obese, and the parents not complying with measures put in place to help them to feed the child properly.
And finally, I didn't say the kids should be taken into care... there are other ways that child protection services can work with families to ensure that kids are being looked after properly.... in the UK they only take kids into care in extreme cases, in most situations they work with families to enable the parents to do their job properly, including getting mental health treatment for parents where necessary
So, there was evidence that the children suffered nutritionally?0 -
if someone is imposing an excessively restrictive diet on children (unless for medical reasons, in which case it should be supervised by a medical professional) then isn't that an issue for child protection services?
ETA: orthorexia by proxy.... I'm not talking about limiting snacks, or even the whole family "going paleo" etc. I'm talking about crazy, unbalanced, orthorexia type diets like eliminating all carbs being imposed on children.
Really? Is there any evidence that this woman's craziness is causing any more harm than the countless number of parents who routinely feed their children unbalanced diets of fast food and premade meals, sometimes to the point of causing disease and permanently raising risk of disease later in life and CPS rarely steps in.
In addition, outcomes rates for foster children on pretty much every metric are so negative that I'd be really reluctant to remove a child unless they were not just unhealthy, but at serious risk of permanent damage -- i.e. there's a big difference between a teenager with a BMI of 30 and one with a BMI of 50. There's a big difference between reasonably healthy children whose parents have some strange eating habits and children who are fed a diet that is so bizarre (like the raw vegan parents who were feeding the child fruit juice and powdered nuts in a bottle and had it starve to death) that the child is at serious risk of malnutrition.
I didn't say the kids should necessarily be taken into care - but there should be some kind of intervention. in the UK most intervention by child protection/social services is where they work with families to educate parents and help parents deal with problems that are stopping them being more effective parents. Kids only get taken into care in extreme cases i.e. where the child's in immediate danger, or where parents are persistently failing to look after their kids adequately even when they're being supported and helped.
the raw vegan diet being inflicted on a child is something that I'm concerned about, because this permanently stunts a child's growth and development, and depriving a child of carbohydrates as per the diet discussed in this thread is similarly damaging. The human body runs on carbs (i.e. carbs are its first choice of fuel), and for kids that includes needing carbohydrates for growth, and to have enough energy to do normal kids things like playing outside, which obese kids should be encourage to do more of, not deprived of carbs so they don't have the energy to do it. kids shouldn't be put on any diet with a paediatrician's supervision. So IMO a kid who's not obese being put on a diet is a red flag in itself. And yes there should be intervention, i.e. educating parents about the risk of what they're doing to their kids. If the parent is so stuck in the orthorexia mindset that they continue to inflict crazy faddy diets on their kids in spite of social services and medical professionals telling them how harmful it is, then that's perhaps time for the parent in question to have some psychiatric treatment.0 -
I didn't say the kids should necessarily be taken into care - but there should be some kind of intervention.
I'd really want some sort of evidence of harm required before staging any sort of intervention. As far as I can see, there's no evidence that the woman's children suffered any sort of harm from a year-long food experiment on cutting down on sugars, even if SHE became a little neurotic. Only the word of a few people on the internet who think it can't be a healthful environment.
ETA: In general, I don't think that the government coming into people's houses and deciding whether or not the children are having a healthful diet is a good precedent unless the child is actively suffering from some sort of health issue. We've seen this rubbish on the news where children have had their school lunch taken away and been sent to the cafeteria because it contained 2 fruits and no vegetable, and that's ridiculous.0 -
if someone is imposing an excessively restrictive diet on children (unless for medical reasons, in which case it should be supervised by a medical professional) then isn't that an issue for child protection services?
ETA: orthorexia by proxy.... I'm not talking about limiting snacks, or even the whole family "going paleo" etc. I'm talking about crazy, unbalanced, orthorexia type diets like eliminating all carbs being imposed on children.
Really? Is there any evidence that this woman's craziness is causing any more harm than the countless number of parents who routinely feed their children unbalanced diets of fast food and premade meals, sometimes to the point of causing disease and permanently raising risk of disease later in life and CPS rarely steps in.
In addition, outcomes rates for foster children on pretty much every metric are so negative that I'd be really reluctant to remove a child unless they were not just unhealthy, but at serious risk of permanent damage -- i.e. there's a big difference between a teenager with a BMI of 30 and one with a BMI of 50. There's a big difference between reasonably healthy children whose parents have some strange eating habits and children who are fed a diet that is so bizarre (like the raw vegan parents who were feeding the child fruit juice and powdered nuts in a bottle and had it starve to death) that the child is at serious risk of malnutrition.
I didn't say the kids should necessarily be taken into care - but there should be some kind of intervention. in the UK most intervention by child protection/social services is where they work with families to educate parents and help parents deal with problems that are stopping them being more effective parents. Kids only get taken into care in extreme cases i.e. where the child's in immediate danger, or where parents are persistently failing to look after their kids adequately even when they're being supported and helped.
the raw vegan diet being inflicted on a child is something that I'm concerned about, because this permanently stunts a child's growth and development, and depriving a child of carbohydrates as per the diet discussed in this thread is similarly damaging. The human body runs on carbs (i.e. carbs are its first choice of fuel), and for kids that includes needing carbohydrates for growth, and to have enough energy to do normal kids things like playing outside, which obese kids should be encourage to do more of, not deprived of carbs so they don't have the energy to do it. kids shouldn't be put on any diet with a paediatrician's supervision. So IMO a kid who's not obese being put on a diet is a red flag in itself. And yes there should be intervention, i.e. educating parents about the risk of what they're doing to their kids. If the parent is so stuck in the orthorexia mindset that they continue to inflict crazy faddy diets on their kids in spite of social services and medical professionals telling them how harmful it is, then that's perhaps time for the parent in question to have some psychiatric treatment.
I've not read the book but based on reading some if this thread I'm not too sure what micro/macro nutrients she is depriving the kids that would cause any health damage - can you enlighten me?
Cheers.0 -
Americans are actually consuming LESS sugar than we did 50 years ago, and we are living longer than ever. Countries that consume the most sugar (we are not one of them) have the longest lived peoples. Although I doubt sugar contributes to longevity, the 'we are eating more sugar than ever and our health is worse than ever' is nothing but dogma and, is completely false.
Wrong..Currently. Americans eat more sugar then ever before. That fact is recognized by every level of government and most people who do not think sugar consumption is a problem.
Here's a simplistic paper on it.
http://www.dhhs.state.nh.us/dphs/nhp/adults/documents/sugar.pdf
Here's another one..
http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf (page 8)
This one says that sugar consumption has increased by 39%. I would think it to be higher, but it is a few years old.
Cane sugar and beet sugar and dextrose decreased, every other type increased.
I'm reasonably certain that we topped out around 1999/2000 and sugar consumption has actually been on the decrease since then
This is just supposition but I'd wager that we topped out on sugar in those years because that was the height of the "fat free" food craze. Back then, everyone that didn't want to exercise food intake moderation and increased activity levels avoided fat like the plague just as many people, the woman in this article for example, now avoid sugar like the plague. People have to have a boogeyman. It used to be fat. Now it's sugar. I'm wondering what it will be in 15 years.
Meanwhile, I'll just sit back and shake my head at people who refuse to approach life from a rational standpoint while they (fad dieters, pill takers, food avoiders, Dr. Oz listeners, etc) run around like the proverbial chickens with their heads cut off.0 -
I didn't say the kids should necessarily be taken into care - but there should be some kind of intervention.
I'd really want some sort of evidence of harm required before staging any sort of intervention. As far as I can see, there's no evidence that the woman's children suffered any sort of harm from a year-long food experiment on cutting down on sugars, even if SHE became a little neurotic. Only the word of a few people on the internet who think it can't be a healthful environment.
ETA: In general, I don't think that the government coming into people's houses and deciding whether or not the children are having a healthful diet is a good precedent unless the child is actively suffering from some sort of health issue. We've seen this rubbish on the news where children have had their school lunch taken away and been sent to the cafeteria because it contained 2 fruits and no vegetable, and that's ridiculous.
if kids are at risk of malnutrition they should...
yep that's ridiculous but I'm talking about orthorexia type diets being inflicted on kids. you made the distinction in your earlier post between the two... I'm making the same distinction.0 -
Americans are actually consuming LESS sugar than we did 50 years ago, and we are living longer than ever. Countries that consume the most sugar (we are not one of them) have the longest lived peoples. Although I doubt sugar contributes to longevity, the 'we are eating more sugar than ever and our health is worse than ever' is nothing but dogma and, is completely false.
Wrong..Currently. Americans eat more sugar then ever before. That fact is recognized by every level of government and most people who do not think sugar consumption is a problem.
Here's a simplistic paper on it.
http://www.dhhs.state.nh.us/dphs/nhp/adults/documents/sugar.pdf
Here's another one..
http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf (page 8)
This one says that sugar consumption has increased by 39%. I would think it to be higher, but it is a few years old.
Cane sugar and beet sugar and dextrose decreased, every other type increased.
I'm reasonably certain that we topped out around 1999/2000 and sugar consumption has actually been on the decrease since then
This is just supposition but I'd wager that we topped out on sugar in those years because that was the height of the "fat free" food craze. Back then, everyone that didn't want to exercise food intake moderation and increased activity levels avoided fat like the plague just as many people, the woman in this article for example, now avoid sugar like the plague. People have to have a boogeyman. It used to be fat. Now it's sugar. I'm wondering what it will be in 15 years.
Meanwhile, I'll just sit back and shake my head at people who refuse to approach life from a rational standpoint while they (fad dieters, pill takers, food avoiders, Dr. Oz listeners, etc) run around like the proverbial chickens with their heads cut off.
yeah that's a good point
I've seen studies that show that 50 years ago (well 60-70 years ago now given the age of the studies) adults and children ate more calories including more fat and more sugar, than kids nowadays (90s/2000s - cause the studies were quite old) - but that obesity rates back then were much lower because kids played outdoors pretty much all day and everyone had to walk everywhere, and people did jobs that required them to be on their feet much more than modern desk/computer screen type jobs.
IMO inactivity is the primary factor. Freely available high calorific food makes it worse but isn't the primary cause, as back in the 1950s people had syrup, treacle, granulated sugar, toffee, maple syrup, honey and all sorts and used it in pretty large quantities in home cooking. And served with a large quantity of custard. My grandmothers made some real sticky desserts in their time.... yes I know all the chemical-phobes will say that high fructose corn syrup is somehow magically different... but it's not really.0 -
Il say it again a life without pizza and brownies is not worth living0
-
I'd really want some sort of evidence of harm required before staging any sort of intervention. As far as I can see, there's no evidence that the woman's children suffered any sort of harm from a year-long food experiment on cutting down on sugars, even if SHE became a little neurotic. Only the word of a few people on the internet who think it can't be a healthful environment.
ETA: In general, I don't think that the government coming into people's houses and deciding whether or not the children are having a healthful diet is a good precedent unless the child is actively suffering from some sort of health issue. We've seen this rubbish on the news where children have had their school lunch taken away and been sent to the cafeteria because it contained 2 fruits and no vegetable, and that's ridiculous.
if kids are at risk of malnutrition they should...
yep that's ridiculous but I'm talking about orthorexia type diets being inflicted on kids. you made the distinction in your earlier post between the two... I'm making the same distinction.
But we have yet to see that the children in the book were at any risk of malnutrition. I would consider it highly unlikely that simply cutting out added sugars (even if the mother became a little neurotic about tracking down sources of added fructose) would in any way put children at risk for malnutrition.0 -
I'd really want some sort of evidence of harm required before staging any sort of intervention. As far as I can see, there's no evidence that the woman's children suffered any sort of harm from a year-long food experiment on cutting down on sugars, even if SHE became a little neurotic. Only the word of a few people on the internet who think it can't be a healthful environment.
ETA: In general, I don't think that the government coming into people's houses and deciding whether or not the children are having a healthful diet is a good precedent unless the child is actively suffering from some sort of health issue. We've seen this rubbish on the news where children have had their school lunch taken away and been sent to the cafeteria because it contained 2 fruits and no vegetable, and that's ridiculous.
if kids are at risk of malnutrition they should...
yep that's ridiculous but I'm talking about orthorexia type diets being inflicted on kids. you made the distinction in your earlier post between the two... I'm making the same distinction.
But we have yet to see that the children in the book were at any risk of malnutrition. I would consider it highly unlikely that simply cutting out added sugars (even if the mother became a little neurotic about tracking down sources of added fructose) would in any way put children at risk for malnutrition.
it depends on the extent to which it's being done. Kids need carbohydrates to grow and develop properly. People really underestimate how much damage calorie restriction can do to a child's development, it can even effect IQ. Paediatricians, even when dealing with obese children, don't usually restrict their diets to the extent that it results in weight loss- they aim for the child to "grow into" their current weight, and they don't restrict the child's food choices too much either, instead they focus on increasing the child's activity.... why? Because there's a very real danger of stunting the child's growth and development. Have you ever compared the average heights of people in rich nations and poor nations? There's a difference of several inches. And I'm not even talking about countries where there have been famines (which have a similar effect, only worse, and an additional drop in IQ), just where kids grow up never getting quite enough to eat. They don't grow as much as they should. Even when calories are not being restricted per se, there have been cases of kids becoming malnourished when well meaning parents give them too much high fibre food and they end up not getting enough calories. In all cases that I've heard about like this, parents change how they feed their kids when advised to by a doctor.... but when it comes to parents with an orthorexia mentality i.e. demonising foods and entire food groups, that's when rational thought can start to go out of the window, and yes if that's inflicted on kids too, there's a danger of the kid becoming malnourished.
additionally, it's not good for the kids' mental health or for developing a healthy relationship with food to impose so much restriction. Neurotic behaviour of parents around foods is picked up by kids and affects them in a negative way too.
The question of when CPS gets involved is purely a question of degree and extent, and whether the parents correct what they're doing after becoming aware that it's putting their child in danger.
there definitely needs to be more education about this, and unfortunately the current climate of fat diets being bandied about by people calling themselves doctors on TV is making it all the more likely that well-meaning parents are going to end up inflicting some really damaging dietary behaviours and attitudes on their kids.0 -
I'd really want some sort of evidence of harm required before staging any sort of intervention. As far as I can see, there's no evidence that the woman's children suffered any sort of harm from a year-long food experiment on cutting down on sugars, even if SHE became a little neurotic. Only the word of a few people on the internet who think it can't be a healthful environment.
ETA: In general, I don't think that the government coming into people's houses and deciding whether or not the children are having a healthful diet is a good precedent unless the child is actively suffering from some sort of health issue. We've seen this rubbish on the news where children have had their school lunch taken away and been sent to the cafeteria because it contained 2 fruits and no vegetable, and that's ridiculous.
if kids are at risk of malnutrition they should...
yep that's ridiculous but I'm talking about orthorexia type diets being inflicted on kids. you made the distinction in your earlier post between the two... I'm making the same distinction.
But we have yet to see that the children in the book were at any risk of malnutrition. I would consider it highly unlikely that simply cutting out added sugars (even if the mother became a little neurotic about tracking down sources of added fructose) would in any way put children at risk for malnutrition.
I agree.. cutting out sugar does not mean the kids are mal-nourished or that they are learning bad eating habits. There is a better argument that she is instilling good eating habits in her children and they will be healthier as adults and not end up fat sick and nearly dead like a lot American are.
I cut out a lot of added sugar, not to the extent of the blogger, but my son watches me read label and put stuff with added sugar back on the shelf. And no i have not cut it all out of his diet, because I also think that kids need to be kids and a cookie or piece of cake will not kill him. Especially since the majority of his normal foods are sugar free.It's not harming him, he's extremely healthy. He's learning healthy eating habits and what's even better is he doesn't even like a lot of sugar laden foods. Since he's not fed them constantly like some kids are.
Truth be told, I'd rather see a parent go to this extreme then the opposite. (eating food heavy in sugars constantly) . Don't be obtuse and think I mean over feeding a kid on fruit.0 -
I'd really want some sort of evidence of harm required before staging any sort of intervention. As far as I can see, there's no evidence that the woman's children suffered any sort of harm from a year-long food experiment on cutting down on sugars, even if SHE became a little neurotic. Only the word of a few people on the internet who think it can't be a healthful environment.
ETA: In general, I don't think that the government coming into people's houses and deciding whether or not the children are having a healthful diet is a good precedent unless the child is actively suffering from some sort of health issue. We've seen this rubbish on the news where children have had their school lunch taken away and been sent to the cafeteria because it contained 2 fruits and no vegetable, and that's ridiculous.
if kids are at risk of malnutrition they should...
yep that's ridiculous but I'm talking about orthorexia type diets being inflicted on kids. you made the distinction in your earlier post between the two... I'm making the same distinction.
But we have yet to see that the children in the book were at any risk of malnutrition. I would consider it highly unlikely that simply cutting out added sugars (even if the mother became a little neurotic about tracking down sources of added fructose) would in any way put children at risk for malnutrition.
I agree.. cutting out sugar does not mean the kids are mal-nourished or that they are learning bad eating habits. There is a better argument that she is instilling good eating habits in her children and they will be healthier as adults and not end up fat sick and nearly dead like a lot American are.
I cut out a lot of added sugar, not to the extent of the blogger, but my son watches me read label and put stuff with added sugar back on the shelf. And no i have not cut it all out of his diet, because I also think that kids need to be kids and a cookie or piece of cake will not kill him. Especially since the majority of his normal foods are sugar free.It's not harming him, he's extremely healthy. He's learning healthy eating habits and what's even better is he doesn't even like a lot of sugar laden foods. Since he's not fed them constantly like some kids are.
Truth be told, I'd rather see a parent go to this extreme then the opposite. (eating food heavy in sugars constantly) . Don't be obtuse and think I mean over feeding a kid on fruit.
I'd rather not see parents go to either extreme to be perfectly honest... on one extreme the kid grows up obese with tooth decay and on the other extreme the kid doesn't ever reach the adult height they should have had and may not develop fully during puberty, and may have a lower IQ than they should have had....
extremes are not good. Happy mediums is where it's at.
Unfortunately a lot of parents don't seem to be aware of the dangers of the orthorexia extreme. and unfortunately I've seen stuff about kids being encouraged to do "cleanses" by parents recently, and kids being put on diets when they don't need to be (and even if they do need it it should be under supervision by a paediatrician).... and the mental health effects of seeing a parent having orthorexic attitudes aren't good either.
but it also seems like orthorexia is the norm on this forum so it's hard for people to see that there's anything wrong with it0 -
And what are these magic foods that makes one fat?
Ok, so when the debate over "child abuse" is done........I'm wondering about these magic foods as well.0 -
it depends on the extent to which it's being done. Kids need carbohydrates to grow and develop properly.
Snipping only for brevity because most of your post I agree with. I agree with this as well -- I just don't think that cutting out sugar is going to put a kid at any risk. I'd be concerned about a parent who put their growing kid on Atkins (especially induction phase), but it sounds like her kids are still getting fruits, vegetables, and starches.
As far as neurotic food-related behavior, on a strictly pragmatic basis, you're going to need a much higher budget and a lot more social workers if you're going to start requiring treatment there
It doesn't mean I think it's at all a desirable thing -- I just don't see it as something that *requires* intervention unless it gets a lot more extreme than she got. 0 -
I'd really want some sort of evidence of harm required before staging any sort of intervention. As far as I can see, there's no evidence that the woman's children suffered any sort of harm from a year-long food experiment on cutting down on sugars, even if SHE became a little neurotic. Only the word of a few people on the internet who think it can't be a healthful environment.
ETA: In general, I don't think that the government coming into people's houses and deciding whether or not the children are having a healthful diet is a good precedent unless the child is actively suffering from some sort of health issue. We've seen this rubbish on the news where children have had their school lunch taken away and been sent to the cafeteria because it contained 2 fruits and no vegetable, and that's ridiculous.
if kids are at risk of malnutrition they should...
yep that's ridiculous but I'm talking about orthorexia type diets being inflicted on kids. you made the distinction in your earlier post between the two... I'm making the same distinction.
But we have yet to see that the children in the book were at any risk of malnutrition. I would consider it highly unlikely that simply cutting out added sugars (even if the mother became a little neurotic about tracking down sources of added fructose) would in any way put children at risk for malnutrition.
I agree.. cutting out sugar does not mean the kids are mal-nourished or that they are learning bad eating habits. There is a better argument that she is instilling good eating habits in her children and they will be healthier as adults and not end up fat sick and nearly dead like a lot American are.
I cut out a lot of added sugar, not to the extent of the blogger, but my son watches me read label and put stuff with added sugar back on the shelf. And no i have not cut it all out of his diet, because I also think that kids need to be kids and a cookie or piece of cake will not kill him. Especially since the majority of his normal foods are sugar free.It's not harming him, he's extremely healthy. He's learning healthy eating habits and what's even better is he doesn't even like a lot of sugar laden foods. Since he's not fed them constantly like some kids are.
Truth be told, I'd rather see a parent go to this extreme then the opposite. (eating food heavy in sugars constantly) . Don't be obtuse and think I mean over feeding a kid on fruit.
No. She was crazy and orthoxic. Just because cutting out added sugars COULD be a good idea, obsessing over lemons is nuts.0 -
I'd really want some sort of evidence of harm required before staging any sort of intervention. As far as I can see, there's no evidence that the woman's children suffered any sort of harm from a year-long food experiment on cutting down on sugars, even if SHE became a little neurotic. Only the word of a few people on the internet who think it can't be a healthful environment.
ETA: In general, I don't think that the government coming into people's houses and deciding whether or not the children are having a healthful diet is a good precedent unless the child is actively suffering from some sort of health issue. We've seen this rubbish on the news where children have had their school lunch taken away and been sent to the cafeteria because it contained 2 fruits and no vegetable, and that's ridiculous.
if kids are at risk of malnutrition they should...
yep that's ridiculous but I'm talking about orthorexia type diets being inflicted on kids. you made the distinction in your earlier post between the two... I'm making the same distinction.
But we have yet to see that the children in the book were at any risk of malnutrition. I would consider it highly unlikely that simply cutting out added sugars (even if the mother became a little neurotic about tracking down sources of added fructose) would in any way put children at risk for malnutrition.
From what I have gathered they still are fruit and veg - what other carbs are needed for them to have a healthy balanced diet?0 -
Unfortunately a lot of parents don't seem to be aware of the dangers of the orthorexia extreme. and unfortunately I've seen stuff about kids being encouraged to do "cleanses" by parents recently, and kids being put on diets when they don't need to be (and even if they do need it it should be under supervision by a paediatrician).... and the mental health effects of seeing a parent having orthorexic attitudes aren't good either.
A "cleanse" is crackpot and I'd be very worried about that as well, especially not supervised.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions