Year of No Sugar Reads Like a How-To Manual for an ED
Replies
-
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 it
It's not just on this forum, it's everywhere. A lot of standard diet advice is "weight" loss obsessed and has nothing to do with being fit or healthy.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.
yeah it's that kind of thing I'm talking about.............i.e. kids being put on diets like atkins that cut out entire food groups or enough foods to present a risk of malnutrition, or that won't provide the kids enough calories to grow/develop normally. People are often just not aware how much damage that kind of thing can potentially do to kids. It's touted as healthy and something adults should do, and it's touted that carbs are bad, borderline toxic... it's only one logical step from that to thinking they have to save their kids from the "evil" carbs... (or whatever other foods)...
re intervention - like I said it's a question of extent and degree. education is a first step, what to do if parents are persisting in the face of advice from professionals is another matter.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.
yeah it's that kind of thing I'm talking about.............i.e. kids being put on diets like atkins that cut out entire food groups or enough foods to present a risk of malnutrition, or that won't provide the kids enough calories to grow/develop normally. People are often just not aware how much damage that kind of thing can potentially do to kids. It's touted as healthy and something adults should do, and it's touted that carbs are bad, borderline toxic... it's only one logical step from that to thinking they have to save their kids from the "evil" carbs... (or whatever other foods)...
re intervention - like I said it's a question of extent and degree. education is a first step, what to do if parents are persisting in the face of advice from professionals is another matter.
I'm still not convinced that's what has happen here. From the snippets I have picked up on the book reviews she is still including sugar from veg and certain fruit.
Also protein and fats are included, it would appear the kids are getting all of the macros and micros - not sure what the main issue is here apart from it seems to be a little bit of an uninspiring diet.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!
Well the MFP official entry for Beans, French, Raw can, 343 calories per 100g0 -
I definitely feel bad for those kids. In general I feel bad for any kids with extreme diets either because of food allergies or something their parents impose on them.
She's right, the social isolation is the worst. Imagine those kids trying to go to a birthday party? Out for a play date at another kids house? I remember a kid in my class who had some sort of extreme food allergy. His mom always had to be in tow at all field trips and birthday parties to make sure he didn't eat something that could kill him and pack him some alternate food.
And ya, I didn't have a lot of sugary things growing up, but that doesn't mean I didn't get a birthday cake, couldn't ride my bike to the corner store for a chocolate bar, or get a snow come from the ice cream truck after I'd been playing outside all summer. In fact, if I'd stuck to those 'rules' I wouldn't be as big as I am now!
My mother had a friend who didn't let her kids have sugar. I don't remember much else from my 6th birthday, but I remember those two kids standing by the snack table and eating candy for pretty much the entire party.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.
yeah it's that kind of thing I'm talking about.............i.e. kids being put on diets like atkins that cut out entire food groups or enough foods to present a risk of malnutrition, or that won't provide the kids enough calories to grow/develop normally. People are often just not aware how much damage that kind of thing can potentially do to kids. It's touted as healthy and something adults should do, and it's touted that carbs are bad, borderline toxic... it's only one logical step from that to thinking they have to save their kids from the "evil" carbs... (or whatever other foods)...
re intervention - like I said it's a question of extent and degree. education is a first step, what to do if parents are persisting in the face of advice from professionals is another matter.
I'm still not convinced that's what has happen here. From the snippets I have picked up on the book reviews she is still including sugar from veg and certain fruit.
Also protein and fats are included, it would appear the kids are getting all of the macros and micros - not sure what the main issue is here apart from it seems to be a little bit of an uninspiring diet.
without going into their family home and seeing what the kids actually eat on a day to day basis, it's impossible to tell to what extent they're in danger of becoming malnourished. But freaking out over the sugar in lemon juice is a big red flag.
they're not getting all the macros if carbs are excessively restricted, though.... by definition, because carbs is a macronutrient. Kids need plenty of carbs just to fuel their activity. Kids should spend a lot of time being physically active. Restricted carbs means they won't have the energy for that. Protein and fat don't provide enough readily available energy for vigorous physical activity. Kids should be engaging in vigorous physical activity (their choice, led by them, e.g. running around while playing outdoors) on a daily basis.
only certain fruit? that's another red flag. there's absolutely no need to restrict fruit consumption in active kids... again that smacks of sugar-phobia. Restricting candy bars is one thing (I do that, I don't let my kids eat candy all day long) but restricting fruit??
developing orthorexia (either the mother or the kids later in life) is another danger. And kids growing up being afraid to eat fruit .... that's a pretty dismal outcome....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.
yeah it's that kind of thing I'm talking about.............i.e. kids being put on diets like atkins that cut out entire food groups or enough foods to present a risk of malnutrition, or that won't provide the kids enough calories to grow/develop normally. People are often just not aware how much damage that kind of thing can potentially do to kids. It's touted as healthy and something adults should do, and it's touted that carbs are bad, borderline toxic... it's only one logical step from that to thinking they have to save their kids from the "evil" carbs... (or whatever other foods)...
re intervention - like I said it's a question of extent and degree. education is a first step, what to do if parents are persisting in the face of advice from professionals is another matter.
I'm still not convinced that's what has happen here. From the snippets I have picked up on the book reviews she is still including sugar from veg and certain fruit.
Also protein and fats are included, it would appear the kids are getting all of the macros and micros - not sure what the main issue is here apart from it seems to be a little bit of an uninspiring diet.
without going into their family home and seeing what the kids actually eat on a day to day basis, it's impossible to tell to what extent they're in danger of becoming malnourished. But freaking out over the sugar in lemon juice is a big red flag.
they're not getting all the macros if carbs are excessively restricted, though.... by definition, because carbs is a macronutrient. Kids need plenty of carbs just to fuel their activity. Kids should spend a lot of time being physically active. Restricted carbs means they won't have the energy for that. Protein and fat don't provide enough readily available energy for vigorous physical activity. Kids should be engaging in vigorous physical activity (their choice, led by them, e.g. running around while playing outdoors) on a daily basis.
only certain fruit? that's another red flag. there's absolutely no need to restrict fruit consumption in active kids... again that smacks of sugar-phobia. Restricting candy bars is one thing (I do that, I don't let my kids eat candy all day long) but restricting fruit??
developing orthorexia (either the mother or the kids later in life) is another danger. And kids growing up being afraid to eat fruit .... that's a pretty dismal outcome....
I think a lot of people are over thinking this. Cutting out lemon juice (big red flag).
Most parents display characteristic that would shout big red flag (not climbing trees, having to take their shoes off before coming in the house etc).
Unless anyone can confirm what fruit and veg has been cut or limited I'm still not convinced, in fact I'm completely the opposite. If the mother is that anal about the food they are eating, she's probably as bad about making sure they are eating enough of the stuff they are allowed.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.
yeah it's that kind of thing I'm talking about.............i.e. kids being put on diets like atkins that cut out entire food groups or enough foods to present a risk of malnutrition, or that won't provide the kids enough calories to grow/develop normally. People are often just not aware how much damage that kind of thing can potentially do to kids. It's touted as healthy and something adults should do, and it's touted that carbs are bad, borderline toxic... it's only one logical step from that to thinking they have to save their kids from the "evil" carbs... (or whatever other foods)...
re intervention - like I said it's a question of extent and degree. education is a first step, what to do if parents are persisting in the face of advice from professionals is another matter.
I'm still not convinced that's what has happen here. From the snippets I have picked up on the book reviews she is still including sugar from veg and certain fruit.
Also protein and fats are included, it would appear the kids are getting all of the macros and micros - not sure what the main issue is here apart from it seems to be a little bit of an uninspiring diet.
without going into their family home and seeing what the kids actually eat on a day to day basis, it's impossible to tell to what extent they're in danger of becoming malnourished. But freaking out over the sugar in lemon juice is a big red flag.
they're not getting all the macros if carbs are excessively restricted, though.... by definition, because carbs is a macronutrient. Kids need plenty of carbs just to fuel their activity. Kids should spend a lot of time being physically active. Restricted carbs means they won't have the energy for that. Protein and fat don't provide enough readily available energy for vigorous physical activity. Kids should be engaging in vigorous physical activity (their choice, led by them, e.g. running around while playing outdoors) on a daily basis.
only certain fruit? that's another red flag. there's absolutely no need to restrict fruit consumption in active kids... again that smacks of sugar-phobia. Restricting candy bars is one thing (I do that, I don't let my kids eat candy all day long) but restricting fruit??
developing orthorexia (either the mother or the kids later in life) is another danger. And kids growing up being afraid to eat fruit .... that's a pretty dismal outcome....
I think a lot of people are over thinking this. Cutting out lemon juice (big red flag).
Most parents display characteristic that would shout big red flag (not climbing trees, having to take their shoes off before coming in the house etc).
Unless anyone can confirm what fruit and veg has been cut or limited I'm still not convinced, in fact I'm completely the opposite. If the mother is that anal about the food they are eating, she's probably as bad about making sure they are eating enough of the stuff they are allowed.
why on earth would not climbing trees or having to take your shoes off before coming in the house be red flags? Red flags for what? being Muslim? (in the case of not letting people wear shoes in your house).... sorry but your comparison doesn't make sense.
mothers shouldn't be that control freakish over their kids' diet... forcing kids to eat foods they don't want to eat doesn't end well either. How about.... shock horror.... feeding your kids a balanced diet without restricting the kinds of foods they can eat, as in giving them healthy meals, not forcing them to eat anything (but encouraging them to try a little is fine), and then giving them other foods they want to eat in sensible portion sizes, so they grow up learning to listen to their body's own appetite signals and also grow up knowing what sensible sized portions are, and seeing all food as being just food... not forbidden fruit, or evil bad food, or boring health food, any other silly label.... just as food. And then teaching them why their body needs all the stuff it needs like protein and vitamins and stuff, so they can make their own healthy choices............... excessive restriction and excessive control over what they eat never ends well. A sensible balanced non-neurotic attitude from parents around food generally leads to kids growing up without food issues too.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 it
You are right going to extremes are not good. They also serve no purpose in arguments. In order for malnutrition to stunt growth the mal nutrition would have to be severe and long term. I'd hardly classify cutting out sugar as mal nutirtion that will result in such extreme outcomes.
just because someone cuts something out of their diet does not mean they are Orthexic or bestowing food issues on their kids. Orthorexia is an extremely over used term. Perhaps this specific blogger is, but that's not for me to diagnose. Especially based off one post of hers. I do agree that kids are put on diets when they don't need to be on one. Teaching healthy eating habits and increasing exercise is the right path. That being said, it's not unhealthy to cut out foods that are not healthy. Sorry to the prevailing crowd here but added sugar is nothing more then unnecessary added calories. It makes us like our food better, it makes us crave more of it. It is I d highly addicting. Cut added sugar out of your diet for 1 week. (I did not say go low carb, i said cut all the added sugar out) and see if you don't get a headache. It's from sugar withdrawal, not lack of nutrition. Now, fretting over sugar in balsamic vinegar or the juice of a lemon is ridiculous, but does not mean that one is orthorexic. .
Controlling a childs diet is not really being a control freak. It's pretty much essential parenting. Just because you disagree with the food being fed to a child, does not make it wrong. The child is being fed, the child is healthy. That is all that matter.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 it
You are right going to extremes are not good. They also serve no purpose in arguments. In order for malnutrition to stunt growth the mal nutrition would have to be severe and long term. I'd hardly classify cutting out sugar as mal nutirtion that will result in such extreme outcomes.
just because someone cuts something out of their diet does not mean they are Orthexic or bestowing food issues on their kids. Orthorexia is an extremely over used term. Perhaps this specific blogger is, but that's not for me to diagnose. Especially based off one post of hers. I do agree that kids are put on diets when they don't need to be on one. Teaching healthy eating habits and increasing exercise is the right path. That being said, it's not unhealthy to cut out foods that are not healthy. Sorry to the prevailing crowd here but added sugar is nothing more then unnecessary added calories. It makes us like our food better, it makes us crave more of it. It is I d highly addicting. Cut added sugar out of your diet for 1 week. (I did not say go low carb, i said cut all the added sugar out) and see if you don't get a headache. It's from sugar withdrawal, not lack of nutrition. Now, fretting over sugar in balsamic vinegar or the juice of a lemon is ridiculous, but does not mean that one is orthorexic. .
Controlling a childs diet is not really being a control freak. It's pretty much essential parenting. Just because you disagree with the food being fed to a child, does not make it wrong. The child is being fed, the child is healthy. That is all that matter.
She wasn't just cutting out added sugar, she was limiting lemons and basmaltic vinegar.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 it
You are right going to extremes are not good. They also serve no purpose in arguments. In order for malnutrition to stunt growth the mal nutrition would have to be severe and long term. I'd hardly classify cutting out sugar as mal nutirtion that will result in such extreme outcomes.
just because someone cuts something out of their diet does not mean they are Orthexic or bestowing food issues on their kids. Orthorexia is an extremely over used term. Perhaps this specific blogger is, but that's not for me to diagnose. Especially based off one post of hers. I do agree that kids are put on diets when they don't need to be on one. Teaching healthy eating habits and increasing exercise is the right path. That being said, it's not unhealthy to cut out foods that are not healthy. Sorry to the prevailing crowd here but added sugar is nothing more then unnecessary added calories. It makes us like our food better, it makes us crave more of it. It is I d highly addicting. Cut added sugar out of your diet for 1 week. (I did not say go low carb, i said cut all the added sugar out) and see if you don't get a headache. It's from sugar withdrawal, not lack of nutrition. Now, fretting over sugar in balsamic vinegar or the juice of a lemon is ridiculous, but does not mean that one is orthorexic. .
Controlling a childs diet is not really being a control freak. It's pretty much essential parenting. Just because you disagree with the food being fed to a child, does not make it wrong. The child is being fed, the child is healthy. That is all that matter.
She wasn't just cutting out added sugar, she was limiting lemons and basmaltic vinegar.
Meaning?0 -
I found it a bit disturbing. But, I wouldn't call it child abuse. Are vegetarians child abusers because they don't eat meat? Sure, there are a lot of nutty people and parents. But what are you going to do? Put the kids in foster care (there are all kinds of foster parents as well), or make them eat cookies or something.
Edit: I skipped ahead and didn't read the whole thread yet. Also I remember reading this, but it was a while ago and I may not have read the whole thing because I remember just being like, "Uuug, I don't even want to read this crap".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 it
You are right going to extremes are not good. They also serve no purpose in arguments. In order for malnutrition to stunt growth the mal nutrition would have to be severe and long term. I'd hardly classify cutting out sugar as mal nutirtion that will result in such extreme outcomes.
just because someone cuts something out of their diet does not mean they are Orthexic or bestowing food issues on their kids. Orthorexia is an extremely over used term. Perhaps this specific blogger is, but that's not for me to diagnose. Especially based off one post of hers. I do agree that kids are put on diets when they don't need to be on one. Teaching healthy eating habits and increasing exercise is the right path. That being said, it's not unhealthy to cut out foods that are not healthy. Sorry to the prevailing crowd here but added sugar is nothing more then unnecessary added calories. It makes us like our food better, it makes us crave more of it. It is I d highly addicting. Cut added sugar out of your diet for 1 week. (I did not say go low carb, i said cut all the added sugar out) and see if you don't get a headache. It's from sugar withdrawal, not lack of nutrition. Now, fretting over sugar in balsamic vinegar or the juice of a lemon is ridiculous, but does not mean that one is orthorexic. .
Controlling a childs diet is not really being a control freak. It's pretty much essential parenting. Just because you disagree with the food being fed to a child, does not make it wrong. The child is being fed, the child is healthy. That is all that matter.
She wasn't just cutting out added sugar, she was limiting lemons and balsamic vinegar.
I don't really understand your point?? I acknowledged that cutting out lemon juice might be a bit drastic. How does that present an argument for her being orthorexic or her committing child abuse or whatever the point you are trying to make is??
I like the point BinaryPulsar raised. Would you have the same reaction if a child was being raised strict Vegan?? Or is that ok because it's an accepted diet?0 -
What she did is obviously more extreme than being a vegetarian. I just meant where do you draw the lines if you start calling eating habits a reason to get department of child and family services involved to put the kids into foster care. I know a foster mom that said she wanted to try no sugar for a year. I know people that think all religion is child abuse.0
-
I found it a bit disturbing. But, I wouldn't call it child abuse. Are vegetarians child abusers because they don't eat meat? Sure, there are a lot of nutty people and parents. But what are you going to do? Put the kids in foster care (there are all kinds of foster parents as well), or make them eat cookies or something.
Edit: I skipped ahead and didn't read the whole thread yet. Also I remember reading this, but it was a while ago and I may not have read the whole thing because I remember just being like, "Uuug, I don't even want to read this crap".
no-one called it child abuse............ the suggestion was for social services to get involved in terms of educating parents of the potential dangers of inflicting unnecessarily restrictive diets on kids, as in orthorexia kind of excessive restriction. Not normal vegetarian diets or anything like that, but something that actually has a risk of causing malnutrition.
the British system of childcare involves social services working with families... people seem to have assumed I meant kids being taken away, maybe because that's all that happens in the USA or something, but in the UK taking kids away from their parents is a last resort and most of social work/child protection is working with families to help the family to look after their kids better.
Also I was pointing out that most people are not aware of the dangers of calorie restriction in childhood in terms of stunting kids' growth, etc. Because so many people seem to assume that whatever's good for an adult that needs to lose weight must also be good for children - it's not. a healthy diet for kids is not the same. Kids need fat and carbs to grow normally and have a normal life. Vegetarian is one thing but some extreme diets like raw vegan of fruitarian or low carb put kids at risk of malnutrition and their growth being stunted. I've even seen articles online about kids doing juice cleanses etc.0 -
I found it a bit disturbing. But, I wouldn't call it child abuse. Are vegetarians child abusers because they don't eat meat? Sure, there are a lot of nutty people and parents. But what are you going to do? Put the kids in foster care (there are all kinds of foster parents as well), or make them eat cookies or something.
Edit: I skipped ahead and didn't read the whole thread yet. Also I remember reading this, but it was a while ago and I may not have read the whole thing because I remember just being like, "Uuug, I don't even want to read this crap".
no-one called it child abuse............ the suggestion was for social services to get involved in terms of educating parents of the potential dangers of inflicting unnecessarily restrictive diets on kids, as in orthorexia kind of excessive restriction. Not normal vegetarian diets or anything like that, but something that actually has a risk of causing malnutrition.
the British system of childcare involves social services working with families... people seem to have assumed I meant kids being taken away, maybe because that's all that happens in the USA or something, but in the UK taking kids away from their parents is a last resort and most of social work/child protection is working with families to help the family to look after their kids better.
Also I was pointing out that most people are not aware of the dangers of calorie restriction in childhood in terms of stunting kids' growth, etc. Because so many people seem to assume that whatever's good for an adult that needs to lose weight must also be good for children - it's not. a healthy diet for kids is not the same. Kids need fat and carbs to grow normally and have a normal life. Vegetarian is one thing but some extreme diets like raw vegan of fruitarian or low carb put kids at risk of malnutrition and their growth being stunted. I've even seen articles online about kids doing juice cleanses etc.
Ok, yeah that all makes sense.0 -
I found it a bit disturbing. But, I wouldn't call it child abuse. Are vegetarians child abusers because they don't eat meat? Sure, there are a lot of nutty people and parents. But what are you going to do? Put the kids in foster care (there are all kinds of foster parents as well), or make them eat cookies or something.
Edit: I skipped ahead and didn't read the whole thread yet. Also I remember reading this, but it was a while ago and I may not have read the whole thing because I remember just being like, "Uuug, I don't even want to read this crap".
no-one called it child abuse............ the suggestion was for social services to get involved in terms of educating parents of the potential dangers of inflicting unnecessarily restrictive diets on kids, as in orthorexia kind of excessive restriction. Not normal vegetarian diets or anything like that, but something that actually has a risk of causing malnutrition.
the British system of childcare involves social services working with families... people seem to have assumed I meant kids being taken away, maybe because that's all that happens in the USA or something, but in the UK taking kids away from their parents is a last resort and most of social work/child protection is working with families to help the family to look after their kids better.
Also I was pointing out that most people are not aware of the dangers of calorie restriction in childhood in terms of stunting kids' growth, etc. Because so many people seem to assume that whatever's good for an adult that needs to lose weight must also be good for children - it's not. a healthy diet for kids is not the same. Kids need fat and carbs to grow normally and have a normal life. Vegetarian is one thing but some extreme diets like raw vegan of fruitarian or low carb put kids at risk of malnutrition and their growth being stunted. I've even seen articles online about kids doing juice cleanses etc.
Looking more into this one year experiment and the comments people are posting on this thread I assume most people have no bothered to investigate it any further than the BS opinions of the author of the blog and his pro-sugar views.
Nenadermagnon you keep mentioning food restriction and calorie restriction (where did you hear about the calorie restriction part)?
Also they have not cut all sugar out of their diets. They still eat fruit and veg and as a lot of the pro-sugar brigade like to point out the sugar in an apple is the same as the sugar in a candy bar.
I think what the experiment has done for them is to be more aware of the nutritional values of the food they eat and the cost (calorie to nutrient) of the food they have been eating.
I think it would behove more over weight families in most western culture to observe similar experiments!
'Throughout the year, Schaub and her husband made a conscious decision not to focus on weight-loss related to their sugar-free diet – partly to ensure that their two daughters didn’t take the wrong message from the experiment. Though they consulted with a physician before starting the plan, they didn’t take baseline blood tests or weigh themselves during the year.
“The last thing we wanted to do is to encourage [our daughters] not to eat, to encourage anyone else not to eat,” Schaub said.'0 -
I found it a bit disturbing. But, I wouldn't call it child abuse. Are vegetarians child abusers because they don't eat meat? Sure, there are a lot of nutty people and parents. But what are you going to do? Put the kids in foster care (there are all kinds of foster parents as well), or make them eat cookies or something.
Edit: I skipped ahead and didn't read the whole thread yet. Also I remember reading this, but it was a while ago and I may not have read the whole thing because I remember just being like, "Uuug, I don't even want to read this crap".
no-one called it child abuse............ the suggestion was for social services to get involved in terms of educating parents of the potential dangers of inflicting unnecessarily restrictive diets on kids, as in orthorexia kind of excessive restriction. Not normal vegetarian diets or anything like that, but something that actually has a risk of causing malnutrition.
the British system of childcare involves social services working with families... people seem to have assumed I meant kids being taken away, maybe because that's all that happens in the USA or something, but in the UK taking kids away from their parents is a last resort and most of social work/child protection is working with families to help the family to look after their kids better.
Also I was pointing out that most people are not aware of the dangers of calorie restriction in childhood in terms of stunting kids' growth, etc. Because so many people seem to assume that whatever's good for an adult that needs to lose weight must also be good for children - it's not. a healthy diet for kids is not the same. Kids need fat and carbs to grow normally and have a normal life. Vegetarian is one thing but some extreme diets like raw vegan of fruitarian or low carb put kids at risk of malnutrition and their growth being stunted. I've even seen articles online about kids doing juice cleanses etc.
Looking more into this one year experiment and the comments people are posting on this thread I assume most people have no bothered to investigate it any further than the BS opinions of the author of the blog and his pro-sugar views.
Nenadermagnon you keep mentioning food restriction and calorie restriction (where did you hear about the calorie restriction part)?
Also they have not cut all sugar out of their diets. They still eat fruit and veg and as a lot of the pro-sugar brigade like to point out the sugar in an apple is the same as the sugar in a candy bar.
I think what the experiment has done for them is to be more aware of the nutritional values of the food they eat and the cost (calorie to nutrient) of the food they have been eating.
I think it would behove more over weight families in most western culture to observe similar experiments!
'Throughout the year, Schaub and her husband made a conscious decision not to focus on weight-loss related to their sugar-free diet – partly to ensure that their two daughters didn’t take the wrong message from the experiment. Though they consulted with a physician before starting the plan, they didn’t take baseline blood tests or weigh themselves during the year.
“The last thing we wanted to do is to encourage [our daughters] not to eat, to encourage anyone else not to eat,” Schaub said.'
I was making general comments about extreme diets, and warning people of the dangers of inflicting them on children. I wasn't referring to this woman specifically seeing as, regardless of what the book says, I can't go into her house and see what she's actually feeding her children to judge her as an individual mother............ I can see red flags like her freaking out about the sugar in lemon juice as I've said repeatedly, but I'm not here to stand as judge and jury on her as a person.... only to warn about the potential dangers of excessive restriction in children's diets
but yes even if you're not deliberately restricting calories to children, if you're feeding them a diet that restricts foods that have high calorific density then you are in danger of inadvertently causing them to not get enough calories. This can even happen on the very standard diet similar to what weightwatchers etc recommend, i.e. high fibre, low calorie density foods and restricting high fat high carb high calorie density foods, especially for kids that are very active (as kids should be).
Any child that is obese should be under the supervision of a paediatrician or paediatric dietician, and any child who's not obese should not have restrictions put on their diet (barring other medical issues e.g. allergy)
Please take my posts as they were intended - i.e warning people about the dangers of inflicting extreme diets on children, including low carb, raw vegan, fruitarian or even the standard high fibre/low calorie density diets. Stop taking them as an attack on this particular individual that you seem so hellbent on white knighting for some reason
kids need calorie dense foods, they need enough carbohydrate to fuel an active lifestyle (and they should have an active lifestyle to go with it) and stopping them from eating foods they want to eat leads to all kinds of other issues too, even if they're not actually malnourished. If you want my advice for your own kids, then don't stop them from eating any food they want to eat, if it's not nutritionally balanced then limit to specific times (e.g. grandma's house, on outings, only on Saturdays, or whatever) and don't act phobic of foods around them, and in terms of their day to day diet, serve up nutritionally balanced meals for them to eat, and have rules about when and how much they're allowed to snack between meals. Again, without being phobic about the foods. You're restricting snacks between meals because you want them to be hungry for their meals (and therefore get a balanced diet), not because the snack foods are bad. Don't use the term "bad foods" around kids... teach them about the importance of getting enough protein, vitamins, minerals etc instead. And even more importantly, never restrict entire food groups with kids.0 -
I would have to stop my son from seeing his grand parents if I wanted him to stay away from Junk Food (my wife's father is a great host and normally lays out an entire packet of biscuits when we arrive). I don't tend to eat them (maybe 1 every now and again out of politeness), my wife has a couple and the rest get hovered up by the lad.
On the flip side he does eat a lot of fruit (although that's more sugar, but fiber and other nutrients as well). He's not that big into meat (I sometimes wonder if he's my son), but does like eggs.
I eat low carbs, but as he is only 5 I have not pushed my diet onto him, purely because it would be too much stress to get him to eat it. He's very active so I am sure he is burning off what he eats.
It would definitely benefit most overweight families to restrict a majority of the junk food they eat - the problem is though junk food is cheap and for most busy parents it's the easy option (I will include myself in this sometimes).
I assumed you were mentioning this particular one year of no sugar, when you were referencing calorie restriction and stunting kids growth, because you specifically mentioned it in an earlier post.
If that is not the case then fine.
A balanced diet is absolutely necessary for a child's development and I think it's the families that are constantly pumping their kids full of junk food that are doing the most damage (although that seem pretty much overlooked on these forums - strange).0 -
more evidence that the obesity crisis is more due to lower activity levels than what we eat.... while "abs are made in the kitchen" most people who are physically very active don't tend to overeat (and the exceptions will be people who only overeat a little and their bf% isn't likely to be much above 30%), but people who sit on the couch all day will be a lot more prone to overeating and in having dangerously high bf% levels.
This is worth repeating and WRIT BIG (It's certainly underpinned my way of thinking over recent years - Well said.0 -
"I ruined my kids life's because I once read something that I didn't fully understand on the internet and then wrote a book about it"
This is WORST kind of pseudo science. The publishers should be ashamed of them selves.
Lemons out ..... Dates In .... What a F****ing Loony:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: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.
If you have Netflix I'd suggest watching "Hungry for Change."0 -
She wasn't just cutting out added sugar
She wasn't even doing that, see http://eveschaub.com/no-sugar-recipes/
2 Tbsp dextrose
2 cups dextrose
etc. Cutting out added sucrose perhaps.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.
If you have Netflix I'd suggest watching "Hungry for Change."
I don't get my statistics from propaganda movies. However, I misremembered by stats. Our sugar consumption has actually remained the same for the past 50 years. What people used to add to their food at home equals what companies put into ready made meals and store bought desserts. What has changed, is how much we move. The obesity epidemic has more to do with over eating carbs, protein AND fats, while moving much less than our parents or grandparents did.0 -
I would have to stop my son from seeing his grand parents if I wanted him to stay away from Junk Food (my wife's father is a great host and normally lays out an entire packet of biscuits when we arrive). I don't tend to eat them (maybe 1 every now and again out of politeness), my wife has a couple and the rest get hovered up by the lad.
On the flip side he does eat a lot of fruit (although that's more sugar, but fiber and other nutrients as well). He's not that big into meat (I sometimes wonder if he's my son), but does like eggs.
I eat low carbs, but as he is only 5 I have not pushed my diet onto him, purely because it would be too much stress to get him to eat it. He's very active so I am sure he is burning off what he eats.
It would definitely benefit most overweight families to restrict a majority of the junk food they eat - the problem is though junk food is cheap and for most busy parents it's the easy option (I will include myself in this sometimes).
I assumed you were mentioning this particular one year of no sugar, when you were referencing calorie restriction and stunting kids growth, because you specifically mentioned it in an earlier post.
If that is not the case then fine.
A balanced diet is absolutely necessary for a child's development and I think it's the families that are constantly pumping their kids full of junk food that are doing the most damage (although that seem pretty much overlooked on these forums - strange).
Overlooked where? I think everyone pretty much already KNOWS that over feeding kids is a bad idea. It doesn't need to be reiterated constantly, or children mentioned specifically.0 -
My point was it's the amount of cheap and convenient junk food that is the dietary issue (and yes not moving around as much). I think a lot of parents would could do more to cut back on junk food for their kids.
It just doesn't seem to be addressed on MFP threads and when people mentioning cutting out junk food in generally they get jumped all over, rather than actually debating the issue.0 -
What she did is obviously more extreme than being a vegetarian. I just meant where do you draw the lines if you start calling eating habits a reason to get department of child and family services involved to put the kids into foster care. I know a foster mom that said she wanted to try no sugar for a year. I know people that think all religion is child abuse.
That's your opinion. Not a fact. I think people who feed kids a strict vegan diet are are extreme and causing more harm to their kids then anyone who cuts out sugar, even if some of it doesn't make sense to others. What I think about a vegetarian diet being imposed on a child depends on the type of vegetarian diet. I don't think any of it invites the government to step in and take your kids away *unless* the child is being harmed or suffering mal nutrition. I go no sugar all the time. Am right now actually. I am perfectly healthy, not mal nourished and eat plenty healthy foods. When I eat this way my son pretty much eats this way as I buy almost no food with added sugar. He's healthy, he's not mal nourished. I go so far as to purchase low sugar fruits as well. (like apples and oranges) I think lemons are considered high on the glycemic index? but i'm not sure. So maybe that's why she cut them out? I don't use them either when I cut out sugar.It just doesn't seem to be addressed on MFP threads and when people mentioning cutting out junk food in generally they get jumped all over, rather than actually debating the issue.
I really don't understand why people think this is such a terrible thing? Cutting out added sugars/junk foods means you pretty much have to eat healthy foods and a lot of them. You have to get meat that is not pre seasoned, a lot of vegetables and fruit and you end up cooking snacks at home, so you can make sugar free ones. All much healthier then the alternative. How is that harmful to kids? because they aren't eating cupcakes and cinnamon rolls and drinking soda like every other child?? So what? My son has missed 0 days of school due to illness. I can't say that about most of his friends. I blame his diet for that
0 -
What she did is obviously more extreme than being a vegetarian. I just meant where do you draw the lines if you start calling eating habits a reason to get department of child and family services involved to put the kids into foster care. I know a foster mom that said she wanted to try no sugar for a year. I know people that think all religion is child abuse.
That's your opinion. Not a fact. I think people who feed kids a strict vegan diet are are extreme and causing more harm to their kids then anyone who cuts out sugar, even if some of it doesn't make sense to others. What I think about a vegetarian diet being imposed on a child depends on the type of vegetarian diet. I don't think any of it invites the government to step in and take your kids away *unless* the child is being harmed or suffering mal nutrition. I go no sugar all the time. Am right now actually. I am perfectly healthy, not mal nourished and eat plenty healthy foods. When I eat this way my son pretty much eats this way as I buy almost no food with added sugar. He's healthy, he's not mal nourished. I go so far as to purchase low sugar fruits as well. (like apples and oranges) I think lemons are considered high on the glycemic index? but i'm not sure. So maybe that's why she cut them out? I don't use them either when I cut out sugar.It just doesn't seem to be addressed on MFP threads and when people mentioning cutting out junk food in generally they get jumped all over, rather than actually debating the issue.
I really don't understand why people think this is such a terrible thing? Cutting out added sugars/junk foods means you pretty much have to eat healthy foods and a lot of them. You have to get meat that is not pre seasoned, a lot of vegetables and fruit and you end up cooking snacks at home, so you can make sugar free ones. All much healthier then the alternative. How is that harmful to kids? because they aren't eating cupcakes and cinnamon rolls and drinking soda like every other child?? So what? My son has missed 0 days of school due to illness. I can't say that about most of his friends. I blame his diet for that
I missed 0 days of school due to illness after the 1st grade...
Must have been my diet, because I ate all kinds of sugar, soda, etc... but learned how to do it in moderation. That's the point, not teaching kids to demonize it, but rather how to moderate it.0 -
What she did is obviously more extreme than being a vegetarian. I just meant where do you draw the lines if you start calling eating habits a reason to get department of child and family services involved to put the kids into foster care. I know a foster mom that said she wanted to try no sugar for a year. I know people that think all religion is child abuse.
That's your opinion. Not a fact. I think people who feed kids a strict vegan diet are are extreme and causing more harm to their kids then anyone who cuts out sugar, even if some of it doesn't make sense to others. What I think about a vegetarian diet being imposed on a child depends on the type of vegetarian diet. I don't think any of it invites the government to step in and take your kids away *unless* the child is being harmed or suffering mal nutrition. I go no sugar all the time. Am right now actually. I am perfectly healthy, not mal nourished and eat plenty healthy foods. When I eat this way my son pretty much eats this way as I buy almost no food with added sugar. He's healthy, he's not mal nourished. I go so far as to purchase low sugar fruits as well. (like apples and oranges) I think lemons are considered high on the glycemic index? but i'm not sure. So maybe that's why she cut them out? I don't use them either when I cut out sugar.It just doesn't seem to be addressed on MFP threads and when people mentioning cutting out junk food in generally they get jumped all over, rather than actually debating the issue.
I really don't understand why people think this is such a terrible thing? Cutting out added sugars/junk foods means you pretty much have to eat healthy foods and a lot of them. You have to get meat that is not pre seasoned, a lot of vegetables and fruit and you end up cooking snacks at home, so you can make sugar free ones. All much healthier then the alternative. How is that harmful to kids? because they aren't eating cupcakes and cinnamon rolls and drinking soda like every other child?? So what? My son has missed 0 days of school due to illness. I can't say that about most of his friends. I blame his diet for that
I missed 0 days of school due to illness after the 1st grade...
Must have been my diet, because I ate all kinds of sugar, soda, etc... but learned how to do it in moderation. That's the point, not teaching kids to demonize it, but rather how to moderate it.
Why is it, that teaching a kid to eat healthy fruits and vegetable and good cuts of meat is somehow demonizing food? It's a fact that at lot of these foods are not healthy for you and the added sugar is unnecessary, only added to make the food taste sweeter so Americans will like it better. Why is it demonizing food for me to make my son a cake that is sugar free but super delicious, versus buying or making him one that is filled with sugar? Why is it demonizing food to put back the beans that have added sugar and purchase the beans that have no added sugar?0 -
What she did is obviously more extreme than being a vegetarian. I just meant where do you draw the lines if you start calling eating habits a reason to get department of child and family services involved to put the kids into foster care. I know a foster mom that said she wanted to try no sugar for a year. I know people that think all religion is child abuse.
That's your opinion. Not a fact. I think people who feed kids a strict vegan diet are are extreme and causing more harm to their kids then anyone who cuts out sugar, even if some of it doesn't make sense to others. What I think about a vegetarian diet being imposed on a child depends on the type of vegetarian diet. I don't think any of it invites the government to step in and take your kids away *unless* the child is being harmed or suffering mal nutrition. I go no sugar all the time. Am right now actually. I am perfectly healthy, not mal nourished and eat plenty healthy foods. When I eat this way my son pretty much eats this way as I buy almost no food with added sugar. He's healthy, he's not mal nourished. I go so far as to purchase low sugar fruits as well. (like apples and oranges) I think lemons are considered high on the glycemic index? but i'm not sure. So maybe that's why she cut them out? I don't use them either when I cut out sugar.It just doesn't seem to be addressed on MFP threads and when people mentioning cutting out junk food in generally they get jumped all over, rather than actually debating the issue.
I really don't understand why people think this is such a terrible thing? Cutting out added sugars/junk foods means you pretty much have to eat healthy foods and a lot of them. You have to get meat that is not pre seasoned, a lot of vegetables and fruit and you end up cooking snacks at home, so you can make sugar free ones. All much healthier then the alternative. How is that harmful to kids? because they aren't eating cupcakes and cinnamon rolls and drinking soda like every other child?? So what? My son has missed 0 days of school due to illness. I can't say that about most of his friends. I blame his diet for that
I missed 0 days of school due to illness after the 1st grade...
Must have been my diet, because I ate all kinds of sugar, soda, etc... but learned how to do it in moderation. That's the point, not teaching kids to demonize it, but rather how to moderate it.
Why is it, that teaching a kid to eat healthy fruits and vegetable and good cuts of meat is somehow demonizing food? It's a fact that at lot of these foods are not healthy for you and the added sugar is unnecessary, only added to make the food taste sweeter so Americans will like it better. Why is it demonizing food for me to make my son a cake that is sugar free but super delicious, versus buying or making him one that is filled with sugar? Why is it demonizing food to put back the beans that have added sugar and purchase the beans that have no added sugar?
I'm really curious - how do you make a cake with no sugar that a kid (or anyone) with think is super delicious? I ask this, because we just had my daughter's 10th, and man, that cake was GOOD but SO sweet. Sheesh. I'm still trying to recover. :laugh: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
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions