Limiting potatoes in school lunches

bcattoes

Again though, "cup for cup," beans have 3 times the amount of calories and carbs as potatoes, so again, it's a nonsensical argument at best, and a can of soda is not that high on the GI anyway, so it still doesn't make sense.

It's only nonsensical if you think GI doesn't matter, which I understand that not everyone does. I think it does, which is why I agree with the article and the recommendation. I think GI or actually GL matters as much or more than calories. Plus beans would keep you full longer because of the high protein content.

You know it's the insulin response from eating protein that keeps you feeling full, right? That's part of insulin's job, appetite suppressant.

Right, because it's a slower repsonse. That's what gives it a lower GI/GL

poisongirl6485

If schools would change up how they prepare the potatoes instead of just doing FRIES everyday, then maybe this wouldn't be an issue.

My high school was ridiculous with school food choices. They did offer a salad/sandwich bar in addition to the scheduled hot lunch options. But they also had a pizza bar with stuffed crust pizza and fries. And there were milkshakes. Everyday.

This is also in addition to the little convenience cafe that offered junk food, candy, fried chicken sandwiches, nachos, etc, kind of like a gas station.

Plus the vending machines and warm cookies.

tigersword

Again though, "cup for cup," beans have 3 times the amount of calories and carbs as potatoes, so again, it's a nonsensical argument at best, and a can of soda is not that high on the GI anyway, so it still doesn't make sense.

It's only nonsensical if you think GI doesn't matter, which I understand that not everyone does. I think it does, which is why I agree with the article and the recommendation. I think GI or actually GL matters as much or more than calories. Plus beans would keep you full longer because of the high protein content.

You know it's the insulin response from eating protein that keeps you feeling full, right? That's part of insulin's job, appetite suppressant.

Right, because it's a slower repsonse. That's what gives it a lower GI/GL

Protein has been shown to spike insulin just as much, and just as fast, as high carb foods.

bcattoes

Again though, "cup for cup," beans have 3 times the amount of calories and carbs as potatoes, so again, it's a nonsensical argument at best, and a can of soda is not that high on the GI anyway, so it still doesn't make sense.

It's only nonsensical if you think GI doesn't matter, which I understand that not everyone does. I think it does, which is why I agree with the article and the recommendation. I think GI or actually GL matters as much or more than calories. Plus beans would keep you full longer because of the high protein content.

You know it's the insulin response from eating protein that keeps you feeling full, right? That's part of insulin's job, appetite suppressant.

Right, because it's a slower repsonse. That's what gives it a lower GI/GL

Protein has been shown to spike insulin just as much, and just as fast, as high carb foods.

Hmm, I've not read that. Do you have a link or reference. Not to a study but some reputable source? Does that include all protein or just certain proteins or protein sources?

PB67

Again though, "cup for cup," beans have 3 times the amount of calories and carbs as potatoes, so again, it's a nonsensical argument at best, and a can of soda is not that high on the GI anyway, so it still doesn't make sense.

It's only nonsensical if you think GI doesn't matter, which I understand that not everyone does. I think it does, which is why I agree with the article and the recommendation. I think GI or actually GL matters as much or more than calories. Plus beans would keep you full longer because of the high protein content.

You know it's the insulin response from eating protein that keeps you feeling full, right? That's part of insulin's job, appetite suppressant.

Right, because it's a slower repsonse. That's what gives it a lower GI/GL

Protein has been shown to spike insulin just as much, and just as fast, as high carb foods.

Hmm, I've not read that. Do you have a link or reference. Not to a study but some reputable source? Does that include all protein or just certain proteins or protein sources?

Full explanation and well referenced.

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

kharrington23

Instead of demonizing potatoes, why don't they encourage more physical activity in schools? It seems to me that it would be a more cost-effective way to curb obesity in children as well as help establish exercise habits.

^^^This!

bcattoes

Again though, "cup for cup," beans have 3 times the amount of calories and carbs as potatoes, so again, it's a nonsensical argument at best, and a can of soda is not that high on the GI anyway, so it still doesn't make sense.

It's only nonsensical if you think GI doesn't matter, which I understand that not everyone does. I think it does, which is why I agree with the article and the recommendation. I think GI or actually GL matters as much or more than calories. Plus beans would keep you full longer because of the high protein content.

You know it's the insulin response from eating protein that keeps you feeling full, right? That's part of insulin's job, appetite suppressant.

Right, because it's a slower repsonse. That's what gives it a lower GI/GL

Protein has been shown to spike insulin just as much, and just as fast, as high carb foods.

Hmm, I've not read that. Do you have a link or reference. Not to a study but some reputable source? Does that include all protein or just certain proteins or protein sources?

Full explanation and well referenced.

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

Okay, I see the confusion. GI and GL are measures of how food affects blood sugar, not of insulin production. The higher the GL the higher/faster the rise in blood sugar.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/carbohydrates-full-story/index.html#glycemic-index

PB67

Still doesn't matter to anyone who isn't diabetic.

____________________________________________________________________________________

GI & Obesity - Slim Chance For Correlation



A systematic review of human intervention studies comparing the effects of high and low-GI foods or diets arrived at the following results [13]:

• In a total of 31 short-term studies, low-GI foods were associated with greater satiety or reduced hunger in 15 studies, whereas reduced satiety or no differences were seen in 16 other studies.

• Low-GI foods reduced ad libitum food intake in 7 studies, but not in 8 other studies. In 20 longer-term studies (<6 months), weight loss on a low-GI diet was seen in 4 and on a high-GI diet in 2, with no difference recorded in 14 studies.

• An exhaustive assessment of these human intervention trials found no significant difference in the average weight loss between low & high GI diets. in conclusion, the current body of research evidence does not indicate that low-GI foods are superior to high-GI foods in regard to treating obesity.



More recently, Raatz & colleagues conducted a parallel-design, randomized 12-week controlled feeding trial, testing the effect of GI and GL on weight loss [14]. The controlled period was followed by a 24-week "free living" phase, in which subjects were instructed to continue their respective dietary treatments outside of lab-supervised conditions. Manipulation of GI & GL failed to make a dent in both experimental phases. As a result of the 36-week trial, the researchers conclude: "In summary, lowering the glycemic load and glycemic index of weight reduction diets does not provide any added benefit to energy restriction in promoting weight loss in obese subjects."

_________________________________________________________________

http://alanaragon.com/elements-challenging-the-validity-of-the-glycemic-index.html

tigersword

In other words, potatoes aren't the problem. :drinker:

bcattoes

Still doesn't matter to anyone who isn't diabetic.

____________________________________________________________________________________

GI & Obesity - Slim Chance For Correlation



A systematic review of human intervention studies comparing the effects of high and low-GI foods or diets arrived at the following results [13]:

• In a total of 31 short-term studies, low-GI foods were associated with greater satiety or reduced hunger in 15 studies, whereas reduced satiety or no differences were seen in 16 other studies.

• Low-GI foods reduced ad libitum food intake in 7 studies, but not in 8 other studies. In 20 longer-term studies (<6 months), weight loss on a low-GI diet was seen in 4 and on a high-GI diet in 2, with no difference recorded in 14 studies.

• An exhaustive assessment of these human intervention trials found no significant difference in the average weight loss between low & high GI diets. in conclusion, the current body of research evidence does not indicate that low-GI foods are superior to high-GI foods in regard to treating obesity.



More recently, Raatz & colleagues conducted a parallel-design, randomized 12-week controlled feeding trial, testing the effect of GI and GL on weight loss [14]. The controlled period was followed by a 24-week "free living" phase, in which subjects were instructed to continue their respective dietary treatments outside of lab-supervised conditions. Manipulation of GI & GL failed to make a dent in both experimental phases. As a result of the 36-week trial, the researchers conclude: "In summary, lowering the glycemic load and glycemic index of weight reduction diets does not provide any added benefit to energy restriction in promoting weight loss in obese subjects."

_________________________________________________________________

http://alanaragon.com/elements-challenging-the-validity-of-the-glycemic-index.html

So, you are assuming that recommendation to limit potatoes is being made strictly for weight loss? I assumed it was for health, which would include, but certainly not be limited to weight loss. But even from a weight loss standpoint, almost half of results of those studies was bad (7 vs 8, 15 vs 16). That hardly seems an argument against it, especially in the face of widespread obesity and diabetes in American children.

PB67

Do you always ignore everything that doesn't fit your pet theory? The VAST majority of studies refute your claim, but you ignore them in favor of the few that support it.

This is the textbook definition of cherry-picking.

Espressocycle

bcattoes

Do you always ignore everything that doesn't fit your pet theory? The VAST majority of studies refute your claim, but you ignore them in favor of the few that support it.

This is the textbook definition of cherry-picking.

My "claim"? My only claim is that I believe the advice of medical professionals (in this case Harvard and Mayo Clinic) over you.

PB67

Do you always ignore everything that doesn't fit your pet theory? The VAST majority of studies refute your claim, but you ignore them in favor of the few that support it.

This is the textbook definition of cherry-picking.

My "claim"? My only claim is that I believe the advice of medical professionals (in this case Harvard and Mayo Clinic) over you.

So rather than look at the evidence, you dismiss it based on the source. This one is called "appeal to authority".

Moving through the logical fallacies quite nicely.

bcattoes

Do you always ignore everything that doesn't fit your pet theory? The VAST majority of studies refute your claim, but you ignore them in favor of the few that support it.

This is the textbook definition of cherry-picking.

My "claim"? My only claim is that I believe the advice of medical professionals (in this case Harvard and Mayo Clinic) over you.

So rather than look at the evidence, you dismiss it based on the source. This one is called "appeal to authority".

Moving through the logical fallacies quite nicely.

Did you look at all the evidence? Such as the article I posted and the references? And, if so, then what? Did you dismiss them because they did not agree with yours, or do you give them merit?

ETA: either way it has nothing to do with the USDA recommendation or the article I posted so I'm done. Eat high GI/GL foods if you like and that works for you. I know what works for me.

PB67

Do you always ignore everything that doesn't fit your pet theory? The VAST majority of studies refute your claim, but you ignore them in favor of the few that support it.

This is the textbook definition of cherry-picking.

My "claim"? My only claim is that I believe the advice of medical professionals (in this case Harvard and Mayo Clinic) over you.

So rather than look at the evidence, you dismiss it based on the source. This one is called "appeal to authority".

Moving through the logical fallacies quite nicely.

Did you look at all the evidence? Such as the article I posted and the references? And, if so, then what? Did you dismiss them because they did not agree with yours, or do you give them merit?

I've seen the article you've posted before, and I've also seen the primary sources it references.

Several of them were either poorly designed, or did not support the conclusions of the article.

neanderthin

Do you always ignore everything that doesn't fit your pet theory? The VAST majority of studies refute your claim, but you ignore them in favor of the few that support it.

This is the textbook definition of cherry-picking.

My "claim"? My only claim is that I believe the advice of medical professionals (in this case Harvard and Mayo Clinic) over you.

So rather than look at the evidence, you dismiss it based on the source. This one is called "appeal to authority".

Moving through the logical fallacies quite nicely.

Did you look at all the evidence? Such as the article I posted and the references? And, if so, then what? Did you dismiss them because they did not agree with yours, or do you give them merit?

The problem is you shouldn't be talking about nutritional science at all because you just don't have that vocabulary to comment on studies simply because you haven't dissemenated them at all for comparison purposes. Yet you base your agruement on one of them because you must believe all of them to be correct, therefore the one your sighting must be correct. Hense the reference to the "appeal to authority" If you believed that studies can be wrong, then this arguement wouldn't have dragged this thread out to this agonizing length.

bcattoes

Do you always ignore everything that doesn't fit your pet theory? The VAST majority of studies refute your claim, but you ignore them in favor of the few that support it.

This is the textbook definition of cherry-picking.

My "claim"? My only claim is that I believe the advice of medical professionals (in this case Harvard and Mayo Clinic) over you.

So rather than look at the evidence, you dismiss it based on the source. This one is called "appeal to authority".

Moving through the logical fallacies quite nicely.

Did you look at all the evidence? Such as the article I posted and the references? And, if so, then what? Did you dismiss them because they did not agree with yours, or do you give them merit?

The problem is you shouldn't be talking about nutritional science at all because you just don't have that vocabulary to comment on studies simply because you haven't dissemenated them at all for comparison purposes. Yet you base your agruement on one of them because you must believe all of them to be correct, therefore the one your sighting must be correct. Hense the reference to the "appeal to authority" If you believed that studies can be wrong, then this arguement wouldn't have dragged this thread out to this agonizing length.

I'm not sure I believe studies are ever right or wrong. Unless they are falsified, which is a whole other subject. Studies are what they are. They produce results and the results are what they are. The researchers' interpretation of the data collected. Which may be interpreted differently by another reviewer, which is why peer reviews are necessary. This is why I prefer to get nutritional information from experts in the field that study nutrition for a living. It's the only think that makes sense to me.

kristelpoole

THEREFORE... we can assume that everyone on here arguing would be happy with the following options in schools:

http://www.eatingwell.com/recipes/cheesy_broccoli_potato_mash.html

http://www.eatingwell.com/recipes/corn_broccoli_calzones.html

http://www.eatingwell.com/recipes/broccoli_beef_potato_hotdish.html

Accessible, proper food combinations, cheap and easy, tasty. Includes veggies with starches so they can't just eat a "plate full of potatoes" and "throw away all the other vegetables."

And the starches are limited, and they are creating more complete proteins that standing alone.

Or did I miss something?

---

Also, I agree that this is only part of the problem in our schools. I don't remember learning much about actual health in "health class". I remember more about how to score frames in bowling properly...

The only thing said in this thread that I vehemently disagree with is the notion that we should put the kids aside and just focus on the adults. I understand they are an example, but, um, really? WTF.

jknops2

70% of the US is overweight, including many kids. There clearly is a problem. My kids eat breakfast, morning snack, lunch and afternoon snack in school. I can make sure that they eat enough vegetables and less calories at home, but at school they can avoid whatever they want. Lowering calories at school is a good idea. And fried potatoes are clearly a big part of the problem. So yes, I think this is a good idea and I strongly support it.

Elizabeth_C34

I ate two helpings of tater tots, cheeseburgers, drank sodas, etc. in high school, but I probably burned 2000+ calories per day playing sports and running competitively. I was fit, thin, and healthy. It was when I stopped playing sports that I gained all my weight.

Banning an entire food group and labeling it "bad" is going to do absolutely nothing for the childhood obesity epidemic. Bringing back PE classes daily, increasing funding for intramural sports, and having after-school programs for kids interested in athletics or some other non-sedentary activity will do much more than tossing out all the tater tots and sodas.

calliope_music

geez. i don't see anything wrong with potatoes...i see things wrong with school lunch in general, at least where i live. it's just...not appetizing (or well balanced).

jknops2

I ate two helpings of tater tots, cheeseburgers, drank sodas, etc. in high school, but I probably burned 2000+ calories per day playing sports and running competitively. I was fit, thin, and healthy. It was when I stopped playing sports that I gained all my weight.

Banning an entire food group and labeling it "bad" is going to do absolutely nothing for the childhood obesity epidemic. Bringing back PE classes daily, increasing funding for intramural sports, and having after-school programs for kids interested in athletics or some other non-sedentary activity will do much more than tossing out all the tater tots and sodas.

Good point. But how do we do this? How do we make this an issue in schools?

jknops2

geez. i don't see anything wrong with potatoes...i see things wrong with school lunch in general, at least where i live. it's just...not appetizing (or well balanced).

I agree. But where do we start to change his? I am not sure.

Elizabeth_C34

I ate two helpings of tater tots, cheeseburgers, drank sodas, etc. in high school, but I probably burned 2000+ calories per day playing sports and running competitively. I was fit, thin, and healthy. It was when I stopped playing sports that I gained all my weight.

Banning an entire food group and labeling it "bad" is going to do absolutely nothing for the childhood obesity epidemic. Bringing back PE classes daily, increasing funding for intramural sports, and having after-school programs for kids interested in athletics or some other non-sedentary activity will do much more than tossing out all the tater tots and sodas.

Good point. But how do we do this? How do we make this an issue in schools?

After-school programs at my school were led by parent volunteers and local kids coaches. The coaches would come to the school right as it was letting out, and we met outside on the track and practiced for our meets, or we did mini-field day competitions. It was all voluntary and we had a great time. Most of us had to wait for our parents to pick us up anyway.

As for the PE classes, making them mandatory for all students, including special ed students, and making it last all 4 years with classes at least 3 days per week would be awesome. Of course, you would need to cater to students with disabilities and medical conditions, but I remember PE being a lot of fun. We did all kinds of fun stuff. My school had a handful of obese kids, but because of the quality of our PE classes, teachers, and after-school programs, we didn't have many. Most of us were healthy.

Most of the changes to PE classes and sports programs are funding-related and must be dealt with by governments and those in charge of distributing funds to school programs.

Elizabeth_C34

Mr. Evil Potato says, "DON'T BAN ME."

bcattoes

Mr. Evil Potato says, "DON'T BAN ME."

How about we just limit you?

Elizabeth_C34

Mr. Evil Potato says, "DON'T BAN ME."

How about we just limit you?

shazzannon

Mr. Evil Potato says, "DON'T BAN ME."

How about we just limit you?

She mad

bcattoes

Mr. Evil Potato says, "DON'T BAN ME."

How about we just limit you?

That's easy enough to do. You just don't read or respond to my posts.