Paleo Recipes my kids will eat
Replies
-
justcat206 wrote: »we are paleo-ish in our house (we seem to digest better on a low-grain, no dairy diet) and my kids love things like meat and veggie stir-fries, salmon with veggies, meatloaf, cheeseless quiches, chili, giant salads with chicken and eggs, pot roast, etc. Basically pick a protein then add lots of fruits and/or veggies. we do lots of bento meals for lunches the same way. Oh and they like spaghetti squash with homemade meat sauce. That said, my kids have always been raised on atypical foods like tofu and Indian spices and the like, so they never got into the mac'n'cheese habit. And I've found that the less we try to simulate grain-heavy foods with weird paleo substitutes and just look for other types of meals to make, the less my kids complain - they don't even realize we're eating differently.
Disclaimer: we also allow them to eat school lunches, whatever Grandma cooks at her house, pizza at birthday parties, etc and consider it a compromise for their emotional well-being.
Paleo - ish?
Why even label it then?
It's not a term we actually use. I suppose I just meant that we frequently eat meals that could qualify as "paleo" should one wish to label them.0 -
Children have different nutritional needs than adults. They are still growing (and I mean growing UP, not out, as many of us have.
) Feed them carbs. There is no reason for your children to be on a low carb diet. 0 -
Are you just arguing that you don't like the name? If you were to remove the word "paleo" from the diet along with the ancient-man philosophy, it's a pretty flexible dietary style that allows the gamut of low carb to high carb, vegetarian, etc. It ends up just focusing on whole foods and limiting starches and grains.
Doesn't seem too far out there for me if it was called something else.
Two reasons it is ridiculous;
1. It has absolutely nothing to do with how paleolithic people ate.
So, the answer is "yes, it's the name that bothers me"?2. Everybody has their own version of it. person X cant eat bread, but they can eat sweet potatoes; however, person A can't eat dairy, but person B eats greek yogurt...so basically if Jupiter and Mars are aligned eat X way, but if earth and the sun are in equinox then eat Y way ...
So what?
because it is a Joke.
if it is not based on how Paleolithich people ate why call it that? Oh, I know because it is a catch phrase that will sell books and make people money.
The "so what" is that people actually think they are somehow going to be healthier by eating how paleo people ate, so that is the so what...
To my knowledge, the paleolithic thing came primarily like so:
The original "Paleo" diet, written about in the 1960s-1980s was an attempt to reconstruct the types of food paleolithic man ate as best as possible from modern sources. They were based on studies of the time of prehistoric man and the similarities to modern man and whatnot.
Loren Cordain, who specializes in nutrition and has also researched paleolithic nutrition, branded "The Paleo Diet" and popularized the idea. His information was based on a mix of what he'd found in his research that was along the lines of his predecessors, and what he'd been taught in his nutrition education.
Some people, like those behind Weston A Price Foundation, had come up with similar dietary guidelines at the same time, though still quite a bit different, based on a different path of research (WAPF-based dietary frameworks are based more on our more recent history and agrarian ancestors).
Others, like Mark Sisson, Chris Kresser, and Dave Asprey, have taken the combined research of the divergent branches, and used them as a base for further research in order to get the benefits of both while minimizing the perceived risks of the foods that are excluded. At this point, it's become less about just what paleolithic man ate (and reconstructing that), and more about using that as a base and combining that foundation with modern research that shows pros/cons of various other foods and ways of eating to determine what is generally best for our health, then using self-experimentation to handle the things that don't currently have much research (or the research is hazy) to back a decision either way.
As a result, there are four distinct major "branches" of what generally gets lumped under Paleo:
paleolithic recon -- those who follow the pre-Cordain version and reconstruct as best as possible what we currently understand as a paleolithic diet. Yes, may include insects and other such "weird" foods. Consider these kind of like the raw vegans of the Paleo side of the spectrum.
Cordain Paleo -- those who follow Cordain's guidelines. Lean meats, fruits, vegetables. No dairy, legumes, or grains at all. Macros don't matter too much here for most people, though Cordain's stance on saturated fats falls more on the USDA/AHA side of the fence. Consider these the standard vegans.
Primal -- those who follow Mark Sisson's guidelines. This is more low-carb, high-fat leaning. Fatty meats aren't shunned. Milk is allowed on a "if you can tolerate it after an elimination trial, raw is ideal if you can get it, favor grass fed" basis. No legumes or grains. Consider these the lacto-ovo-vegetarians.
WAPF -- those who follow the Weston A. Price Foundation guidelines. Grains and legumes only if they're soaked, sprouted, and/or fermented. Dairy only if it's raw. Consider these the pescatarians (like the pescatarians, they don't technically fall under the umbrella term, but they're usually lumped together under a slightly more broad umbrella term).
And for the record, I'm not a fan of the name "Paleo," in part because it does start arguments like this about whether it's a completely accurate name, which detracts from the spirit of the way of eating and builds a popular strawman. Unfortunately, I don't have a better name that makes a good, memorable sound byte and end up with a mouthful like "whole foods based, low-carb, high-fat, moderate protein, grain-free dietary framework." So, arguing over the validity of the name with me is moot.0 -
just tagging so i can giggle later.
oh and is the whole "if you don't have kids, don't respond" thing on the bingo cards? if not, it should be. this isn't the first thread that dopey statement has been made in.0 -
I asked you a question, would you be interested in not using running sneakers or Internet because they didn't have it?The Paleolithic period lasted over 2.6 million years, which is quite a long fad for the creatures and later humans that got swept up in eating Paleo. And shame on the parents that fed their kids Paleo during this era...
You know what else they didn't have? Running sneakers and Internet. Would you be interested in not using that? Since you know, they didn't and they were so great.
Settle down, bro, no need to go on the offensive, I'm not Paleo, just providing perspective
Settle down bro, not getting defensive, just teaching you logic.
I'll say it again - I don't do Paleo, so posing your question yet again is illogical and irrelevant. To save you a third time, no, I am not interested in a world without sneakers or internet.
Your reasoning behind why we should have our kids follow Paleo is just as illogical then.
Why wouldn't you want to to go without sneakers or internet? That's how they did it for millions of years and look how much they achieved.
Yes, because nothing was ever achieved in the world until sneakers and the internet were invented..actually you may have a point, these kinds of discussions make an internet-free world look more alluring.
Before you quit the internet look up Debating 101. You missed that class.
I imagine that would be a good suggestion for people who didn't go to law school
0 -
They eat paleo guidelines for dinner, school lunches/breakfasts. They get adequate carbs, calcium, vitamins, and other nutrition. No need to pick apart our lifestyles. I say paleo-ish, because they eat store bought bread on weekends at home. And Pizza Hut.0
-
Dragonwolf wrote: »Are you just arguing that you don't like the name? If you were to remove the word "paleo" from the diet along with the ancient-man philosophy, it's a pretty flexible dietary style that allows the gamut of low carb to high carb, vegetarian, etc. It ends up just focusing on whole foods and limiting starches and grains.
Doesn't seem too far out there for me if it was called something else.
Two reasons it is ridiculous;
1. It has absolutely nothing to do with how paleolithic people ate.
So, the answer is "yes, it's the name that bothers me"?2. Everybody has their own version of it. person X cant eat bread, but they can eat sweet potatoes; however, person A can't eat dairy, but person B eats greek yogurt...so basically if Jupiter and Mars are aligned eat X way, but if earth and the sun are in equinox then eat Y way ...
So what?
because it is a Joke.
if it is not based on how Paleolithich people ate why call it that? Oh, I know because it is a catch phrase that will sell books and make people money.
The "so what" is that people actually think they are somehow going to be healthier by eating how paleo people ate, so that is the so what...
To my knowledge, the paleolithic thing came primarily like so:
The original "Paleo" diet, written about in the 1960s-1980s was an attempt to reconstruct the types of food paleolithic man ate as best as possible from modern sources. They were based on studies of the time of prehistoric man and the similarities to modern man and whatnot.
Loren Cordain, who specializes in nutrition and has also researched paleolithic nutrition, branded "The Paleo Diet" and popularized the idea. His information was based on a mix of what he'd found in his research that was along the lines of his predecessors, and what he'd been taught in his nutrition education.
Some people, like those behind Weston A Price Foundation, had come up with similar dietary guidelines at the same time, though still quite a bit different, based on a different path of research (WAPF-based dietary frameworks are based more on our more recent history and agrarian ancestors).
Others, like Mark Sisson, Chris Kresser, and Dave Asprey, have taken the combined research of the divergent branches, and used them as a base for further research in order to get the benefits of both while minimizing the perceived risks of the foods that are excluded. At this point, it's become less about just what paleolithic man ate (and reconstructing that), and more about using that as a base and combining that foundation with modern research that shows pros/cons of various other foods and ways of eating to determine what is generally best for our health, then using self-experimentation to handle the things that don't currently have much research (or the research is hazy) to back a decision either way.
As a result, there are four distinct major "branches" of what generally gets lumped under Paleo:
paleolithic recon -- those who follow the pre-Cordain version and reconstruct as best as possible what we currently understand as a paleolithic diet. Yes, may include insects and other such "weird" foods. Consider these kind of like the raw vegans of the Paleo side of the spectrum.
Cordain Paleo -- those who follow Cordain's guidelines. Lean meats, fruits, vegetables. No dairy, legumes, or grains at all. Macros don't matter too much here for most people, though Cordain's stance on saturated fats falls more on the USDA/AHA side of the fence. Consider these the standard vegans.
Primal -- those who follow Mark Sisson's guidelines. This is more low-carb, high-fat leaning. Fatty meats aren't shunned. Milk is allowed on a "if you can tolerate it after an elimination trial, raw is ideal if you can get it, favor grass fed" basis. No legumes or grains. Consider these the lacto-ovo-vegetarians.
WAPF -- those who follow the Weston A. Price Foundation guidelines. Grains and legumes only if they're soaked, sprouted, and/or fermented. Dairy only if it's raw. Consider these the pescatarians (like the pescatarians, they don't technically fall under the umbrella term, but they're usually lumped together under a slightly more broad umbrella term).
And for the record, I'm not a fan of the name "Paleo," in part because it does start arguments like this about whether it's a completely accurate name, which detracts from the spirit of the way of eating and builds a popular strawman. Unfortunately, I don't have a better name that makes a good, memorable sound byte and end up with a mouthful like "whole foods based, low-carb, high-fat, moderate protein, grain-free dietary framework." So, arguing over the validity of the name with me is moot.
thank you for the breakdown that is interesting..
how about we just call it "the restrict these food groups, because X people have deemed them bad"...???
ETA - In all seriousness, it just sounds gimmicky to me. If you do not have some kind of medical condition or serious food allergies, you can eat all the foods that Paleo restricts, lose weight, and be healthy.
A person that does Paleo is not going to lose fat and be healthier, as opposed to someone doing IIFYM and vice versa....
I just don't understand the demonization of whole food groups...0 -
You are all major haters. I want my kids to have a love of vegetables and natural things. That's why. It's not a "diet" it's a lifestyle change.-2
-
buhbyefatso wrote: »You are all major haters. I want my kids to have a love of vegetables and natural things. That's why. It's not a "diet" it's a lifestyle change.
lol please..
you can do that without whichever variant of "paleo" you are on ...
0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »Are you just arguing that you don't like the name? If you were to remove the word "paleo" from the diet along with the ancient-man philosophy, it's a pretty flexible dietary style that allows the gamut of low carb to high carb, vegetarian, etc. It ends up just focusing on whole foods and limiting starches and grains.
Doesn't seem too far out there for me if it was called something else.
Two reasons it is ridiculous;
1. It has absolutely nothing to do with how paleolithic people ate.
So, the answer is "yes, it's the name that bothers me"?2. Everybody has their own version of it. person X cant eat bread, but they can eat sweet potatoes; however, person A can't eat dairy, but person B eats greek yogurt...so basically if Jupiter and Mars are aligned eat X way, but if earth and the sun are in equinox then eat Y way ...
So what?
because it is a Joke.
if it is not based on how Paleolithich people ate why call it that? Oh, I know because it is a catch phrase that will sell books and make people money.
The "so what" is that people actually think they are somehow going to be healthier by eating how paleo people ate, so that is the so what...
To my knowledge, the paleolithic thing came primarily like so:
The original "Paleo" diet, written about in the 1960s-1980s was an attempt to reconstruct the types of food paleolithic man ate as best as possible from modern sources. They were based on studies of the time of prehistoric man and the similarities to modern man and whatnot.
Loren Cordain, who specializes in nutrition and has also researched paleolithic nutrition, branded "The Paleo Diet" and popularized the idea. His information was based on a mix of what he'd found in his research that was along the lines of his predecessors, and what he'd been taught in his nutrition education.
Some people, like those behind Weston A Price Foundation, had come up with similar dietary guidelines at the same time, though still quite a bit different, based on a different path of research (WAPF-based dietary frameworks are based more on our more recent history and agrarian ancestors).
Others, like Mark Sisson, Chris Kresser, and Dave Asprey, have taken the combined research of the divergent branches, and used them as a base for further research in order to get the benefits of both while minimizing the perceived risks of the foods that are excluded. At this point, it's become less about just what paleolithic man ate (and reconstructing that), and more about using that as a base and combining that foundation with modern research that shows pros/cons of various other foods and ways of eating to determine what is generally best for our health, then using self-experimentation to handle the things that don't currently have much research (or the research is hazy) to back a decision either way.
As a result, there are four distinct major "branches" of what generally gets lumped under Paleo:
paleolithic recon -- those who follow the pre-Cordain version and reconstruct as best as possible what we currently understand as a paleolithic diet. Yes, may include insects and other such "weird" foods. Consider these kind of like the raw vegans of the Paleo side of the spectrum.
Cordain Paleo -- those who follow Cordain's guidelines. Lean meats, fruits, vegetables. No dairy, legumes, or grains at all. Macros don't matter too much here for most people, though Cordain's stance on saturated fats falls more on the USDA/AHA side of the fence. Consider these the standard vegans.
Primal -- those who follow Mark Sisson's guidelines. This is more low-carb, high-fat leaning. Fatty meats aren't shunned. Milk is allowed on a "if you can tolerate it after an elimination trial, raw is ideal if you can get it, favor grass fed" basis. No legumes or grains. Consider these the lacto-ovo-vegetarians.
WAPF -- those who follow the Weston A. Price Foundation guidelines. Grains and legumes only if they're soaked, sprouted, and/or fermented. Dairy only if it's raw. Consider these the pescatarians (like the pescatarians, they don't technically fall under the umbrella term, but they're usually lumped together under a slightly more broad umbrella term).
And for the record, I'm not a fan of the name "Paleo," in part because it does start arguments like this about whether it's a completely accurate name, which detracts from the spirit of the way of eating and builds a popular strawman. Unfortunately, I don't have a better name that makes a good, memorable sound byte and end up with a mouthful like "whole foods based, low-carb, high-fat, moderate protein, grain-free dietary framework." So, arguing over the validity of the name with me is moot.
Primal is great for the meat lovers (carnivores thrive on this diet). Also legumes are welcome - in moderation though!
0 -
buhbyefatso wrote: »You are all major haters. I want my kids to have a love of vegetables and natural things. That's why. It's not a "diet" it's a lifestyle change.
Just not at weekends?0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »so stop critiquing a mom who is trying to do her best to help her kids.
helping your kids is explaining why/how she cooks at home and what macros are.
Helping your kids is making sure you are cooking a variety of food and explaining about moderation.
Helping your kids is explaining why 3 * 3 is the same as 3+3+3 and why a triangle has 3 sides and one side isn't always 90*
Adhering to an admittedly unscientific and completely arbitrary way of eating and just expecting them to eat it because it's what YOU WANT isn't "helping her kids"
PS- don't have kids- have had to feed kids because I was a paid caretaker for almost 3 years.
just you know- to validate myself in your eyes.
Helping kids is also teaching them about nutrition and eating nutritious meals.
Helping kids is also teaching them about how food affects their bodies and minds and about eating food that doesn't make them feel sick or bad in other subtle ways (note -- the OP has never said why she and her family eats Paleo. For all anyone here knows, the kids have Celiac or have recently been told by their doctor to cut out a number of foods and Paleo is a suitable framework to make doing that easier).
Helping kids is also teaching them that a lunch of meat, vegetables, and a side of fruit (mostly "slow burning" fuels, with numerous vitamins and minerals) will fuel their football practice and day of playing better than a lunch of peanut butter and jelly on white bread with a side of fruit (mostly "fast burning" fuels, with fewer vitamins and minerals).
Helping kids is also teaching them how to read nutrition labels and ingredient lists, and teaching them to look beyond the marketing on the front of the container and determine the quality of the contents based on what's in the item in question.
Helping kids is also instilling in them the desire to reach for the whole foods over the refined ones in most cases.
Helping kids is teaching them about weighing the pros and cons of something they want to eat and determining if the pros outweigh the cons at that time (in other words, about making conscious decisions about eating, instead of mindlessly just eating whatever).
All ways of eating are "arbitrary and unscientific." All parents feed their kids something and expect them to at least try it, because it's what the parents want. The parents who feel a sense of responsibility for building good habits in their kids (because there are parents out there who just don't care and will let their kid eat Bon-Bons all day) will do it with foods they consider healthy, based on the knowledge they have.
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I said without all having to call it some ridiculous hookey "diet"0 -
buhbyefatso wrote: »You are all major haters. I want my kids to have a love of vegetables and natural things. That's why. It's not a "diet" it's a lifestyle change.
We're not haters. Just trying to make the point that you can do that without restricting certain foods or food groups.0 -
Liftng4Lis wrote: »
Seriously! Why are you torturing your children with it?GiveMeCoffee wrote: »Why do the kids have to eat paleo or low carb? Because you went on a diet they have to?
I eat LCHF. For family meals, I work it so that my four kids and husband, who do not, have a starch if they want it as well. Potatoes, pasta, rice etc, in addition to the protein/veg. No skin off my back, and I don't low carb because I believe it is morally better, I do it because it helps me stick to my deficit better without suffering alot of hunger. Eventually, as I reverse diet to maintenance, I plan to slowly up my carbs back up (mostly more veg, but some other starchy stuff as well).
0 -
jasonmh630 wrote: »buhbyefatso wrote: »You are all major haters. I want my kids to have a love of vegetables and natural things. That's why. It's not a "diet" it's a lifestyle change.
We're not haters. Just trying to make the point that you can do that without restricting certain foods or food groups.
I think someone should be notifying social services on the OP. I think it's negligent of the OP to be feeding their kids healthy food - I mean these are kids they have a right to choose their own diet.
Who the hell does the OP think they are deciding what food their kids should be eating? What next, they're gonna decide what clothes they can wear. pfft
I was seriously considering getting my son to eat his veg the other day, but in the end couldn't face the shame of feeding him food that has micro nutrients, so I gave him a kinder egg instead - win!
0 -
Their father is a tough nut to crack, he loves bread..but I'm getting there with that. And I have an autistic stepson who refuses to eat almost anything but Pizza Hut and macaroni..if he is eating it while with me on the weekends, I'm not going to force my other kids to watch. So yeah, not on weekends that my beautiful autistic child is there.0
-
The majority of comments I have read are totally hating, mostly only because they can't stand that I used the word PALEO because it describes what we do and do not consume easily.., People know what I meant..I did not imply that it's perfectly Paleolithic. Grow up.-1
-
buhbyefatso wrote: »You are all major haters. I want my kids to have a love of vegetables and natural things. That's why. It's not a "diet" it's a lifestyle change.
lol please..
you can do that without whichever variant of "paleo" you are on ...
Quick questions - what is unhealthy about a paleo diet for kids?
probably over a million food combinations to choose from. Doesn't eliminate any foods which are essential to a healthy diet!
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »jasonmh630 wrote: »buhbyefatso wrote: »You are all major haters. I want my kids to have a love of vegetables and natural things. That's why. It's not a "diet" it's a lifestyle change.
We're not haters. Just trying to make the point that you can do that without restricting certain foods or food groups.
I think someone should be notifying social services on the OP. I think it's negligent of the OP to be feeding their kids healthy food - I mean these are kids they have a right to choose their own diet.
Who the hell does the OP think they are deciding what food their kids should be eating? What next, they're gonna decide what clothes they can wear. pfft
I was seriously considering getting my son to eat his veg the other day, but in the end couldn't face the shame of feeding him food that has micro nutrients, so I gave him a kinder egg instead - win!
Yet again, another strawman argument... Taking things to extremes to make a point. Not once did any one of us say that she shouldn't feed her kids food with micronutrional value.0 -
buhbyefatso wrote: »Their father is a tough nut to crack, he loves bread..but I'm getting there with that. And I have an autistic stepson who refuses to eat almost anything but Pizza Hut and macaroni..if he is eating it while with me on the weekends, I'm not going to force my other kids to watch. So yeah, not on weekends that my beautiful autistic child is there.
I have a friend that has an autistic child... That kid is one of the sweetest people I know.0 -
buhbyefatso wrote: »The majority of comments I have read are totally hating, mostly only because they can't stand that I used the word PALEO because it describes what we do and do not consume easily.., People know what I meant..I did not imply that it's perfectly Paleolithic. Grow up.
Bingo!!!
Jeez I wish I had come up with the name for this diet, the ones that did must be raking in the money - and good luck to them.
-1 -
buhbyefatso wrote: »You are all major haters. I want my kids to have a love of vegetables and natural things. That's why. It's not a "diet" it's a lifestyle change.
Oh wow, not me, I want my kids to have a love of all foods. I want them to know that nothing is off limits and that they can eat all foods in moderation so that when they are choosing school lunch they can feel free to have a corn dog, but they will likely choose carrots and apples to go with it and after dinner we might all have ice cream! I don't want my kids to be restricted from foods now, I fear that may be a short cut to disordered eating in the future...
0 -
jasonmh630 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »jasonmh630 wrote: »buhbyefatso wrote: »You are all major haters. I want my kids to have a love of vegetables and natural things. That's why. It's not a "diet" it's a lifestyle change.
We're not haters. Just trying to make the point that you can do that without restricting certain foods or food groups.
I think someone should be notifying social services on the OP. I think it's negligent of the OP to be feeding their kids healthy food - I mean these are kids they have a right to choose their own diet.
Who the hell does the OP think they are deciding what food their kids should be eating? What next, they're gonna decide what clothes they can wear. pfft
I was seriously considering getting my son to eat his veg the other day, but in the end couldn't face the shame of feeding him food that has micro nutrients, so I gave him a kinder egg instead - win!
Yet again, another strawman argument... Taking things to extremes to make a point. Not once did any one of us say that she shouldn't feed her kids food with micronutrional value.
Not but most of you are saying she shouldn't have freedom to feed her kids what she wants (based on the fact the food is healthy). I take it your kids choose their own menu each day?
Or do you decide for them?
-1 -
I have no idea...I have to assume not...but the ground deer meat sure fits the paleo thing...and that's what I meant by "now that's paleo"
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »jasonmh630 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »jasonmh630 wrote: »buhbyefatso wrote: »You are all major haters. I want my kids to have a love of vegetables and natural things. That's why. It's not a "diet" it's a lifestyle change.
We're not haters. Just trying to make the point that you can do that without restricting certain foods or food groups.
I think someone should be notifying social services on the OP. I think it's negligent of the OP to be feeding their kids healthy food - I mean these are kids they have a right to choose their own diet.
Who the hell does the OP think they are deciding what food their kids should be eating? What next, they're gonna decide what clothes they can wear. pfft
I was seriously considering getting my son to eat his veg the other day, but in the end couldn't face the shame of feeding him food that has micro nutrients, so I gave him a kinder egg instead - win!
Yet again, another strawman argument... Taking things to extremes to make a point. Not once did any one of us say that she shouldn't feed her kids food with micronutrional value.
Not but most of you are saying she shouldn't have freedom to feed her kids what she wants (based on the fact the food is healthy). I take it your kids choose their own menu each day?
Or do you decide for them?
Any time I've ever baby sat a relative's kid/kids, I'd let them have boxed mac n cheese or chicken nuggets if they wanted it... But that's not to say I didn't give them some broccoli or some other vegetable to go with it.0 -
buhbyefatso wrote: »You are all major haters. I want my kids to have a love of vegetables and natural things. That's why. It's not a "diet" it's a lifestyle change.
Oh wow, not me, I want my kids to have a love of all foods. I want them to know that nothing is off limits and that they can eat all foods in moderation so that when they are choosing school lunch they can feel free to have a corn dog, but they will likely choose carrots and apples to go with it and after dinner we might all have ice cream! I don't want my kids to be restricted from foods now, I fear that may be a short cut to disordered eating in the future...
^^^ Hear that? That's the sound of the nail being hit on the head... This is the point from our side.0 -
jasonmh630 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »jasonmh630 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »jasonmh630 wrote: »buhbyefatso wrote: »You are all major haters. I want my kids to have a love of vegetables and natural things. That's why. It's not a "diet" it's a lifestyle change.
We're not haters. Just trying to make the point that you can do that without restricting certain foods or food groups.
I think someone should be notifying social services on the OP. I think it's negligent of the OP to be feeding their kids healthy food - I mean these are kids they have a right to choose their own diet.
Who the hell does the OP think they are deciding what food their kids should be eating? What next, they're gonna decide what clothes they can wear. pfft
I was seriously considering getting my son to eat his veg the other day, but in the end couldn't face the shame of feeding him food that has micro nutrients, so I gave him a kinder egg instead - win!
Yet again, another strawman argument... Taking things to extremes to make a point. Not once did any one of us say that she shouldn't feed her kids food with micronutrional value.
Not but most of you are saying she shouldn't have freedom to feed her kids what she wants (based on the fact the food is healthy). I take it your kids choose their own menu each day?
Or do you decide for them?
Any time I've ever baby sat a relative's kid/kids, I'd let them have boxed mac n cheese or chicken nuggets if they wanted it... But that's not to say I didn't give them some broccoli or some other vegetable to go with it.
So you don't have kids or any real experience of bringing kids up on a healthy diet.
Well thank you for your valuable insights and comments on this thread then!
-2 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »jasonmh630 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »jasonmh630 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »jasonmh630 wrote: »buhbyefatso wrote: »You are all major haters. I want my kids to have a love of vegetables and natural things. That's why. It's not a "diet" it's a lifestyle change.
We're not haters. Just trying to make the point that you can do that without restricting certain foods or food groups.
I think someone should be notifying social services on the OP. I think it's negligent of the OP to be feeding their kids healthy food - I mean these are kids they have a right to choose their own diet.
Who the hell does the OP think they are deciding what food their kids should be eating? What next, they're gonna decide what clothes they can wear. pfft
I was seriously considering getting my son to eat his veg the other day, but in the end couldn't face the shame of feeding him food that has micro nutrients, so I gave him a kinder egg instead - win!
Yet again, another strawman argument... Taking things to extremes to make a point. Not once did any one of us say that she shouldn't feed her kids food with micronutrional value.
Not but most of you are saying she shouldn't have freedom to feed her kids what she wants (based on the fact the food is healthy). I take it your kids choose their own menu each day?
Or do you decide for them?
Any time I've ever baby sat a relative's kid/kids, I'd let them have boxed mac n cheese or chicken nuggets if they wanted it... But that's not to say I didn't give them some broccoli or some other vegetable to go with it.
So you don't have kids or any real experience of bringing kids up on a healthy diet.
Well thank you for your valuable insights and comments on this thread then!
I have never been president- but I sure have deep opinions on the ones that run our country.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »jasonmh630 wrote: »buhbyefatso wrote: »You are all major haters. I want my kids to have a love of vegetables and natural things. That's why. It's not a "diet" it's a lifestyle change.
We're not haters. Just trying to make the point that you can do that without restricting certain foods or food groups.
I think someone should be notifying social services on the OP. I think it's negligent of the OP to be feeding their kids healthy food - I mean these are kids they have a right to choose their own diet.
Who the hell does the OP think they are deciding what food their kids should be eating? What next, they're gonna decide what clothes they can wear. pfft
I was seriously considering getting my son to eat his veg the other day, but in the end couldn't face the shame of feeding him food that has micro nutrients, so I gave him a kinder egg instead - win!
I was raised in the 1970s on a steady diet of breaded food, butter, Crisco, and bacon grease (dad is from the south) - I crack up that anyone would think it is cruel to feed your kids healthy meats and veges, Paleo would have saved many a family member of mine from heart catheters, high blood pressure, and type II diabetes
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »jasonmh630 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »jasonmh630 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »jasonmh630 wrote: »buhbyefatso wrote: »You are all major haters. I want my kids to have a love of vegetables and natural things. That's why. It's not a "diet" it's a lifestyle change.
We're not haters. Just trying to make the point that you can do that without restricting certain foods or food groups.
I think someone should be notifying social services on the OP. I think it's negligent of the OP to be feeding their kids healthy food - I mean these are kids they have a right to choose their own diet.
Who the hell does the OP think they are deciding what food their kids should be eating? What next, they're gonna decide what clothes they can wear. pfft
I was seriously considering getting my son to eat his veg the other day, but in the end couldn't face the shame of feeding him food that has micro nutrients, so I gave him a kinder egg instead - win!
Yet again, another strawman argument... Taking things to extremes to make a point. Not once did any one of us say that she shouldn't feed her kids food with micronutrional value.
Not but most of you are saying she shouldn't have freedom to feed her kids what she wants (based on the fact the food is healthy). I take it your kids choose their own menu each day?
Or do you decide for them?
Any time I've ever baby sat a relative's kid/kids, I'd let them have boxed mac n cheese or chicken nuggets if they wanted it... But that's not to say I didn't give them some broccoli or some other vegetable to go with it.
So you don't have kids or any real experience of bringing kids up on a healthy diet.
Well thank you for your valuable insights and comments on this thread then!
Not having kids of my own doesn't make it inherently invalid.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions