Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Elementary School Gym teachers telling kids to restrict calories!
Replies
-
Wow.. as a recovering bulimic this bothers me like crazy. Sounds like she's just projecting her problems on these innocent kids who at that age are like sponges. I'm all about promoting a healthy lifestyle for children (play, sports, more fruits & veggies, etc) but suggesting they count/burn off calories is absolutely insane. My heart breaks for these kids who are taught to worry about their appearance at such a young age. Awful.
You know as well as I do that it's not just about appearances. Childhood obesity and T2D are becoming very real problems, very quickly.4 -
The attitudes expressed here help explain why obesity is rampant in our young.
This is a trend we can't allow to persist
5 -
LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »Also to the ignorant people who keep saying it's the parents fault. I do not have an eating disorder. That was 10 years ago. Also no longer married to his biological father who had one. I don't diet or restrict food. I eat healthy but don't talk about fat or calories or bad foods.
So, you don't talk about basic nutrition with your kids? And, we wonder why kids have no clue, and why they have to teach it in school...
My daughters will be 17 in 2 months and I've never made much of an issue about fat or calories. We've discussed the need for milk/water over soda, fruit and veggies are important, and candy/cakes are a sometimes thing. Both girls are at a very healthy weight range. You don't have to make an issue about calories to teach nutrition. Besides, as has been discussed numerous times on this board nutrition is not the same as the number of calories consumed.
Basic nutrition is founded on caloric content. You track caloric intake first, then macros, then micros. This is basic nutritional information.
I mean hell, your name is LowCarb. I suppose that says enough.
By your logic my kids should be obese, then, and they're not. As for my being low carb, that is definitely about the nutrition first, calories second.
If they're not now, there's a good chance they'll be here, in the newbie section, in a few years, wondering why they are eating low-carb, but still not able to lose weight.
As for low-carb, that has naught to do with nutrition, really. You can get complete nutrition, without going low-carb. I know I pound back a great deal of carbs, am at a healthy weight, and hit all of my macros and micros.
Maybe they will be overweight, but they'll have a good idea of what is and isn't healthy eating. They do understand calories, but its not the main thing they're concerned about. Low carb does have something to do with nutrition for me as I'm diabetic and don't process a lot of carbs. I'm glad you've found what works for you, you might consider allowing others the same consideration.
Unfortunately, they wont have a clue, still, about what healthy eating really means, which boils down to: Hit your caloric goals, to maintain a healthy weight, hit your macro split regularly, and make sure you're getting the micros you need as well.
And yes, different macro splits work best for different people, I get that. But, it's not all about macro splits. The order of precedence is as I laid out above, and to not teach kids the foundations of nutrition (Which include calories) is a disservice, and setting them up for failure in the future.
With all due respect, you really don't have a clue what my kids do and don't know at this moment, or will know in the future. You're guessing based on a small amount of information. What I know is that my kids eat healthy, are healthy, and have a good relationship with food. I'm good with that. They know about calories, they can choose to count them or not. Seeing as they're very nearly adults I think that is their decision. As for macros, you brought up the low carb thing, not me. I simply explained why I do it.
I am making an educated assumption based on the information you've provided, ie, your children lack basic understanding of nutrition at it's fundamental level, and as such, are ill-equipped at this point in time to make good nutrition decisions in the future, and will likely fall victim to "fat logic" at some point in the future, much like most individuals who lack the same information.4 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Wow.. as a recovering bulimic this bothers me like crazy. Sounds like she's just projecting her problems on these innocent kids who at that age are like sponges. I'm all about promoting a healthy lifestyle for children (play, sports, more fruits & veggies, etc) but suggesting they count/burn off calories is absolutely insane. My heart breaks for these kids who are taught to worry about their appearance at such a young age. Awful.
You know as well as I do that it's not just about appearances. Childhood obesity and T2D are becoming very real problems, very quickly.
I absolutely agree with this, and I do believe nutrition should be taught in school, but having children become so focused on calorie counting so early in their lives just seems inappropriate to me. Teach them about proteins, carbs, healthy fats - the purpose they serve. Teach them that water is the healthiest option. Junk food should be eaten in moderation. Make sure you eat when you're hungry, not when you're bored. Move more, join sports, play outside, etc. Even things that are so basic like this would help make a difference in childhood obesity. I wouldn't want any teacher telling my child that she ate a few nuts for dinner as to not go above her calories, that's suggesting restriction. Restriction leads to wanting "bad" foods, wanting "bad" foods leads to binges, which leads to weight gain. It just seems like it's coming from a negative place to me from what the OP said. Bottom line, the real issue is that parents need to be educated & schools need to stop serving terrible foods to these kids.4 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Wow.. as a recovering bulimic this bothers me like crazy. Sounds like she's just projecting her problems on these innocent kids who at that age are like sponges. I'm all about promoting a healthy lifestyle for children (play, sports, more fruits & veggies, etc) but suggesting they count/burn off calories is absolutely insane. My heart breaks for these kids who are taught to worry about their appearance at such a young age. Awful.
You know as well as I do that it's not just about appearances. Childhood obesity and T2D are becoming very real problems, very quickly.
I absolutely agree with this, and I do believe nutrition should be taught in school, but having children become so focused on calorie counting so early in their lives just seems inappropriate to me. Teach them about proteins, carbs, healthy fats - the purpose they serve. Teach them that water is the healthiest option. Junk food should be eaten in moderation. Make sure you eat when you're hungry, not when you're bored. Move more, join sports, play outside, etc. Even things that are so basic like this would help make a difference in childhood obesity. I wouldn't want any teacher telling my child that she ate a few nuts for dinner as to not go above her calories, that's suggesting restriction. Restriction leads to wanting "bad" foods, wanting "bad" foods leads to binges, which leads to weight gain. It just seems like it's coming from a negative place to me from what the OP said. Bottom line, the real issue is that parents need to be educated & schools need to stop serving terrible foods to these kids.
I will absolutely agree with your last statement, and definitely the parts about physical activity.
I also tend to forget that few people are as robotic as I am, when it comes to food. I eat numbers based fuel, essentially. The whole boredom/emotional/inner child/social eating thing doesn't apply to me, so I will never understand those that deal with it. I've always been that way, I was just working with a flawed knowledge of the numbers, genetic beliefs, etc. for many years, that led to my being obese from ages ten to twenty-eight.1 -
If the gym teacher is just eating nuts for dinner, she should keep that to herself. Kids have enough pressure without worrying about body image. They should learn portion control, as should she is she ate all of her calories earlier in the day. They should learn whats good whats bad. Healthy habits, diet and exercise. Teacher needs a class or two in nutrition.
2 -
coreyreichle wrote: »LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »Also to the ignorant people who keep saying it's the parents fault. I do not have an eating disorder. That was 10 years ago. Also no longer married to his biological father who had one. I don't diet or restrict food. I eat healthy but don't talk about fat or calories or bad foods.
So, you don't talk about basic nutrition with your kids? And, we wonder why kids have no clue, and why they have to teach it in school...
My daughters will be 17 in 2 months and I've never made much of an issue about fat or calories. We've discussed the need for milk/water over soda, fruit and veggies are important, and candy/cakes are a sometimes thing. Both girls are at a very healthy weight range. You don't have to make an issue about calories to teach nutrition. Besides, as has been discussed numerous times on this board nutrition is not the same as the number of calories consumed.
Basic nutrition is founded on caloric content. You track caloric intake first, then macros, then micros. This is basic nutritional information.
I mean hell, your name is LowCarb. I suppose that says enough.
By your logic my kids should be obese, then, and they're not. As for my being low carb, that is definitely about the nutrition first, calories second.
If they're not now, there's a good chance they'll be here, in the newbie section, in a few years, wondering why they are eating low-carb, but still not able to lose weight.
As for low-carb, that has naught to do with nutrition, really. You can get complete nutrition, without going low-carb. I know I pound back a great deal of carbs, am at a healthy weight, and hit all of my macros and micros.
Maybe they will be overweight, but they'll have a good idea of what is and isn't healthy eating. They do understand calories, but its not the main thing they're concerned about. Low carb does have something to do with nutrition for me as I'm diabetic and don't process a lot of carbs. I'm glad you've found what works for you, you might consider allowing others the same consideration.
Unfortunately, they wont have a clue, still, about what healthy eating really means, which boils down to: Hit your caloric goals, to maintain a healthy weight, hit your macro split regularly, and make sure you're getting the micros you need as well.
And yes, different macro splits work best for different people, I get that. But, it's not all about macro splits. The order of precedence is as I laid out above, and to not teach kids the foundations of nutrition (Which include calories) is a disservice, and setting them up for failure in the future.
With all due respect, you really don't have a clue what my kids do and don't know at this moment, or will know in the future. You're guessing based on a small amount of information. What I know is that my kids eat healthy, are healthy, and have a good relationship with food. I'm good with that. They know about calories, they can choose to count them or not. Seeing as they're very nearly adults I think that is their decision. As for macros, you brought up the low carb thing, not me. I simply explained why I do it.
I am making an educated assumption based on the information you've provided, ie, your children lack basic understanding of nutrition at it's fundamental level, and as such, are ill-equipped at this point in time to make good nutrition decisions in the future, and will likely fall victim to "fat logic" at some point in the future, much like most individuals who lack the same information.
No, they don't, but nice try.2 -
punkahontas71 wrote: »If the gym teacher is just eating nuts for dinner, she should keep that to herself. Kids have enough pressure without worrying about body image. They should learn portion control, as should she is she ate all of her calories earlier in the day. They should learn whats good whats bad. Healthy habits, diet and exercise. Teacher needs a class or two in nutrition.
Ehh, it's IIFYM at it's finest. Look at what you have to work with at the end of the day and make it fit. Fortunately for her, nuts tend to provide great satiety for their volume/weight.3 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Wow.. as a recovering bulimic this bothers me like crazy. Sounds like she's just projecting her problems on these innocent kids who at that age are like sponges. I'm all about promoting a healthy lifestyle for children (play, sports, more fruits & veggies, etc) but suggesting they count/burn off calories is absolutely insane. My heart breaks for these kids who are taught to worry about their appearance at such a young age. Awful.
You know as well as I do that it's not just about appearances. Childhood obesity and T2D are becoming very real problems, very quickly.
I absolutely agree with this, and I do believe nutrition should be taught in school, but having children become so focused on calorie counting so early in their lives just seems inappropriate to me. Teach them about proteins, carbs, healthy fats - the purpose they serve. Teach them that water is the healthiest option. Junk food should be eaten in moderation. Make sure you eat when you're hungry, not when you're bored. Move more, join sports, play outside, etc. Even things that are so basic like this would help make a difference in childhood obesity. I wouldn't want any teacher telling my child that she ate a few nuts for dinner as to not go above her calories, that's suggesting restriction. Restriction leads to wanting "bad" foods, wanting "bad" foods leads to binges, which leads to weight gain. It just seems like it's coming from a negative place to me from what the OP said. Bottom line, the real issue is that parents need to be educated & schools need to stop serving terrible foods to these kids.
Are you (generic you) supporting school board candidates that are willing to raise taxes, lunch costs, etc to get the funds to provide for this?4 -
The attitudes expressed here help explain why obesity is rampant in our young.
This is a trend we can't allow to persist
I am concerned about childhood obesity - even though, as I understand it, there are some recent signs of possible improvement in the rates. But this chart kinda makes me SMH.
As an infographic, it uses several of the tricks for manipulating perception of statistics. It shows percentages, but cuts off the top end before 100, which tends to make those numbers seem like a higher proportion of some imputed whole. The visual presentation is as if it's tilted away from us, which makes us perceive the bars as taller, too.
Is it wrong? Not that I know of. But it's the infographic equivalent of prose with lots of scary adjectives, and excess underlines and exclamation points. It's trying to play us.
You could look at it in two ways:- Yikes! The obesity rate has doubled for young children, and tripled for teens!!!
- Though there's been material increase in obesity rates, five out of six children or teens - the overwhelming majority - are not obese.
I'm not saying either interpretation is right or wrong. I'm saying the chart is loading the dice for interpretation #1.11 -
The attitudes expressed here help explain why obesity is rampant in our young.
This is a trend we can't allow to persist
I am concerned about childhood obesity - even though, as I understand it, there are some recent signs of possible improvement in the rates. But this chart kinda makes me SMH.
As an infographic, it uses several of the tricks for manipulating perception of statistics. It shows percentages, but cuts off the top end before 100, which tends to make those numbers seem like a higher proportion of some imputed whole. The visual presentation is as if it's tilted away from us, which makes us perceive the bars as taller, too.
Is it wrong? Not that I know of. But it's the infographic equivalent of prose with lots of scary adjectives, and excess underlines and exclamation points. It's trying to play us.
You could look at it in two ways:- Yikes! The obesity rate has doubled for young children, and tripled for teens!!!
- Though there's been material increase in obesity rates, five out of six children or teens - the overwhelming majority - are not obese.
I'm not saying either interpretation is right or wrong. I'm saying the chart is loading the dice for interpretation #1.
Pffftttt. Your logic and critical thinking skills have no place here. Don't you know that sensationalized infographics are where the truth lies!9 -
and how does that percentage compare with the change in demographics for those age groups0
-
WinoGelato wrote: »The attitudes expressed here help explain why obesity is rampant in our young.
This is a trend we can't allow to persist
I am concerned about childhood obesity - even though, as I understand it, there are some recent signs of possible improvement in the rates. But this chart kinda makes me SMH.
As an infographic, it uses several of the tricks for manipulating perception of statistics. It shows percentages, but cuts off the top end before 100, which tends to make those numbers seem like a higher proportion of some imputed whole. The visual presentation is as if it's tilted away from us, which makes us perceive the bars as taller, too.
Is it wrong? Not that I know of. But it's the infographic equivalent of prose with lots of scary adjectives, and excess underlines and exclamation points. It's trying to play us.
You could look at it in two ways:- Yikes! The obesity rate has doubled for young children, and tripled for teens!!!
- Though there's been material increase in obesity rates, five out of six children or teens - the overwhelming majority - are not obese.
I'm not saying either interpretation is right or wrong. I'm saying the chart is loading the dice for interpretation #1.
Pffftttt. Your logic and critical thinking skills have no place here. Don't you know that sensationalized infographics are where the truth lies!
(Snort!)
Thanks, @WinoGelato - I needed that.
But while I'm at it: Why is a 4-year period (1976-80) being compared to a 6 year period (1988-94) and a 2-year period (1999-2000). (What does a population percent over a multi-year time period even mean, anyway?) And why are there gaps between those time periods?
Smells like data manipulation!
LOL.5 -
WinoGelato wrote: »The attitudes expressed here help explain why obesity is rampant in our young.
This is a trend we can't allow to persist
I am concerned about childhood obesity - even though, as I understand it, there are some recent signs of possible improvement in the rates. But this chart kinda makes me SMH.
As an infographic, it uses several of the tricks for manipulating perception of statistics. It shows percentages, but cuts off the top end before 100, which tends to make those numbers seem like a higher proportion of some imputed whole. The visual presentation is as if it's tilted away from us, which makes us perceive the bars as taller, too.
Is it wrong? Not that I know of. But it's the infographic equivalent of prose with lots of scary adjectives, and excess underlines and exclamation points. It's trying to play us.
You could look at it in two ways:- Yikes! The obesity rate has doubled for young children, and tripled for teens!!!
- Though there's been material increase in obesity rates, five out of six children or teens - the overwhelming majority - are not obese.
I'm not saying either interpretation is right or wrong. I'm saying the chart is loading the dice for interpretation #1.
Pffftttt. Your logic and critical thinking skills have no place here. Don't you know that sensationalized infographics are where the truth lies!
(Snort!)
Thanks, @WinoGelato - I needed that.
But while I'm at it: Why is a 4-year period (1976-80) being compared to a 6 year period (1988-94) and a 2-year period (1999-2000). (What does a population percent over a multi-year time period even mean, anyway?) And why are there gaps between those time periods?
Smells like data manipulation!
LOL.
I wish there was a way to correlate (cause hey, everyone knows correlation is all you need!) infographics with a specific behavior change...
I feel that infographics strongly contribute to the dumbing down of society because people can be influenced by the way the infographics represent (or misrepresent) scientific data and people draw errant conclusions from that information, which can influence their behavior.
3 -
WinoGelato wrote: »I wish there was a way to correlate (cause hey, everyone knows correlation is all you need!) infographics with a specific behavior change...
Apparently the Nintendo Game Boy came out in 1989 and the PlayStation 2 in 2000 - would that do it? Stop playing outside and start sitting on the couch with a game! 3 -
Childhood obesity is a huge problem. At the same time, she doesn;t know what she's talking about.1
-
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »The attitudes expressed here help explain why obesity is rampant in our young.
This is a trend we can't allow to persist
I am concerned about childhood obesity - even though, as I understand it, there are some recent signs of possible improvement in the rates. But this chart kinda makes me SMH.
As an infographic, it uses several of the tricks for manipulating perception of statistics. It shows percentages, but cuts off the top end before 100, which tends to make those numbers seem like a higher proportion of some imputed whole. The visual presentation is as if it's tilted away from us, which makes us perceive the bars as taller, too.
Is it wrong? Not that I know of. But it's the infographic equivalent of prose with lots of scary adjectives, and excess underlines and exclamation points. It's trying to play us.
You could look at it in two ways:- Yikes! The obesity rate has doubled for young children, and tripled for teens!!!
- Though there's been material increase in obesity rates, five out of six children or teens - the overwhelming majority - are not obese.
I'm not saying either interpretation is right or wrong. I'm saying the chart is loading the dice for interpretation #1.
Pffftttt. Your logic and critical thinking skills have no place here. Don't you know that sensationalized infographics are where the truth lies!
(Snort!)
Thanks, @WinoGelato - I needed that.
But while I'm at it: Why is a 4-year period (1976-80) being compared to a 6 year period (1988-94) and a 2-year period (1999-2000). (What does a population percent over a multi-year time period even mean, anyway?) And why are there gaps between those time periods?
Smells like data manipulation!
LOL.
I wish there was a way to correlate (cause hey, everyone knows correlation is all you need!) infographics with a specific behavior change...
I feel that infographics strongly contribute to the dumbing down of society because people can be influenced by the way the infographics represent (or misrepresent) scientific data and people draw errant conclusions from that information, which can influence their behavior.
Infographics don't have to do this. Good data visualizations are incredibly helpful. It's like broad-audience writing about science: Most of it is awful, manipulative (intentionally, or not), and misleading. But the best tiny percentage is really excellent, and adds to insight.
What we need is a more discriminating quality of consumer. But I'm not sure how we do that.
Apologies - I'm off topic.1 -
Update: meeting was today. The principal totally agreed and has put a temporary stop to any nutritional teaching in gym until they can implement a new plan. The gym teacher .. didn't deny telling the kids that she went to bed hungry after consuming her calories for the day.. she did get very defensive.. which the principal said was wrong of her to do. On a side note he even said after she left the room that he didn't even agree with the way she was teaching fitness. I'm not sure why she's still employed.
Sorry, didn't see this until now. Glad you met with them. That was a good call.
1 -
My son is in cub scouts, and they had to learn about calorie counting for a recent badge. He's in fourth grade, and has no concept of obesity, weight loss, or calorie counting. They tracked calories for a week. They talked about how many calories were in what types of foods.
I think it is absolute hogwash. It's worse than worthless; it is truly damaging advice. However, I didn't try to say anything about it during his scouts meeting. I know that the vast majority of people are largely misinformed. At home, I make up for this mainstream garbage by sharing evidence-based nutrition information. Calories are a meaningless measurement, based on no concrete evidence concerning human physiology. No calorie study ever has shown that people actually lose or gain weight in direct proportion to calories-in-calories-out.
I teach my children how to distinguish real, nutrient-dense food from processed, nutrient-poor foods. How to avoid the latter in order to avoid both obesity and a whole slew of chronic illnesses. I teach them how to enjoy the rich and wholesome foods given to us by nature. I also cook almost every meal and pack their lunches at school. IMO, children should not be learning industry-sponsored dogma to count calories, they should be learning sound nutritional principles for understanding what their growing bodies need--however, if we were to do that, we wouldn't turn them into hungry little obesity-prone consumers of cheap, but profitable processed foods.2 -
My son is in cub scouts, and they had to learn about calorie counting for a recent badge. He's in fourth grade, and has no concept of obesity, weight loss, or calorie counting. They tracked calories for a week. They talked about how many calories were in what types of foods.
I think it is absolute hogwash. It's worse than worthless; it is truly damaging advice. However, I didn't try to say anything about it during his scouts meeting. I know that the vast majority of people are largely misinformed. At home, I make up for this mainstream garbage by sharing evidence-based nutrition information. Calories are a meaningless measurement, based on no concrete evidence concerning human physiology. No calorie study ever has shown that people actually lose or gain weight in direct proportion to calories-in-calories-out.
I teach my children how to distinguish real, nutrient-dense food from processed, nutrient-poor foods. How to avoid the latter in order to avoid both obesity and a whole slew of chronic illnesses. I teach them how to enjoy the rich and wholesome foods given to us by nature. I also cook almost every meal and pack their lunches at school. IMO, children should not be learning industry-sponsored dogma to count calories, they should be learning sound nutritional principles for understanding what their growing bodies need--however, if we were to do that, we wouldn't turn them into hungry little obesity-prone consumers of cheap, but profitable processed foods.
Just curious, what type of evidence based nutrition information are you referring to? I believe most people with a PhD in nutrition behind their name would not consider calories a meaningless measure.14 -
For those who tend towards analysis paralysis, you could have used google.
CDC is reliable source
https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/index.html
Or what about the NIH
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statistics/Pages/overweight-obesity-statistics.aspx2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »The attitudes expressed here help explain why obesity is rampant in our young.
This is a trend we can't allow to persist
I am concerned about childhood obesity - even though, as I understand it, there are some recent signs of possible improvement in the rates. But this chart kinda makes me SMH.
As an infographic, it uses several of the tricks for manipulating perception of statistics. It shows percentages, but cuts off the top end before 100, which tends to make those numbers seem like a higher proportion of some imputed whole. The visual presentation is as if it's tilted away from us, which makes us perceive the bars as taller, too.
Is it wrong? Not that I know of. But it's the infographic equivalent of prose with lots of scary adjectives, and excess underlines and exclamation points. It's trying to play us.
You could look at it in two ways:- Yikes! The obesity rate has doubled for young children, and tripled for teens!!!
- Though there's been material increase in obesity rates, five out of six children or teens - the overwhelming majority - are not obese.
I'm not saying either interpretation is right or wrong. I'm saying the chart is loading the dice for interpretation #1.
Pffftttt. Your logic and critical thinking skills have no place here. Don't you know that sensationalized infographics are where the truth lies!
(Snort!)
Thanks, @WinoGelato - I needed that.
But while I'm at it: Why is a 4-year period (1976-80) being compared to a 6 year period (1988-94) and a 2-year period (1999-2000). (What does a population percent over a multi-year time period even mean, anyway?) And why are there gaps between those time periods?
Smells like data manipulation!
LOL.
I wish there was a way to correlate (cause hey, everyone knows correlation is all you need!) infographics with a specific behavior change...
I feel that infographics strongly contribute to the dumbing down of society because people can be influenced by the way the infographics represent (or misrepresent) scientific data and people draw errant conclusions from that information, which can influence their behavior.
Infographics don't have to do this. Good data visualizations are incredibly helpful. It's like broad-audience writing about science: Most of it is awful, manipulative (intentionally, or not), and misleading. But the best tiny percentage is really excellent, and adds to insight.
What we need is a more discriminating quality of consumer. But I'm not sure how we do that.
Apologies - I'm off topic.
Good points, though.1 -
Aren't 1/3 of Americans obese and another 1/3 of us overweight? It seems like the teacher is trying to teach the kids to eat healthily. I would imagine that there is a curriculum that she teaches from, few teachers just make it up. I would first CONFIRM that the teacher is teaching kids to count calories. If so I would explain to the TEACHER about eating for strength, and limiting "treats" such as Pepsi and candy bars. If she is teaching in accordance with the curriculum or doesn't see the wisdom of your ways, talk to the department head, principal, superintendent, PTA, etc., especially to get the CURRICULUM changed.1
-
When I was a kid, I probably ate about 5,000 calories a day and could never fatten up at all. I was always really skinny. Even in high school I wasn't extraordinarily active but still couldn't build muscle or add some fat.
I know all kids are different but I do wonder what it would have taken for me to become an obese kid (not that I was trying).1 -
caroldavison332 wrote: »I would imagine that there is a curriculum that she teaches from
Based on what has been said in the thread, no, this does not seem to be the case.
I'm all for teaching nutrition, healthy eating, what calories are, etc., but that really does not seem to be what happened in this anecdote, and if you haven't read the follow up it's worth doing so.1 -
I'd be pissed. IMO , encouraging children to make better food choices is more important than having them " watch their calories ." What qualifications does this physical education teacher have to be giving nutritional advice? I encourage you to continue to keep an open dialogue with your son about food ( like you've been doing ) and possibly consider seeing a couselor if you feel it's necessary . I have a family history of eating disorders as well so I totally understand where you're coming from.
Best of luck
2 -
It sounds to me like the teacher is a NUT. She had to eat a handful of nuts for dinner bc she went over her calories? Why was that even useful information for a 2nd grader? And who does that ? Maybe she should be teaching kids, like we tell each other on here, hey if you mess up one day, dust it off and start over the next day. Sounds to me like she needs some help outside of the classroom... yes you teach kids about eating healthy and physical activity... but this crazy lady sounds like shes trying to teach them into low self esteem and eating disorders. Nothing to do with being "butthurt"ugh anytime anyone uses the term "butthurt" i know there is no real conversation to be had with them.1
-
Packerjohn wrote: »My son is in cub scouts, and they had to learn about calorie counting for a recent badge. He's in fourth grade, and has no concept of obesity, weight loss, or calorie counting. They tracked calories for a week. They talked about how many calories were in what types of foods.
I think it is absolute hogwash. It's worse than worthless; it is truly damaging advice. However, I didn't try to say anything about it during his scouts meeting. I know that the vast majority of people are largely misinformed. At home, I make up for this mainstream garbage by sharing evidence-based nutrition information. Calories are a meaningless measurement, based on no concrete evidence concerning human physiology. No calorie study ever has shown that people actually lose or gain weight in direct proportion to calories-in-calories-out.
I teach my children how to distinguish real, nutrient-dense food from processed, nutrient-poor foods. How to avoid the latter in order to avoid both obesity and a whole slew of chronic illnesses. I teach them how to enjoy the rich and wholesome foods given to us by nature. I also cook almost every meal and pack their lunches at school. IMO, children should not be learning industry-sponsored dogma to count calories, they should be learning sound nutritional principles for understanding what their growing bodies need--however, if we were to do that, we wouldn't turn them into hungry little obesity-prone consumers of cheap, but profitable processed foods.
Just curious, what type of evidence based nutrition information are you referring to? I believe most people with a PhD in nutrition behind their name would not consider calories a meaningless measure.
Oh, really? @Packerjohn Do you have a PhD in nutrition behind your name? Maybe you can explain the deep scientific validity of the calorie. Your response demonstrates a classic logical fallacy known as an appeal to authority. It sounds convincing, but actually undermines the soundness your argument.
A calorie is a measurement of energy--originating from chemical engineering work with heat engines. In chemistry, it is the amount of energy required to raise 1 gm of water by 1 degree Celsius. The calories you see on food packages are actually kilo-calories. The kilo-calories in food were originally determined by placing the food in a bomb calorimeter, a sealed container surrounded by water. The food was burned and the resulting rise in water temperature was measured. Now the calorie content of the majority of food is determined indirectly by estimations based on the macro-nutrient composition--this estimation is also based on estimations for fat (9 calories), protein (4 calories), and carbohydrate (4 calories). This whole theory is based on the assumption that the human body uses food energy in the same way as a bomb calorimeter--and also that the human body directly burns all calories. This is false on many levels. Our bodies can use different types of calories for a wide variety of uses: building tissues or enzymes, replenishing lost glycogen, burning energy, or storing body fat. Even the fact that a pound of human body fat equals 3,500 calories is speculation based on the estimation that human fat tissue is approximately 87% fat by weight.
1lb ~ 454 gm
454 gm x 87% ~ 395 gm
395 gm x 9 calories ~ 3,555 calories
Again, this formula is based on math estimations, not human physiology, and it has never been proven directly by any human study. Instead, evidence shows that the human body resists weight loss and weight gain through a variety of hormonal processes, by slowing or increasing BMR as needed. Human physiology is far more complicated than a calorie theory can encompass. Trusting in calories-in-calories-out for weight loss is the reason why all dieting consistently fails across the board, why obesity is rampant, and why mainstream seems confounded with understanding why (but certainly happy with all the profits on processed food, dieting products, and finally pharmaceuticals).4
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
- 424 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