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!

11920222425

Replies

  • leanjogreen18
    leanjogreen18 Posts: 2,492 Member
    edited April 2017
    The picture source is poo.

    But TO ME it's a photo op so she's holding 2 cupcakes showing cupcakes in general and in moderation are ok. But she's only holding one up high like one cupcake is moderation. Thats what I get from this pic.

    Side note I hate cupcakes so maybe I look at it as who would even eat 2:)?

  • VeryKatie
    VeryKatie Posts: 5,869 Member
    edited April 2017
    dbanks80 wrote: »
    dbanks80 wrote: »
    dbanks80 wrote: »
    First of all kids need proper calorie intake for proper growth. If kids are active they should be able to eat what they want. If concerned about eating healthy teach healthy eating habits. They should not be counting calories and going to the extremes this teacher is teaching them.

    She is setting those kids up for an eating disorder and she should be reported to the administration. I think that is absolutely horrible.

    I would disagree with most of this. Children should never be allowed to eat what they want. They'd likely live on chips and candy. Parents should teach children how to eat properly - proper portions along with proper nutrition.

    I should revise what I said. I certainly don't advocate them eating junk food all day long. I meant eat as much as they want until they are full. Not feeling like they should have to restrict calories. My sons played sports throughout their youth so when we had dinner if they were hungry I let them eat until they were full. And my oldest could put away some food. Because they are so active they burn it off fast. They are grown men and they make good food choices and they very active by working out.

    I bolded a very problematic statement here.

    Nobody should be eating until they are full. If you are getting the "full feeling", you've ate too much. And, because we are teaching lessons like this to our kids, they are becoming obese.

    Well my sons are 25 and 22. They have very little body fat, lift weights every day and have no weight problem whatsoever. So it worked in my household.

    I think that "eating till you're full" is a good method. However, it needs to be paired with "waiting to eat until you're actually hungry". I think both sensations are important. This is likely the whole story of what you implemented, I just wanted to add a few words.

    Nothing wrong with feeling full. Nothing wrong with feeling hungry (healthy hungry... keeping in context of people who have access to food when they need it). It's about balancing the cues from our bodies.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Because there's no way an increase in eating disorders might correlate with an increase in the numbers of people who are overweight, amirite? /sarcastic

    People with eating disorders are all romantically skinny, yeah?

    People with bulimia are frequently within the normal weight range or are underweight. People with anorexia nervosa are by definition significantly underweight.

    Unless you're talking about compulsive overeating or binge eating, which both require caloric restriction to stop doing.
    Yees. That would be why I didn't specify anorexia or bulimia. ;) Would you prefer the words the other way around, as in "disordered eating"?

    EDIT: "which both require caloric restriction to stop doing"

    *raised eyebrow*

    Really? I rather thought calorific restriction, i.e. not binging, came about after treatment and intervention, including, but not limited to, cognitive behavioural therapy, support groups, etc.

    Treating binge-eating disorder with restriction sounds a bit like helping someone to stop smoking by hiding the cigarettes- they can just buy more.

    Are you serious?

    Alcohol addiction is treated by stopping drinking alcohol.
    Drug addiction is treated by stopping doing drugs.
    Nicotine addiction is treated by quitting smoking and/or chewing tobacco.

    We absolutely do help people stop addictive behaviors by removing them from the things they are addicted to. There is an entire industry built around it, where people go to stay for a month or more just to be kept away from the things they are addicted to. While not the only part of the treatment, it's most definitely a necessary part of it.
    Yes. I am absolutely serious. The result of successful treatment for alcohol dependence and similar is that they stop drinking long-term even when they're free to go out and buy it.

    Temporarily preventing someone from binging is not treatment! I don't think 'cold turkey' programs are very effective on their own and this is particularly so with addictions that are more psychologically addictive than physically.

    Then why do they not let drug addicts have drugs in rehab? (No, I'm not talking about withdrawl medications like suboxone)
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    I don't know where that pic is from but because she is holding one up couldn't it also mean just one cupcake?

    In real life because someone bakes 2 dozen cookies doesn't mean they eat them all in one sitting.

    I feel most people seeing that picture would consider that since she is holding 2 cupcakes she is going to eat the 500-1000 worth of cupcakes.

    Wouldn't a better picture indicating moderation be the obese teen holding half a cupcake?

    The photo is not really about moderation. HAES is not who I'd go to for a discussion of moderation.

    That does not discredit the concept of moderation.

    Agree moderation is fine. The picture, IMO, does claim to be about moderation. If not why would the caption under the obese teen holding 2 cupcakes, says "I stand for moderation".

    The picture is not a good example of moderation.

    Isn't that what I said?

    Again, HAES is not who I'd go to as a credible source about moderation.

    That HAES puts out silly stuff that they claim is about "moderation" is about as surprising as that some dictator claims to win 95% of the vote in a "free" election. Neither is a credible source, neither actually discredits the words that they pervert when those words are used by other, more credible people, so I don't see how "HAES says something stupid" is relevant here. The apparent claim was "HAES misuses moderation" so anyone else talking aout "moderation" really is pro staying fat, and that's just false, of course.

    All the more reason to counter that kind of thing in school by teaching facts about calorie intake and real moderation.

    Um, are you trying to argue against something I said against doing that? If so, please quote, because I don't recall doing so.

    I do think that it's important to do so in a thoughtful, sensible way, and that a school unit planned to be appropriate for the students' ages makes more sense than some teacher going on about how if you overeat you need to not have dinner outside of any actual planned curriculum. Seems like the school in question agreed too.
  • HeliumIsNoble
    HeliumIsNoble Posts: 1,222 Member
    Because there's no way an increase in eating disorders might correlate with an increase in the numbers of people who are overweight, amirite? /sarcastic

    People with eating disorders are all romantically skinny, yeah?

    People with bulimia are frequently within the normal weight range or are underweight. People with anorexia nervosa are by definition significantly underweight.

    Unless you're talking about compulsive overeating or binge eating, which both require caloric restriction to stop doing.
    Yees. That would be why I didn't specify anorexia or bulimia. ;) Would you prefer the words the other way around, as in "disordered eating"?

    EDIT: "which both require caloric restriction to stop doing"

    *raised eyebrow*

    Really? I rather thought calorific restriction, i.e. not binging, came about after treatment and intervention, including, but not limited to, cognitive behavioural therapy, support groups, etc.

    Treating binge-eating disorder with restriction sounds a bit like helping someone to stop smoking by hiding the cigarettes- they can just buy more.

    Are you serious?

    Alcohol addiction is treated by stopping drinking alcohol.
    Drug addiction is treated by stopping doing drugs.
    Nicotine addiction is treated by quitting smoking and/or chewing tobacco.

    We absolutely do help people stop addictive behaviors by removing them from the things they are addicted to. There is an entire industry built around it, where people go to stay for a month or more just to be kept away from the things they are addicted to. While not the only part of the treatment, it's most definitely a necessary part of it.
    Yes. I am absolutely serious. The result of successful treatment for alcohol dependence and similar is that they stop drinking long-term even when they're free to go out and buy it.

    Temporarily preventing someone from binging is not treatment! I don't think 'cold turkey' programs are very effective on their own and this is particularly so with addictions that are more psychologically addictive than physically.

    Then why do they not let drug addicts have drugs in rehab? (No, I'm not talking about withdrawl medications like suboxone)

    I'm not sure you're replying to the substance of my post. Let's just recap here. I said:
    I don't think 'cold turkey' programs are very effective on their own and this is particularly so with addictions that are more psychologically addictive than physically.
    and this tangential discussion came about after you said that the treatment for emotional eating and binge eating was calorific restriction. (I was rather expecting you to clarify your sentence, btw.)

    Given this context, telling me either that 'cold turkey' programs exist, or that clinics with an integrated approach exist (I'm not sure which you meant) doesn't really have any relevance to my opinion.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Because there's no way an increase in eating disorders might correlate with an increase in the numbers of people who are overweight, amirite? /sarcastic

    People with eating disorders are all romantically skinny, yeah?

    People with bulimia are frequently within the normal weight range or are underweight. People with anorexia nervosa are by definition significantly underweight.

    Unless you're talking about compulsive overeating or binge eating, which both require caloric restriction to stop doing.
    Yees. That would be why I didn't specify anorexia or bulimia. ;) Would you prefer the words the other way around, as in "disordered eating"?

    EDIT: "which both require caloric restriction to stop doing"

    *raised eyebrow*

    Really? I rather thought calorific restriction, i.e. not binging, came about after treatment and intervention, including, but not limited to, cognitive behavioural therapy, support groups, etc.

    Treating binge-eating disorder with restriction sounds a bit like helping someone to stop smoking by hiding the cigarettes- they can just buy more.

    Are you serious?

    Alcohol addiction is treated by stopping drinking alcohol.
    Drug addiction is treated by stopping doing drugs.
    Nicotine addiction is treated by quitting smoking and/or chewing tobacco.

    We absolutely do help people stop addictive behaviors by removing them from the things they are addicted to. There is an entire industry built around it, where people go to stay for a month or more just to be kept away from the things they are addicted to. While not the only part of the treatment, it's most definitely a necessary part of it.
    Yes. I am absolutely serious. The result of successful treatment for alcohol dependence and similar is that they stop drinking long-term even when they're free to go out and buy it.

    Temporarily preventing someone from binging is not treatment! I don't think 'cold turkey' programs are very effective on their own and this is particularly so with addictions that are more psychologically addictive than physically.

    Then why do they not let drug addicts have drugs in rehab? (No, I'm not talking about withdrawl medications like suboxone)

    The current primary model of drug treatment is abstinence always. Obviously treatment would involve abstinence.

    Not everyone with an addiction goes to treatment (most do not, actually).

    Also, suboxone is more than a withdrawal medication, for many it is used similarly to methadone, I believe -- basically substituting what is believed to be a less harmful and controlled and legal under some circumstances addiction rather than getting the person off drugs.

    The problem with the comparison with bingeing or compulsive overeating, is that it typically involves cycles of restrict and binge. Encouraging the restrictive impulses without more seems counterproductive (and also EDs aren't the reason most people are obese, I don't think, it wasn't what got me fat, but then neither was complete ignorance that eating lots of high cal foods outside of meals would cause weight gain -- I am skeptical that most people are actually ignorant of that).

    In any event, while rehab involves abstinence, of course (as would the vast majority of mainstream forms of treatment, even outpatient or much more informal), it also involves treatment.
  • heiliskrimsli
    heiliskrimsli Posts: 735 Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    ugofatcat wrote: »
    Why doesn't she just teach the portion plate?

    With that being said I don't know how to teach kids that donuts, poptarts, chips, candy, pizza etc are "junk" without teaching them to look at the label and see how many calories are in the food.

    I know for me the "portion plate" wasn't the problem. I was eating the right portions of the right foods and having a balanced diet.

    And then on top of that, because kids shouldn't count or limit calories, I was eating far too much other crap too. Because why not just tack that on if you have never been told about calories and that there's a limit to how many of them you should consume in a day. There was a single fundamental piece of information missing throughout my entire childhood, and that thing was an upper bound on calories in.

    So no one told you that if you wanted to lose weight, don't take so much food?

    You don't need to know anything about calories to know that. I knew that as a kid, but in the other direction. I was 'bird legs'. I needed to eat more.

    Food at home was put on my plate for me and I was required to eat it all or remain seated at the table until I did. My parents had terrible eating habits (and still do), so when I gained weight as a kid they pretty much said that's how it is, and they were happy enough to load stuff with high calorie "toppings" as well. It was not unsual at all to see butter on top of deep fried food at home which would be washed down with a pint of full sugar soda, without any indication that consuming so many calories was not so great.

    My parents did not "diet" themselves and were appalled at any suggestion of putting a child on a calorie restricted diet, and since "I'm not hungry [anymore]." was a sentence to sit at the table for potentially hours, I learned to shut up and eat what I was given.

    But clearly knowledge of calories wouldn't have helped you. Most kids in that situation would behave like you did and just eat what was given to them even if they don't want it.

    No.

    Changes in knowledge cause changes in which battles we choose to fight.
    If you weren't willing to sit at the table for a couple of hours because you didn't want to feel stuffed, would you have done it for some future intangible benefit of not gaining more weight? People in general are not great at weighing current discomfort vs future benefit, and kids even less so.

    I did it for other things that I considered worthwhile.
    And your concept of 'properly portioned' as a child seems to have been pretty skewed. Properly portioned isn't just about what percentage of the plate is covered, there is also the total volume of food to consider. Toppings factor in and beverage is included as well. I don't recall any 'properly portioned' meal ever including a pint of soda.

    Which is exactly why knowing the proper amount of calories to consume and what foods contain how much would be helpful.
  • heiliskrimsli
    heiliskrimsli Posts: 735 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Because there's no way an increase in eating disorders might correlate with an increase in the numbers of people who are overweight, amirite? /sarcastic

    People with eating disorders are all romantically skinny, yeah?

    People with bulimia are frequently within the normal weight range or are underweight. People with anorexia nervosa are by definition significantly underweight.

    Unless you're talking about compulsive overeating or binge eating, which both require caloric restriction to stop doing.
    Yees. That would be why I didn't specify anorexia or bulimia. ;) Would you prefer the words the other way around, as in "disordered eating"?

    EDIT: "which both require caloric restriction to stop doing"

    *raised eyebrow*

    Really? I rather thought calorific restriction, i.e. not binging, came about after treatment and intervention, including, but not limited to, cognitive behavioural therapy, support groups, etc.

    Treating binge-eating disorder with restriction sounds a bit like helping someone to stop smoking by hiding the cigarettes- they can just buy more.

    Are you serious?

    Alcohol addiction is treated by stopping drinking alcohol.
    Drug addiction is treated by stopping doing drugs.
    Nicotine addiction is treated by quitting smoking and/or chewing tobacco.

    We absolutely do help people stop addictive behaviors by removing them from the things they are addicted to. There is an entire industry built around it, where people go to stay for a month or more just to be kept away from the things they are addicted to. While not the only part of the treatment, it's most definitely a necessary part of it.
    Yes. I am absolutely serious. The result of successful treatment for alcohol dependence and similar is that they stop drinking long-term even when they're free to go out and buy it.

    Temporarily preventing someone from binging is not treatment! I don't think 'cold turkey' programs are very effective on their own and this is particularly so with addictions that are more psychologically addictive than physically.

    Then why do they not let drug addicts have drugs in rehab? (No, I'm not talking about withdrawl medications like suboxone)

    The current primary model of drug treatment is abstinence always. Obviously treatment would involve abstinence.

    Not everyone with an addiction goes to treatment (most do not, actually).

    Also, suboxone is more than a withdrawal medication, for many it is used similarly to methadone, I believe -- basically substituting what is believed to be a less harmful and controlled and legal under some circumstances addiction rather than getting the person off drugs.

    The problem with the comparison with bingeing or compulsive overeating, is that it typically involves cycles of restrict and binge. Encouraging the restrictive impulses without more seems counterproductive (and also EDs aren't the reason most people are obese, I don't think, it wasn't what got me fat, but then neither was complete ignorance that eating lots of high cal foods outside of meals would cause weight gain -- I am skeptical that most people are actually ignorant of that).

    In any event, while rehab involves abstinence, of course (as would the vast majority of mainstream forms of treatment, even outpatient or much more informal), it also involves treatment.

    So you are now saying that you can't stop overeating or binge eating without calorie restriction?

    By definition stopping overeating and binge eating is intake restriction.
  • MystikPixie
    MystikPixie Posts: 342 Member
    I really wouldn't have a problem with it. Telling a kid to not eat any and everything around them is not a bad thing. If my coaches had been better at their jobs I may not be the mess I am today. We ate cupcakes in P.E., CUPCAKES!!! Where were all the helicopter parents then?
  • scottrey
    scottrey Posts: 18 Member
    I'm late to the discussion, and I'm sure someone has already said it, but you only got your son's interpretation of what the health teacher said. Two people can listen to, watch, or read the same exact presentation, but come away with totally different understandings and and perspectives of the source material. Before you judge the teacher too harshly send an email to her stating your concern. She should be able to provide you with the lesson plan for the day. The truth probably lies somewhere between the teacher's account and your son's account of that lesson.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited April 2017
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Because there's no way an increase in eating disorders might correlate with an increase in the numbers of people who are overweight, amirite? /sarcastic

    People with eating disorders are all romantically skinny, yeah?

    People with bulimia are frequently within the normal weight range or are underweight. People with anorexia nervosa are by definition significantly underweight.

    Unless you're talking about compulsive overeating or binge eating, which both require caloric restriction to stop doing.
    Yees. That would be why I didn't specify anorexia or bulimia. ;) Would you prefer the words the other way around, as in "disordered eating"?

    EDIT: "which both require caloric restriction to stop doing"

    *raised eyebrow*

    Really? I rather thought calorific restriction, i.e. not binging, came about after treatment and intervention, including, but not limited to, cognitive behavioural therapy, support groups, etc.

    Treating binge-eating disorder with restriction sounds a bit like helping someone to stop smoking by hiding the cigarettes- they can just buy more.

    Are you serious?

    Alcohol addiction is treated by stopping drinking alcohol.
    Drug addiction is treated by stopping doing drugs.
    Nicotine addiction is treated by quitting smoking and/or chewing tobacco.

    We absolutely do help people stop addictive behaviors by removing them from the things they are addicted to. There is an entire industry built around it, where people go to stay for a month or more just to be kept away from the things they are addicted to. While not the only part of the treatment, it's most definitely a necessary part of it.
    Yes. I am absolutely serious. The result of successful treatment for alcohol dependence and similar is that they stop drinking long-term even when they're free to go out and buy it.

    Temporarily preventing someone from binging is not treatment! I don't think 'cold turkey' programs are very effective on their own and this is particularly so with addictions that are more psychologically addictive than physically.

    Then why do they not let drug addicts have drugs in rehab? (No, I'm not talking about withdrawl medications like suboxone)

    The current primary model of drug treatment is abstinence always. Obviously treatment would involve abstinence.

    Not everyone with an addiction goes to treatment (most do not, actually).

    Also, suboxone is more than a withdrawal medication, for many it is used similarly to methadone, I believe -- basically substituting what is believed to be a less harmful and controlled and legal under some circumstances addiction rather than getting the person off drugs.

    The problem with the comparison with bingeing or compulsive overeating, is that it typically involves cycles of restrict and binge. Encouraging the restrictive impulses without more seems counterproductive (and also EDs aren't the reason most people are obese, I don't think, it wasn't what got me fat, but then neither was complete ignorance that eating lots of high cal foods outside of meals would cause weight gain -- I am skeptical that most people are actually ignorant of that).

    In any event, while rehab involves abstinence, of course (as would the vast majority of mainstream forms of treatment, even outpatient or much more informal), it also involves treatment.

    So you are now saying that you can't stop overeating or binge eating without calorie restriction?

    No, I did not say that. Are you just trying to argue rather than to understand what people are saying?

    If someone has an ED, it's best to get some kind of therapy. If someone is bingeing, overall calories may or may not be a problem, but the bingeing needs to be addressed.

    Overeating is not normally an ED, and calorie restriction (overt or not) is obviously an excellent solution. For bingeing, the problem is more stopping the bingeing. This is separate from the question of how to teach kids about nutrition, as teachers aren't the right ones to be helping kids lose weight, but are to teach them information.
  • heiliskrimsli
    heiliskrimsli Posts: 735 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Because there's no way an increase in eating disorders might correlate with an increase in the numbers of people who are overweight, amirite? /sarcastic

    People with eating disorders are all romantically skinny, yeah?

    People with bulimia are frequently within the normal weight range or are underweight. People with anorexia nervosa are by definition significantly underweight.

    Unless you're talking about compulsive overeating or binge eating, which both require caloric restriction to stop doing.
    Yees. That would be why I didn't specify anorexia or bulimia. ;) Would you prefer the words the other way around, as in "disordered eating"?

    EDIT: "which both require caloric restriction to stop doing"

    *raised eyebrow*

    Really? I rather thought calorific restriction, i.e. not binging, came about after treatment and intervention, including, but not limited to, cognitive behavioural therapy, support groups, etc.

    Treating binge-eating disorder with restriction sounds a bit like helping someone to stop smoking by hiding the cigarettes- they can just buy more.

    Are you serious?

    Alcohol addiction is treated by stopping drinking alcohol.
    Drug addiction is treated by stopping doing drugs.
    Nicotine addiction is treated by quitting smoking and/or chewing tobacco.

    We absolutely do help people stop addictive behaviors by removing them from the things they are addicted to. There is an entire industry built around it, where people go to stay for a month or more just to be kept away from the things they are addicted to. While not the only part of the treatment, it's most definitely a necessary part of it.
    Yes. I am absolutely serious. The result of successful treatment for alcohol dependence and similar is that they stop drinking long-term even when they're free to go out and buy it.

    Temporarily preventing someone from binging is not treatment! I don't think 'cold turkey' programs are very effective on their own and this is particularly so with addictions that are more psychologically addictive than physically.

    Then why do they not let drug addicts have drugs in rehab? (No, I'm not talking about withdrawl medications like suboxone)

    The current primary model of drug treatment is abstinence always. Obviously treatment would involve abstinence.

    Not everyone with an addiction goes to treatment (most do not, actually).

    Also, suboxone is more than a withdrawal medication, for many it is used similarly to methadone, I believe -- basically substituting what is believed to be a less harmful and controlled and legal under some circumstances addiction rather than getting the person off drugs.

    The problem with the comparison with bingeing or compulsive overeating, is that it typically involves cycles of restrict and binge. Encouraging the restrictive impulses without more seems counterproductive (and also EDs aren't the reason most people are obese, I don't think, it wasn't what got me fat, but then neither was complete ignorance that eating lots of high cal foods outside of meals would cause weight gain -- I am skeptical that most people are actually ignorant of that).

    In any event, while rehab involves abstinence, of course (as would the vast majority of mainstream forms of treatment, even outpatient or much more informal), it also involves treatment.

    So you are now saying that you can't stop overeating or binge eating without calorie restriction?

    No, I did not say that. Are you just trying to argue rather than to understand what people are saying?

    If someone has an ED, it's best to get some kind of therapy.

    Overeating is not normally an ED, and calorie restriction (overt or not) is obviously an excellent solution. For bingeing, the problem is more stopping the bingeing.

    Until someone can limit their calories to an appropriate amount, the problem isn't solved.
  • HeliumIsNoble
    HeliumIsNoble Posts: 1,222 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Because there's no way an increase in eating disorders might correlate with an increase in the numbers of people who are overweight, amirite? /sarcastic

    People with eating disorders are all romantically skinny, yeah?

    People with bulimia are frequently within the normal weight range or are underweight. People with anorexia nervosa are by definition significantly underweight.

    Unless you're talking about compulsive overeating or binge eating, which both require caloric restriction to stop doing.
    Yees. That would be why I didn't specify anorexia or bulimia. ;) Would you prefer the words the other way around, as in "disordered eating"?

    EDIT: "which both require caloric restriction to stop doing"

    *raised eyebrow*

    Really? I rather thought calorific restriction, i.e. not binging, came about after treatment and intervention, including, but not limited to, cognitive behavioural therapy, support groups, etc.

    Treating binge-eating disorder with restriction sounds a bit like helping someone to stop smoking by hiding the cigarettes- they can just buy more.

    Are you serious?

    Alcohol addiction is treated by stopping drinking alcohol.
    Drug addiction is treated by stopping doing drugs.
    Nicotine addiction is treated by quitting smoking and/or chewing tobacco.

    We absolutely do help people stop addictive behaviors by removing them from the things they are addicted to. There is an entire industry built around it, where people go to stay for a month or more just to be kept away from the things they are addicted to. While not the only part of the treatment, it's most definitely a necessary part of it.
    Yes. I am absolutely serious. The result of successful treatment for alcohol dependence and similar is that they stop drinking long-term even when they're free to go out and buy it.

    Temporarily preventing someone from binging is not treatment! I don't think 'cold turkey' programs are very effective on their own and this is particularly so with addictions that are more psychologically addictive than physically.

    Then why do they not let drug addicts have drugs in rehab? (No, I'm not talking about withdrawl medications like suboxone)

    The current primary model of drug treatment is abstinence always. Obviously treatment would involve abstinence.

    Not everyone with an addiction goes to treatment (most do not, actually).

    Also, suboxone is more than a withdrawal medication, for many it is used similarly to methadone, I believe -- basically substituting what is believed to be a less harmful and controlled and legal under some circumstances addiction rather than getting the person off drugs.

    The problem with the comparison with bingeing or compulsive overeating, is that it typically involves cycles of restrict and binge. Encouraging the restrictive impulses without more seems counterproductive (and also EDs aren't the reason most people are obese, I don't think, it wasn't what got me fat, but then neither was complete ignorance that eating lots of high cal foods outside of meals would cause weight gain -- I am skeptical that most people are actually ignorant of that).

    In any event, while rehab involves abstinence, of course (as would the vast majority of mainstream forms of treatment, even outpatient or much more informal), it also involves treatment.

    So you are now saying that you can't stop overeating or binge eating without calorie restriction?

    By definition stopping overeating and binge eating is intake restriction.
    Pssst! Different people!

    I am saying that calorific restriction as a treatment plan for someone who binges sounds about as useful as a chocolate teapot! @lemurcat12 has already explained why far better than I had so far, so I won't reiterate that.

    So perhaps consider what would happen if someone tried to deal with an alcoholic spouse by pouring the bottles down the sink. The spouse would go out and buy more.

    Similarly, although I don't have the figures to hand, short-term stays in older-style drying-out programs had/have awful rates of relapse once the patients were discharged.

    On that note, modern nicotine replacement therapy (e-cig/vaping, patches, et cetera) has been far more effective than the "just stoppit" model. Of course, tobacco is a bit different as the health problems associated so strongly with smoking are not caused by nicotine, but by all the other components in cigarettes.
  • HeliumIsNoble
    HeliumIsNoble Posts: 1,222 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Because there's no way an increase in eating disorders might correlate with an increase in the numbers of people who are overweight, amirite? /sarcastic

    People with eating disorders are all romantically skinny, yeah?

    People with bulimia are frequently within the normal weight range or are underweight. People with anorexia nervosa are by definition significantly underweight.

    Unless you're talking about compulsive overeating or binge eating, which both require caloric restriction to stop doing.
    Yees. That would be why I didn't specify anorexia or bulimia. ;) Would you prefer the words the other way around, as in "disordered eating"?

    EDIT: "which both require caloric restriction to stop doing"

    *raised eyebrow*

    Really? I rather thought calorific restriction, i.e. not binging, came about after treatment and intervention, including, but not limited to, cognitive behavioural therapy, support groups, etc.

    Treating binge-eating disorder with restriction sounds a bit like helping someone to stop smoking by hiding the cigarettes- they can just buy more.

    Are you serious?

    Alcohol addiction is treated by stopping drinking alcohol.
    Drug addiction is treated by stopping doing drugs.
    Nicotine addiction is treated by quitting smoking and/or chewing tobacco.

    We absolutely do help people stop addictive behaviors by removing them from the things they are addicted to. There is an entire industry built around it, where people go to stay for a month or more just to be kept away from the things they are addicted to. While not the only part of the treatment, it's most definitely a necessary part of it.
    Yes. I am absolutely serious. The result of successful treatment for alcohol dependence and similar is that they stop drinking long-term even when they're free to go out and buy it.

    Temporarily preventing someone from binging is not treatment! I don't think 'cold turkey' programs are very effective on their own and this is particularly so with addictions that are more psychologically addictive than physically.

    Then why do they not let drug addicts have drugs in rehab? (No, I'm not talking about withdrawl medications like suboxone)

    The current primary model of drug treatment is abstinence always. Obviously treatment would involve abstinence.

    Not everyone with an addiction goes to treatment (most do not, actually).

    Also, suboxone is more than a withdrawal medication, for many it is used similarly to methadone, I believe -- basically substituting what is believed to be a less harmful and controlled and legal under some circumstances addiction rather than getting the person off drugs.

    The problem with the comparison with bingeing or compulsive overeating, is that it typically involves cycles of restrict and binge. Encouraging the restrictive impulses without more seems counterproductive (and also EDs aren't the reason most people are obese, I don't think, it wasn't what got me fat, but then neither was complete ignorance that eating lots of high cal foods outside of meals would cause weight gain -- I am skeptical that most people are actually ignorant of that).

    In any event, while rehab involves abstinence, of course (as would the vast majority of mainstream forms of treatment, even outpatient or much more informal), it also involves treatment.

    So you are now saying that you can't stop overeating or binge eating without calorie restriction?

    No, I did not say that. Are you just trying to argue rather than to understand what people are saying?

    If someone has an ED, it's best to get some kind of therapy.

    Overeating is not normally an ED, and calorie restriction (overt or not) is obviously an excellent solution. For bingeing, the problem is more stopping the bingeing.

    Until someone can limit their calories to an appropriate amount, the problem isn't solved.
    You are correct that if someone is binging, they still have a binging problem.

    (May I ask, are you translating from one language to another as you type? Or perhaps just me being unclear?)

    However, someone who has a BED needs more than being preventing from binging for a short-term period. This is a psychological disorder, not a purely physical addiction.

    To recover, they need tools to help them learn to eat appropriate amounts each day without either unrealistic restrictions OR binging.
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,456 Member
    How did we get from what is or isn't appropriate to teach elementary aged school children regarding calories and weight control methods, to a discussion on treating various addictions, to the appropriate course of action for someone suffering from BED?

    I truly am perplexed how this particular tangent came about.
  • HeliumIsNoble
    HeliumIsNoble Posts: 1,222 Member
    *puts hand up*

    It was my fault, I'm afraid. One of those thoughts that should have remained in my head with all the others when I was scrolling through the day's posts so far.
  • StarBrightStarBright
    StarBrightStarBright Posts: 97 Member
    sgfwinters wrote: »
    TL;DR - Kids aren't just getting junk food at home, they're getting it from school too.

    I'm seeing comments to the tune of 'parents are the ones buying the junk food in the first place,' and I want to play the devil's advocate a little bit.

    While I agree that good food choices begin at home, I think school-provided meals should be taken into consideration. They are almost uniformly high calorie and low nutrition; I'm talking a pack of mini powdered doughnuts for breakfast and then a 1,200 calorie lunch level unhealthy here. And many, many children are eating two meals and sometimes snacks five days a week at school.

    I think that most of the time the parents are completely uninformed about what their kids are eating at school, and it's true that's on them if they choose to stay uninformed, but I can understand how they trust the schools to do their due diligence and provide appropriate foods for their little ones.

    @sgfwinters - amen to your post. We eat lots of fruits and veggies at home, white milk and water to drink for the kids, etc. We teach our children about "always/green light" and "sometimes/yellow light" foods.

    Their daycare feeds them snacks twice a day, which I would be okay with if it was an apple or carrot sticks - but they got poptarts and chocolate milk the other day. I've asked if I could send in my own food for the kids but the facility discourages it because they have to hold certain "nutritional standards" to abide by state regulations and if all parents started sending meals they couldn't guarantee the standards for inspections or something.

    I don't know what standards chocolate milk and poptarts meet that sliced apple and carrot sticks and hummus don't, but it drives me crazy!
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    ugofatcat wrote: »
    Why doesn't she just teach the portion plate?

    With that being said I don't know how to teach kids that donuts, poptarts, chips, candy, pizza etc are "junk" without teaching them to look at the label and see how many calories are in the food.

    I know for me the "portion plate" wasn't the problem. I was eating the right portions of the right foods and having a balanced diet.

    And then on top of that, because kids shouldn't count or limit calories, I was eating far too much other crap too. Because why not just tack that on if you have never been told about calories and that there's a limit to how many of them you should consume in a day. There was a single fundamental piece of information missing throughout my entire childhood, and that thing was an upper bound on calories in.

    So no one told you that if you wanted to lose weight, don't take so much food?

    You don't need to know anything about calories to know that. I knew that as a kid, but in the other direction. I was 'bird legs'. I needed to eat more.

    Food at home was put on my plate for me and I was required to eat it all or remain seated at the table until I did. My parents had terrible eating habits (and still do), so when I gained weight as a kid they pretty much said that's how it is, and they were happy enough to load stuff with high calorie "toppings" as well. It was not unsual at all to see butter on top of deep fried food at home which would be washed down with a pint of full sugar soda, without any indication that consuming so many calories was not so great.

    My parents did not "diet" themselves and were appalled at any suggestion of putting a child on a calorie restricted diet, and since "I'm not hungry [anymore]." was a sentence to sit at the table for potentially hours, I learned to shut up and eat what I was given.

    But clearly knowledge of calories wouldn't have helped you. Most kids in that situation would behave like you did and just eat what was given to them even if they don't want it.

    No.

    Changes in knowledge cause changes in which battles we choose to fight.
    If you weren't willing to sit at the table for a couple of hours because you didn't want to feel stuffed, would you have done it for some future intangible benefit of not gaining more weight? People in general are not great at weighing current discomfort vs future benefit, and kids even less so.

    I did it for other things that I considered worthwhile.
    And your concept of 'properly portioned' as a child seems to have been pretty skewed. Properly portioned isn't just about what percentage of the plate is covered, there is also the total volume of food to consider. Toppings factor in and beverage is included as well. I don't recall any 'properly portioned' meal ever including a pint of soda.

    Which is exactly why knowing the proper amount of calories to consume and what foods contain how much would be helpful.

    And this is where I'm confused. If you weren't able to eyeball your typical plate of food and see that it obviously wasn't 'properly portioned' and contained too much, why would you think that you'd be better at eyeballing the calories in the food you were served and had no control over prep or portion?

    To me, there is a disconnect. Somehow, you didn't connect 'I'm overweight or gaining weight' is evidence that 'I eat too much'. If you had and were willing to put up with sitting at the table for hours, the obvious first step would have been to not eat everything on your plate. That would have ensured you were eating less than you had been.

    This side discussion reminds me of the threads with people arguing back and forth whether it's necessary to count calories to lose weight. Obviously it helps, but prior to calorie info being convenient, people still dieted successfully - and it wasn't all whackadoo elimination diets either.
  • heiliskrimsli
    heiliskrimsli Posts: 735 Member
    stealthq wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    stealthq wrote: »
    ugofatcat wrote: »
    Why doesn't she just teach the portion plate?

    With that being said I don't know how to teach kids that donuts, poptarts, chips, candy, pizza etc are "junk" without teaching them to look at the label and see how many calories are in the food.

    I know for me the "portion plate" wasn't the problem. I was eating the right portions of the right foods and having a balanced diet.

    And then on top of that, because kids shouldn't count or limit calories, I was eating far too much other crap too. Because why not just tack that on if you have never been told about calories and that there's a limit to how many of them you should consume in a day. There was a single fundamental piece of information missing throughout my entire childhood, and that thing was an upper bound on calories in.

    So no one told you that if you wanted to lose weight, don't take so much food?

    You don't need to know anything about calories to know that. I knew that as a kid, but in the other direction. I was 'bird legs'. I needed to eat more.

    Food at home was put on my plate for me and I was required to eat it all or remain seated at the table until I did. My parents had terrible eating habits (and still do), so when I gained weight as a kid they pretty much said that's how it is, and they were happy enough to load stuff with high calorie "toppings" as well. It was not unsual at all to see butter on top of deep fried food at home which would be washed down with a pint of full sugar soda, without any indication that consuming so many calories was not so great.

    My parents did not "diet" themselves and were appalled at any suggestion of putting a child on a calorie restricted diet, and since "I'm not hungry [anymore]." was a sentence to sit at the table for potentially hours, I learned to shut up and eat what I was given.

    But clearly knowledge of calories wouldn't have helped you. Most kids in that situation would behave like you did and just eat what was given to them even if they don't want it.

    No.

    Changes in knowledge cause changes in which battles we choose to fight.
    If you weren't willing to sit at the table for a couple of hours because you didn't want to feel stuffed, would you have done it for some future intangible benefit of not gaining more weight? People in general are not great at weighing current discomfort vs future benefit, and kids even less so.

    I did it for other things that I considered worthwhile.
    And your concept of 'properly portioned' as a child seems to have been pretty skewed. Properly portioned isn't just about what percentage of the plate is covered, there is also the total volume of food to consider. Toppings factor in and beverage is included as well. I don't recall any 'properly portioned' meal ever including a pint of soda.

    Which is exactly why knowing the proper amount of calories to consume and what foods contain how much would be helpful.

    And this is where I'm confused. If you weren't able to eyeball your typical plate of food and see that it obviously wasn't 'properly portioned' and contained too much, why would you think that you'd be better at eyeballing the calories in the food you were served and had no control over prep or portion?

    To me, there is a disconnect. Somehow, you didn't connect 'I'm overweight or gaining weight' is evidence that 'I eat too much'. If you had and were willing to put up with sitting at the table for hours, the obvious first step would have been to not eat everything on your plate. That would have ensured you were eating less than you had been.

    This side discussion reminds me of the threads with people arguing back and forth whether it's necessary to count calories to lose weight. Obviously it helps, but prior to calorie info being convenient, people still dieted successfully - and it wasn't all whackadoo elimination diets either.

    I don't think attempting to erase your confusion by continuing to point out that arming someone with knowledge is generally considered to be a good thing, especially when that knowledge is factual information will provide any further benefit, so I'm going to stop wasting my time.
  • coreyreichle
    coreyreichle Posts: 1,039 Member
    ugofatcat wrote: »
    @WinoGelato here is an easy way to determine if something is healthy or not. Ask yourself, is this something I should be eating everyday? I think people should be eating fruits, vegetables, healthy fats in the form of nuts or avocado or oil, dairy, and whole grains, and lean protein everyday. I do not think people should be eating pizza everyday.

    I eat pizza many times per week. My weight is in a healthy range, I run 4-5 miles daily, resting HR is ~48bpm, best pace is 8:24'ish or so for an 8K. Last year, cholesterol and A1C came back clean.

    I showed my doc my food journal, and she showed no concern. So, what is unhealthy about it?
  • coreyreichle
    coreyreichle Posts: 1,039 Member
    I don't know where that pic is from but because she is holding one up couldn't it also mean just one cupcake?

    In real life because someone bakes 2 dozen cookies doesn't mean they eat them all in one sitting.

    She obviously eats more than 1 cup cake at a sitting, and likely often.