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!

11920212325

Replies

  • ugofatcat
    ugofatcat Posts: 387 Member
    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.
    Moderation means different things to different people. If you ask ten people what moderation looks like you will get ten different answers. You must be able to quantify it when you explain it to someone. In this example, this woman feels 2 cupcakes is moderation. I disagree and do not consider that to be moderation.
  • ugofatcat
    ugofatcat Posts: 387 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    ugofatcat wrote: »
    That does not mean that the same foods -- let's say the collard greens, lentils, and spinach I mentioned, cease having nutrients because they are prepared by a restaurant.
    Restaurants make money by getting people to buy their food and are designed to try and get you to eat as much as possible.

    No, this is inaccurate and shows a really limited understanding of what restaurants do. Some (many) restaurants in the US sell large portions because that, for whatever reason related to our culture's weird ideas about both money and food, the idea of getting a deal (even for less good food) tends to be beneficial in obtaining customers. The restaurant itself has no particular reason to want you to eat large portions unless customers were demanding that or responding to it. They'd make more money selling smaller portions for more money (as many fine restaurants do). All of this is rather beside the point with Ethiopian (which is often family style, eat as much or little as you want) or pizza, where you choose the number of pieces you eat.

    I am in absolute shock that you feel that way. Restaurants are absolutely in the business of trying to get people to buy their food. A patron who orders an appetizer, a drink, an entrée, and dessert will generate more revenue than a patron who orders an entrée and only eats half. There is a plethora of research indicating that everything from the descriptions of items used on menus (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010880401810119) to the environment, including lighting and music (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.2466/01.PR0.111.4.228-232). (Yes, I recognize that the last study they manipulated the environment to get people to eat less, but that still proves the point that the environment influences how much you are eat.) This article summarizes Brian Wansink’s research of how restaurants get you eat more and thus spend more: http://www.rgj.com/story/life/food/2015/11/13/diet-detective-restaurant-tricks-make-you-eat-more/75737866/
    Furthermore, your point about collard greens and spinach comes back to how it was prepared. Vegetables boiled in water will have less nutrition then vegetables steamed because the water leeches out the nutrients. If you are making them at home, you know how they are prepared. If you eat in a restaurant, you have no know way of knowing how they were prepared unless you watched the chef. This is why I will continue to assert that (most) meals cooked at home are healthier then meals eaten in restaurants.
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    ugofatcat wrote: »
    Furthermore chefs will add extra fat, salt, and sugar to dishes to make them taste better.

    Depending on the restaurant or the dish, yes. So do home cooks. This is not some special restaurant perfidy. Adding more butter when cooking to make food taste better is, well, a pretty common thing. I cook differently when I have a big feast for company than when I am just cooking for myself. It's important to understand that restaurant meals are often indulgent (there are exceptions), but that does not -- contrary to your prior claims -- make anything from a restaurant without nutrients or junk food. Should you be aware of extra calories? Sure. (Do they sprinkle sugar on a pizza at any halfway decent restaurant? Certainly not, so if you are imagining that's the case I disagree with you. Will they cook with olive oil and the like? Yeah.)
    I am reading over my previous comments. I do not see anything about how restaurant food has no nutrients. I made a comment that I don’t think people should be eating pizza every day and another comment that if you don’t think you should eat a particular food every day, it is probably junk. When I made the pizza comment, I was not thinking of all the variations you listed, I was thinking of (http://www.mysticpizza.com/admin/resources/pizza-pepperoni-w857h456.jpg). I am going to guess that the vast majority of people eating pizza are not eating cauliflower crust pizza topped with veggies. However I do feel you made good points so I would like to change my stance on that comment. I don’t believe restaurant is junk food, but I believe eating at home, in general, is healthier. I think it is possible to make better choices at restaurants but I believe most foods made at home will always be healthier.
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    ugofatcat wrote: »
    I agree with you that it is important to look at your diet overall. However, junk foods provide little to no nutrition but usually are high in calories.

    Depends on amount. If I eat a little something after dinner (cheese or fruit or a sweet), it could be a 50 cal piece of good chocolate (junk food, but hardly a huge source of calories) or it could be 250 calories of ice cream if I have room. Or something in-between. Or I might skip sweets and after dinner cheese for a week to have calories for a restaurant meal that is more indulgent on the weekend. I am planning to have certain high cal things on Easter (big breakfast with pancakes and eggs and bacon, dinner with rack of lamb and lots of vegetables, garlic mashed potatoes with butter and lemon lavender cupcakes). Should I feel bad that I am eating "junk food" when it's a holiday and fits fine in my week anyway? What's the point.

    Should I be aware, which one is if one focuses on a healthful diet and understands calories and portions? Of course.
    This quote is an excellent example of moderation and how fluid diets can be.

    I am not sure what to tell you about feeling bad. If you ate like that every day, what do you think would happen? I understand what you are saying earlier about people thinking, “Well, I had a bad food, screw it, might as well eat all of it.” I am aware of research that shows when people tell themselves they can’t have something, they end up eating more of it. I am not saying people should never eat certain foods, but I am not going to label these foods as healthy either. I feel that people can work them into to their diets and be healthy despite eating them, not because of them. If labeling these foods as junk causes people to spiral into depression and eat everything then they should not do that. But not everyone is so fragile that when you label a food as junk they have a nervous breakdown and gorge themselves.
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    ugofatcat wrote: »
    This suggests that you should feel bad and guilty for eating those foods. And the same logic suggests I should feel bad for eating chicken with skin as I could just have skinless chicken breast, for having red meat when I could have white fish, for having cheese when I could go without, for getting Berkshire pork raised on a farm when the grocery sells leaner pork, etc. For having potatoes and sweet potatoes or some naan, sometimes, when I could just have more carrots. It leads to obsessing about whether some other choice might have fewer cals and more nutrients. Why not instill a healthful understanding of what a good diet requires, what sensible amounts are, and what a reasonable amount to spend on extras (of any sort) is, rather than saying it's okay to eat "junk" so long as you know it's bad and feel bad about it? That doesn't seem healthy to me. Certainly not an inherently more healthy approach than what Wino Gelato is suggesting or what I am.

    I am looking through my comments again and am not seeing were I said people should feel bad about eating those foods, unless you are feeling that because I called certain foods junk foods people should feel bad. What is wrong with thinking, “Yes, it would be healthier to eat chicken without the skin, but I want to eat it like this today?” What is wrong with recognizing that there is a healthier choice, but today I want to treat myself and I am not going to feel bad about it because I usually make good decisions?
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    ugofatcat wrote: »
    Overall diet quality is important. If my message is coming across as don’t eat these foods and you will be healthy, then I apologize, because that is not what I am trying to say.

    That 100% was how it was coming across, because otherwise I don't understand what you were even arguing with WinoGelato about.

    My original quote said to teach portion plate, meaning myplate, then I said I wasn’t sure how to teach kids about “junk” food without teaching them about calories. WinoGelato doesn’t like my use of the word junk. I don’t feel it is a problem. However since it has caused so much disruption I would like to rephrase my comment to teach kids myplate and use supertracker.gov to make sure they aren’t eating too much or too little and getting a balance of everything they need.



  • ugofatcat
    ugofatcat Posts: 387 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    So again, is the measure of whether something is healthy - the amount of calories in it? I can make a calorie dense pizza at home, just like I can order a lighter calorie option from a delivery chain, or a local Italian restaurant. I just don't agree that by preparing it at home, it is inherently "healthier". I live in an Italian neighborhood. When I buy pizza crusts from the local Italian grocer, and the cheese blend from the local Italian grocer, and the sausage from the salumeria - these are the same places that are supplying the restaurants in my neighborhood. How does it become less nutritious simply if I go to the restaurant up the street and ask them to prepare the pizza for me? Even if I order delivery from a chain pizza place - why is the crust, tomato sauce, cheese, chicken, spinach and red peppers at Dominos nutritionally less valuable than if I were to prepare that myself? It sounds like you are suggesting that food made at home is better, and that people should always choose to prepare foods themselves rather than eating in restaurants? That's just not realistic, nor necessary, in my opinion. I enjoy cooking at home, and we made homemade pizzas just last week in fact. But I also enjoy eating in restaurants, and sometimes I rely on the convenience of delivery services too. That doesn't make those foods inherently unhealthy, simply because someone else prepared them for me.

    I feel the Mediterranean style diet is the healthiest diet pattern to follow as it has consistently been shown to be linked to lower risk of heart disease, diabetes, stroke, cancer, and Alzheimer’s. (http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/050112p30.shtml). When picking a food item, is this something that is commonly found in this diet? If you made a pizza with a whole grain crust (or quonia or cauliflower as @lemurcat12 pointed out, topped with veggies and serving of low fat cheese, yes, it would be healthy. The pizza from most restaurants? Probably not.

    Restaurants add extra fat and salt to meals. They frequently serve bigger portions and try to get you buy more. For example, add a liter of pop for only $1. The last time I saw a veggie pizza at a restaurant, they added a couple leaves of spinach to it and tomato. When I made mine, I use an entire bag of baby spinach among other vegetables. This is why I believe eating at home is healthier. I understand it is difficult to always cook meals at home and it is also nice to go out as a family. But I don’t think this something that should be done every day.
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    I don't think the doughnut (singular - one each) that my family and I eat before a hike is healthy. I don't think it is unhealthy. I don't think you can measure the "value" of foods in isolation. It is part of our overall healthy lifestyle, and it fits in nicely on a weekly or biweekly basis.
    Noted the singular, excellent.
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    I think to the discussion about "healthy" and "unhealthy" or "Junk" foods - then yeah, maybe it is semantics, but I don't look at individual foods in isolation to determine if they are healthy or unhealthy. I believe that any food, can be part of an overall healthy diet, if consumed in moderation. And if it makes you feel better about the choices you make, simply to call something "junk" and feel that I'm deluding myself to NOT label foods that way - then yeah, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. But as @lemurcat12 has pointed out, there are many users that have an all or nothing approach - they take things to such extremes that IF (or likely WHEN) they choose to have two cookies, because they thought they HAD to eat healthy and CAN'T eat "junk" in any quantity and achieve that; then they feel they have failed and therefore, either continue to eat ALL the cookies, or they give up on their efforts to lose weight.

    Different approaches for different people. I grew up with my mother calling pop and sugary cereals poison. I don’t feel I have an unhealthy relationship with food and am fine with my weight. I enjoy junk, in portions as specified by the package. I also don’t have metabolic syndrome or other health problems that could most likely be avoided with lifestyle.

    Would you feel better if I said treats? What if that leads kids to start “treating” themselves when they have a bad day and using food as a crutch for their emotions? I see the black and white thinking and gorging when they were "bad" but I also see using food as a way to cope with past trauma and depression.

    We really are just arguing about semantics, but I think we both agree overall diet quality is king.
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    So out of curiosity, what did you tell the kid who pulled out the large bag of Cheetohs? Did you tell him that was junk, that he shouldn't be eating it, and that it is foods like that that are 'poisoning our population'? Or did you say "hey Cheetohs! Crazy how orange your fingers get, isn't it? Did you know that bag has about 3 servings in it? I like to eat tortilla chips and stuff too, with my other foods that have a lot of nutrients in them, but it's good to try to keep those foods as a smaller portion of your overall diet".

    We were practicing reading labels so it was an excellent teaching moment. We looked at how many servings there was and how many calories per serving. We compared that to the recommended calories he should be getting each day.

    I strive to treat all those I work with compassion and kindness. I would never tell someone else’s child they are eating junk. I don’t know all that is going on at home. But FYI, I have also had parents tell me that they feel the kids are eating too much junk. And I don't tell them they shouldn't label foods like that, only that we can work it into their diet and they can still be healthy.
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    To the HAES image - I really don't have a comment about that. I don't think it's salient to the discussion, and I think you posting it is perpetuating the fat shaming that is what spawned it to begin with.

    It is relevant. Moderation means different things to different people. In this example, she feels moderation means 2 cupcakes. This is why you must teach kids what moderation looks like, and having 2 cupcakes is not moderation. I do not feel this picture is fat shaming. It is an example of different perspectives.

  • leanjogreen18
    leanjogreen18 Posts: 2,492 Member
    edited April 2017
    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.

    So silly to take a photo and suggest she is overweight due to cupcakes. She is a model pure and simple.

    Does she eat more than she burns ummm yeah.

    But cupcakes, surely you can't think a model in a picture eats what she is portraying in a photo op?

    I'd model dog poo if it paid enough. Doesn't mean I'd eat it!
  • leanjogreen18
    leanjogreen18 Posts: 2,492 Member
    sc0ngk5otkux.jpg


    OMG he ate this? See what I mean man. A photo means nothing!
  • ugofatcat
    ugofatcat Posts: 387 Member
    Also he should be wearing gloves.
  • GottaluvFood
    GottaluvFood Posts: 65 Member
    edited April 2017
    I would write a polite, but pointed, letter to both the PE teacher and the school counselor or psychologist. The School Psychologist could help you deal with your son's potential eating disorder. The PE teacher needs to know that her kids are the age most vulnerable to eating disorders. (Note: My 12 yr old son's appetite did decrease substantially around age 10-11. He still eats less than his 8 yr old sister. This'll change very shortly.)

    Most PE teachers do touch on health issues. You say he is 11, so late elementary. In Middle School, he'll have a Health Teacher. But in elementary, the PE teacher teaches health issues. She is doing a poor job. Anorexia has taken a back seat to obesity in our collective-conscious. I think this is dangerous, because it is still a growing concern.

    Talk to your son with facts, as a matter of regular conversation--not necessarily big drama talks. Look them up & present them to him. Show him how many more calories a day he needs than a middle-aged woman (i.e. mom or PE teacher). Talk to him about the need for protein to build his muscles. Talk to him about what kind of foods he needs to do the stuff he wants to do. (i.e. sports, arts, math, all works better with proper nutrition.)

    A preteen should NOT be calorie counting! I recently looked up my preteen boys calorie count compared to mine. After puberty hits, it'll be 3000 a day! Almost 3 times mine! How does one calorie count for 3000 calories?!?!
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    edited April 2017
    sc0ngk5otkux.jpg


    OMG he ate this? See what I mean man. A photo means nothing!

    The photo is not relevant. A photo with a caption declaring the person in the photo stands for something is. Even if the person is a paid model that couldn't give a rat's *kitten* about what the caption says. Whoever produced the picture is spewing a message implying 2 cupcakes is moderation.

    I questioned if the picture was suppose to be a joke/parody when I saw it. I mean an obese teen holding 2 cupcakes with a caption about eating things in moderation?
  • heiliskrimsli
    heiliskrimsli Posts: 735 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.

    So silly to take a photo and suggest she is overweight due to cupcakes. She is a model pure and simple.

    Does she eat more than she burns ummm yeah.

    But cupcakes, surely you can't think a model in a picture eats what she is portraying in a photo op?

    I'd model dog poo if it paid enough. Doesn't mean I'd eat it!

    I doubt she got fat huffing spinach.
    ugofatcat wrote: »
    Also he should be wearing gloves.

    Clean hands are better than dirty gloves every day. Wearing gloves does not automatically mean "sanitary", but what I have seen is it make people far more lax with hand washing than they should be.
    praykathy wrote: »
    A preteen should NOT be calorie counting! I recently looked up my preteen boys calorie count compared to mine. After puberty hits, it'll be 3000 a day! Almost 3 times mine! How does one calorie count for 3000 calories?!?!

    The same way you count for any other target intake. By using arithmetic.
  • 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.

    So silly to take a photo and suggest she is overweight due to cupcakes. She is a model pure and simple.

    Does she eat more than she burns ummm yeah.

    But cupcakes, surely you can't think a model in a picture eats what she is portraying in a photo op?

    I'd model dog poo if it paid enough. Doesn't mean I'd eat it!

    I've seen the photo numerous before, and looked into her blog. She overeats cupcakes. And cake. And chocolate. She has several articles with her and another HAES activist binging on pastries in hotel rooms.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    edited April 2017
    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.

    So silly to take a photo and suggest she is overweight due to cupcakes. She is a model pure and simple.

    Does she eat more than she burns ummm yeah.

    But cupcakes, surely you can't think a model in a picture eats what she is portraying in a photo op?

    I'd model dog poo if it paid enough. Doesn't mean I'd eat it!

    I've seen the photo numerous before, and looked into her blog. She overeats cupcakes. And cake. And chocolate. She has several articles with her and another HAES activist binging on pastries in hotel rooms.

    Cause let me introduce you to effect

    Also a wild guess but most of playing outside with friends involves sitting around playing games on phones.
  • Gamliela
    Gamliela Posts: 2,470 Member
    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.

    Given what the average American thinks "little body fat" is, I'd have to ask for an actual BF% here, before agreeing.

    People think I look anorexic. I have ~23% bf, which is overfat.

    Wow, I had no idea 23% body fat meant over fat! Where did you get that information and is it for both men and women and all ages?

  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    edited April 2017
    Gamliela wrote: »
    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.

    Given what the average American thinks "little body fat" is, I'd have to ask for an actual BF% here, before agreeing.

    People think I look anorexic. I have ~23% bf, which is overfat.

    Wow, I had no idea 23% body fat meant over fat! Where did you get that information and is it for both men and women and all ages?

    The bodyfat ranges are age and sex dependent
    Example chart from American College of Sports Medicine:

    https://mymission.lamission.edu/userdata/ruyssc/docs/ACSM Body Composition.pdf
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited April 2017
    ugofatcat 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.
    Moderation means different things to different people. If you ask ten people what moderation looks like you will get ten different answers. You must be able to quantify it when you explain it to someone. In this example, this woman feels 2 cupcakes is moderation. I disagree and do not consider that to be moderation.

    Nor do I, but that's because I have a definition of what moderation is in eating that I am happy to explain and defend. It doesn't just mean whatever. If you want to know what someone means by moderation it's easy to ask. I don't really understand the point of the photo. No one here is arguing from a HAES POV.

    My understanding is that moderation or flexible nutrition-based eating is eating a proper amount for your goals (gain, lose, or maintain) that satisfies the nutritional requirements (for example, adequate protein, adequate healthy fats, mostly nutrient-dense, large variety of vegetables and other plant-based whole foods -- my approach, among others, is to have lots of veg and some protein at each meal and to limit snacking and to understand how much I need to eat given how active I am (I don't usually count calories anymore), but people will have a variety of approaches).
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited April 2017
    ugofatcat wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    ugofatcat wrote: »
    That does not mean that the same foods -- let's say the collard greens, lentils, and spinach I mentioned, cease having nutrients because they are prepared by a restaurant.
    Restaurants make money by getting people to buy their food and are designed to try and get you to eat as much as possible.

    No, this is inaccurate and shows a really limited understanding of what restaurants do. Some (many) restaurants in the US sell large portions because that, for whatever reason related to our culture's weird ideas about both money and food, the idea of getting a deal (even for less good food) tends to be beneficial in obtaining customers. The restaurant itself has no particular reason to want you to eat large portions unless customers were demanding that or responding to it. They'd make more money selling smaller portions for more money (as many fine restaurants do). All of this is rather beside the point with Ethiopian (which is often family style, eat as much or little as you want) or pizza, where you choose the number of pieces you eat.

    I am in absolute shock that you feel that way. Restaurants are absolutely in the business of trying to get people to buy their food.

    Obviously. Buy their food does not mean "buy the largest possible serving sizes" which is what you claimed. That many restaurants (more often the cheaper ones) have huge serving sizes comes from what sells to customers, what the average US customer seems to like, not from the restaurant.
    A patron who orders an appetizer, a drink, an entrée, and dessert will generate more revenue than a patron who orders an entrée and only eats half.

    Well, sure, but you are changing the argument, and you don't have to do that. One thing I did when I decided to watch my weight was to be honest with myself that I go out to eat 1-2 x/week, so it's not a rare indulgence and I should not eat that way. So I don't. It's not that complicated, and someone who cares about what they prepare at home will likely be someone who is sensible at restaurants (unless they are a rare occasion, and then why are we discussing it) too.

    I actually think having a "foodie" kind of approach to food -- enjoying it, appreciating it, liking to try new things prepared well or differently, taking advantage of an interesting restaurant culture or ethnic neighborhoods and their restaurants goes along with a healthy attitude toward food, not an unhealthy one. It also teaches you that restaurants are pretty diverse, much more diverse than you seem to recognize.

    There's a restaurant (Maggiano's -- nothing special) I used to go to that has ENORMOUS serving sizes. We'd share an entree or plan to bring it hope for multiple meals vs. getting an appetizer and dessert, because the entree alone was so huge. On the other hand, if I go to a nice fine dining place with smaller servings, I am much more likely (if I'm perceiving it as an indulgent meal) to get multiple courses or dessert. The point is that having insane serving sizes doesn't make the restaurant more money (unless of course they can get away with saving money on food and chefs because people will buy bad food that's just in huge quantities, which does seem to be popular with some -- my parents have some friends obsessed with buffets just because they are all you can eat).
    Furthermore, your point about collard greens and spinach comes back to how it was prepared. Vegetables boiled in water will have less nutrition then vegetables steamed because the water leeches out the nutrients. If you are making them at home, you know how they are prepared. If you eat in a restaurant, you have no know way of knowing how they were prepared unless you watched the chef. This is why I will continue to assert that (most) meals cooked at home are healthier then meals eaten in restaurants.

    It depends on the meal prepared at home and the meal prepared in a restaurant. Similar sorts of meals will be similarly nutritious. If I were trying to cook authentic Ethiopian food at home, I might use less high cal additions, sure (but that's calories, not nutrition), but I'd cook them in a similar fashion.

    I also think claiming a meal that is made up of lots of nutritious veg (and is vegan, part of why I got it) like collard greens, spinach, cabbage and carrots, and lentils because it's bad to eat boiled veg and better to eat steamed is a good way to make people not care about veg at all and just throw up their hands.

    For the record, I eat lots of veg with home cooked meals AND make sure to include a good amount of veg (while knowing they are higher cal and taking that into account) when going to a restaurant. I rarely steam veg at home (sometimes ask for them steamed at restaurants) because I prefer my veg cooked in other ways. I don't think it makes sense to claim my diet is not nutritious as a result -- those are silly standards -- but whatever floats your boat.

    [continued in next post]
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited April 2017
    ugofatcat wrote: »
    I am reading over my previous comments. I do not see anything about how restaurant food has no nutrients. I made a comment that I don’t think people should be eating pizza every day and another comment that if you don’t think you should eat a particular food every day, it is probably junk.

    My interpretation -- although I'm not going back to check -- was that you were claiming pizza was okay if made at home, but that restaurant pizza was all non-nutritious junk, as if they were totally different. That seemed based on one type of one chain pizza (a chain that I've never tried but have negative assumptions about, fairly or no) and to ignore that restaurant pizza is extremely diverse. The assumption that restaurant = delivery or some huge chain is, IMO, unwarranted. (Not that you can't get a pizza with vegetables and a salad from a chain, and with many chains it's probably easier to check calories and control the amount consumed and macros and all that. Why would you do this if homemade is healthier? Well, last time I ordered a pizza it was because I was improptu having people over and did not have time to cook. I got a couple of different kinds of pizza from a local place plus a salad. That kind of thing (as well as just liking it) is why people do it.)
    However I do feel you made good points so I would like to change my stance on that comment. I don’t believe restaurant is junk food, but I believe eating at home, in general, is healthier. I think it is possible to make better choices at restaurants but I believe most foods made at home will always be healthier.

    I think you are ignoring how diverse homemade food is, but I certainly agree that most restaurant food tends to be high cal, especially from a sit-down kind of place. (Ironically, I think a lot of chains can be helpful in quick low cal, nutritious things -- a place like Pret or Snap Kitchen or local chain like Protein Bar aren't perfect, but they have excellent options with lots of veg if you need something quick and for me can be easier if for some reason I don't feel like making lunch or am in a rut -- I like salad for lunch but don't really like bringing salad, for example. Not saying this is ideal (it's too expensive), but I hate the idea that I should decide I'm a failure if I find this helpful, or if being healthy means I can't ever do this kind of thing but must always made my own lunch. It's just not accurate and more restrictive than necessary.)

    A benefit of nicer restaurants, or ethnic places like that Ethiopian restaurant I was on about, is that it can inspire you to see what can be done with different foods, to try things. My mom wasn't a great cook and I ate vegetables as a chore, thinking they were required and okay, but not with enthusiasm. Going to a good vegetarian place in college, and some really nice restaurants, helped me see that they could be cooked so as to be delicious, and inspired me to try this myself when I really learned to cook.

    Me before: "Depends on amount. If I eat a little something after dinner (cheese or fruit or a sweet), it could be a 50 cal piece of good chocolate (junk food, but hardly a huge source of calories) or it could be 250 calories of ice cream if I have room. Or something in-between. Or I might skip sweets and after dinner cheese for a week to have calories for a restaurant meal that is more indulgent on the weekend. I am planning to have certain high cal things on Easter (big breakfast with pancakes and eggs and bacon, dinner with rack of lamb and lots of vegetables, garlic mashed potatoes with butter and lemon lavender cupcakes). Should I feel bad that I am eating "junk food" when it's a holiday and fits fine in my week anyway? What's the point.

    Should I be aware, which one is if one focuses on a healthful diet and understands calories and portions? Of course."
    This quote is an excellent example of moderation and how fluid diets can be.

    I am not sure what to tell you about feeling bad. If you ate like that every day, what do you think would happen?

    What difference does it make? I wouldn't, because I understand how much is reasonable for me to eat. But thinks of a holiday feast as "cheating" seems to be a problematic and unhelpful approach, for most people.
    I understand what you are saying earlier about people thinking, “Well, I had a bad food, screw it, might as well eat all of it.” I am aware of research that shows when people tell themselves they can’t have something, they end up eating more of it. I am not saying people should never eat certain foods, but I am not going to label these foods as healthy either.

    They aren't healthy OR unhealthy. They might be low in micronutrients and high in calories (junk foods or simply more indulgent foods like homemade pulled pork -- high cal despite being homemade, I note -- or cheese), and therefore things that need to be included more rarely or in smaller amounts so as to have a healthy diet. I don't think that's so complicated that we must pretend it's black and white, "good" foods and "bad" foods. (And I say this as someone who thinks the recommendation to get 10 servings of vegetables (maybe some of that being fruit) is a great idea and something I did unless I was comfortable I naturally did so even without counting. I'm NOT saying food choice does not matter, but that diet overall is the thing to focus on.)

    Again, if you always focus on the fact that there might be something lower cal with more nutrients, then a whole roasted chicken (eaten in reasonable portions, of course) becomes "bad" because you could have a (boring, IMO) skinless, boneless, chicken breast. Roasted brussels sprouts and some vegetarian collards (boiled) are bad, because there are nutritionally superior ways to prepare them. Or some other things I've been told here: white fish is always better than steak, forget that many normal people like and benefit from variety, or (really messed up) you debate whether kale or spinach is superior (eat both if you like them, at different times) or sweet potato vs. potato or decide that fruit is bad to eat because veg as the nutrients without so much sugar (again, I'd say eat both if you like them). I am pro nutrition as a focus, but think obsession about always eating the most nutritious and other things being inferior or cheats even if the overall diet is great is an unhealthy approach -- related to what Michael Pollan calls nutritionism, I think. So my approach would be more to focus on what a good diet contains, a reasonable size, and that some foods are reasonable to eat in larger amounts or more often than others -- varying this as it's age appropriate, of course.

    (As I think MyPlate and the like are good approaches, I don't actually think we are in that much disagreement. I am arguing above about an approach I've seen on MFP that I thought you were pushing based on some things you said, and you seem to have assumed, not sure why, that I was saying that nutrition or portions or some such doesn't matter. I will say that I think sometimes people seem to think that a diet is superior even if it contains MORE of what you'd call "bad foods" and less nutrient dense foods if you just call the bad foods bad. I find it hard to figure out why cheese = bad if eaten in sensible amounts, so I don't call it that (like I said, I do use the term "junk food" since it's common parlance and not meant literally by most). However, I certainly do watch how much I eat, since it's a weakness of mine. I get the sense that some seem to think that if we don't call it "bad" we will eat it uncontrollably and to the exclusion of more nutrient dense things, and that kind of assumption always puzzles me.)
    I feel that people can work them into to their diets and be healthy despite eating them, not because of them. If labeling these foods as junk causes people to spiral into depression and eat everything then they should not do that. But not everyone is so fragile that when you label a food as junk they have a nervous breakdown and gorge themselves.

    No one is saying that, certainly not me.

    I think saying "cut out bad foods" and focusing on eating certain foods as being "failure" or "bad" is just not a very good approach compared to the alternatives, which is a sensible, fact-based, and rational understanding of what a good diet is and that no one is perfect or needs to be.

    Anyway, I actually now think that we may not disagree much at all, but were just misunderstanding each other -- I was responding based on your argument against WinoGelato (who I know I agree with) and the idea that eating at restaurants was always bad/unhealthy.
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    praykathy wrote: »
    I would write a polite, but pointed, letter to both the PE teacher and the school counselor or psychologist. The School Psychologist could help you deal with your son's potential eating disorder. The PE teacher needs to know that her kids are the age most vulnerable to eating disorders. (Note: My 12 yr old son's appetite did decrease substantially around age 10-11. He still eats less than his 8 yr old sister. This'll change very shortly.)

    Most PE teachers do touch on health issues. You say he is 11, so late elementary. In Middle School, he'll have a Health Teacher. But in elementary, the PE teacher teaches health issues. She is doing a poor job. Anorexia has taken a back seat to obesity in our collective-conscious. I think this is dangerous, because it is still a growing concern.

    Talk to your son with facts, as a matter of regular conversation--not necessarily big drama talks. Look them up & present them to him. Show him how many more calories a day he needs than a middle-aged woman (i.e. mom or PE teacher). Talk to him about the need for protein to build his muscles. Talk to him about what kind of foods he needs to do the stuff he wants to do. (i.e. sports, arts, math, all works better with proper nutrition.)

    A preteen should NOT be calorie counting! I recently looked up my preteen boys calorie count compared to mine. After puberty hits, it'll be 3000 a day! Almost 3 times mine! How does one calorie count for 3000 calories?!?!

    I bulk on 3600-4200, and I still track everything that goes in my mouth.
  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    edited April 2017
    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.

    Considering what led to this side discussion was whether or not teaching calorie counting to pubescent children would be in general helpful or harmful and given current stats re: eating disorders in this age group indicates it may be harmful, I thought it worthwhile to explore evidence for the opposite position, even if anecdotal.

    But I have no problem dropping it. Thanks for the discussion.

    Edit: grammar
  • Gamliela
    Gamliela Posts: 2,470 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Gamliela wrote: »
    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.

    Given what the average American thinks "little body fat" is, I'd have to ask for an actual BF% here, before agreeing.

    People think I look anorexic. I have ~23% bf, which is overfat.

    Wow, I had no idea 23% body fat meant over fat! Where did you get that information and is it for both men and women and all ages?

    The bodyfat ranges are age and sex dependent
    Example chart from American College of Sports Medicine:

    https://mymission.lamission.edu/userdata/ruyssc/docs/ACSM Body Composition.pdf
    Thanks Packerjohn, this chart puts me in the 'Excellent' category at 23% body fat for my age and gender! YES!