Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Elementary School Gym teachers telling kids to restrict calories!
Replies
-
coreyreichle wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »leanjogreen18 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.
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.1 -
coreyreichle wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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?
0 -
coreyreichle wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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.pdf0 -
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.lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »leanjogreen18 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.
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).1 -
lemurcat12 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]1 -
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.1 -
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.0 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli 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: grammar0 -
Thanks Packerjohn, this chart puts me in the 'Excellent' category at 23% body fat for my age and gender! YES!Packerjohn wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »coreyreichle wrote: »Need2Exerc1se 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
0 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli 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
It's unproductive because the responses to everything about teaching kids that calories exist, that they can be measured numerically, and that there's an upper limit to how much someone of a particular age and height should eat in a day to remain a healthy weight has been met with "but they can't understand arithmetic like that" or "it will give them eating disorders".
You have already decided upon your conclusion, therefore there is no reason to continue debating you.0 -
@lemurcat12 Reading over your post, I recognize my own bias and lack of knowledge of different restaurants. I am not sure where you live, but near me, there dozens fast food restaurants, buffets, and chains, not interesting restaurants like the Ethiopian near you. I don't have a lot of experience with those restaurants, only the Americanized restaurants full of big portions, sugar sweetened beverages, lots of simple carbohydrates and fat, few if any vegetables.
I had an ex-boyfriend who was very overweight and ate out nearly every meal. Half a pizza followed by a pint of ice cream, 2 king size candy bars polished off with scoops of peanut butter. Many of my patients frequently eat out as well and often get the 32+ oz pop, entree, side and dessert. The state I live in is consistently ranked as one of the most unhealthy in the entire United States based on obesity, smoking, and infant mortality. When I made the blanket statement that eating at home is better, this was my perspective based on the environment I live in. I should have considered that not everyone is eating that way and it possible to eat out and eat healthy. Unfortunately where I live, that is extremely difficult and few people choose to do so.4 -
Also if he is handling ready to eat food he needs to be wearing gloves. That is food safety 101 and would be considered a tag if the health inspector saw that.0
-
Also if he is handling ready to eat food he needs to be wearing gloves. That is food safety 101 and would be considered a tag if the health inspector saw that.
Not necessarily. Seems to vary by location: http://www.bromley.gov.uk/leaflet/261298/13/756/d
And gloves come with their own problems: http://info.debgroup.com/blog/bid/230002/Gloves-and-Hand-Hygiene-for-Food-Safety
However, the two states that came up first when I Googled (NY and FL) have both legislated that while gloves are not required by food handlers, they are also not permitted to touch the food with their bare hands. (So, if not using gloves, they must use tongs, other utensils, waxed paper, etc.—which the chef in that image clearly is not. Then again, we don't know whether he's in a locale where he would have to.)
0 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »Also if he is handling ready to eat food he needs to be wearing gloves. That is food safety 101 and would be considered a tag if the health inspector saw that.
Not necessarily. Seems to vary by location: http://www.bromley.gov.uk/leaflet/261298/13/756/d
And gloves come with their own problems: http://info.debgroup.com/blog/bid/230002/Gloves-and-Hand-Hygiene-for-Food-Safety
However, the two states that came up first when I Googled (NY and FL) have both legislated that while gloves are not required by food handlers, they are also not permitted to touch the food with their bare hands. (So, if not using gloves, they must use tongs, other utensils, waxed paper, etc.—which the chef in that image clearly is not. Then again, we don't know whether he's in a locale where he would have to.)
I'm not sold on the wearing gloves because I've seen people's practices with them on: touch everything else but the food, and then go right back to the food because gloves. Handle money with gloved hand, and then touch the food. The glove box being dirty, dirty hands reaching into the glove box to get a pair of gloves out, putting gloves on dirty hands as if that makes them automatically clean.
I tend to assume that the food will be dirtier if it's been in one of those kitchens where gloves are required.2 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »Also if he is handling ready to eat food he needs to be wearing gloves. That is food safety 101 and would be considered a tag if the health inspector saw that.
Not necessarily. Seems to vary by location: http://www.bromley.gov.uk/leaflet/261298/13/756/d
And gloves come with their own problems: http://info.debgroup.com/blog/bid/230002/Gloves-and-Hand-Hygiene-for-Food-Safety
However, the two states that came up first when I Googled (NY and FL) have both legislated that while gloves are not required by food handlers, they are also not permitted to touch the food with their bare hands. (So, if not using gloves, they must use tongs, other utensils, waxed paper, etc.—which the chef in that image clearly is not. Then again, we don't know whether he's in a locale where he would have to.)
Yes, you are right, I forgot about the tongs and forks. Basically you can't touch ready to eat food with your bare hands. If you wear gloves then touch something else you have to change the gloves. But I digress and safe food practices are beyond the scope of the original post. If anyone wants to continue to discuss this, let's make a new thread.
0 -
@lemurcat12 Reading over your post, I recognize my own bias and lack of knowledge of different restaurants. I am not sure where you live, but near me, there dozens fast food restaurants, buffets, and chains, not interesting restaurants like the Ethiopian near you. I don't have a lot of experience with those restaurants, only the Americanized restaurants full of big portions, sugar sweetened beverages, lots of simple carbohydrates and fat, few if any vegetables.
I had an ex-boyfriend who was very overweight and ate out nearly every meal. Half a pizza followed by a pint of ice cream, 2 king size candy bars polished off with scoops of peanut butter. Many of my patients frequently eat out as well and often get the 32+ oz pop, entree, side and dessert. The state I live in is consistently ranked as one of the most unhealthy in the entire United States based on obesity, smoking, and infant mortality. When I made the blanket statement that eating at home is better, this was my perspective based on the environment I live in. I should have considered that not everyone is eating that way and it possible to eat out and eat healthy. Unfortunately where I live, that is extremely difficult and few people choose to do so.
certainly (my restaurant lunch, today):
Of course it is also a matter of accessibility, but I think that those who (choose to) eat unhealthy at restaurants also eat unhealthy at home.2 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »@lemurcat12 Reading over your post, I recognize my own bias and lack of knowledge of different restaurants. I am not sure where you live, but near me, there dozens fast food restaurants, buffets, and chains, not interesting restaurants like the Ethiopian near you. I don't have a lot of experience with those restaurants, only the Americanized restaurants full of big portions, sugar sweetened beverages, lots of simple carbohydrates and fat, few if any vegetables.
I had an ex-boyfriend who was very overweight and ate out nearly every meal. Half a pizza followed by a pint of ice cream, 2 king size candy bars polished off with scoops of peanut butter. Many of my patients frequently eat out as well and often get the 32+ oz pop, entree, side and dessert. The state I live in is consistently ranked as one of the most unhealthy in the entire United States based on obesity, smoking, and infant mortality. When I made the blanket statement that eating at home is better, this was my perspective based on the environment I live in. I should have considered that not everyone is eating that way and it possible to eat out and eat healthy. Unfortunately where I live, that is extremely difficult and few people choose to do so.
certainly (my restaurant lunch, today):
Of course it is also a matter of accessibility, but I think that those who (choose to) eat unhealthy at restaurants also eat unhealthy at home.
I can't tell what that is...0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »@lemurcat12 Reading over your post, I recognize my own bias and lack of knowledge of different restaurants. I am not sure where you live, but near me, there dozens fast food restaurants, buffets, and chains, not interesting restaurants like the Ethiopian near you. I don't have a lot of experience with those restaurants, only the Americanized restaurants full of big portions, sugar sweetened beverages, lots of simple carbohydrates and fat, few if any vegetables.
I had an ex-boyfriend who was very overweight and ate out nearly every meal. Half a pizza followed by a pint of ice cream, 2 king size candy bars polished off with scoops of peanut butter. Many of my patients frequently eat out as well and often get the 32+ oz pop, entree, side and dessert. The state I live in is consistently ranked as one of the most unhealthy in the entire United States based on obesity, smoking, and infant mortality. When I made the blanket statement that eating at home is better, this was my perspective based on the environment I live in. I should have considered that not everyone is eating that way and it possible to eat out and eat healthy. Unfortunately where I live, that is extremely difficult and few people choose to do so.
certainly (my restaurant lunch, today):
Of course it is also a matter of accessibility, but I think that those who (choose to) eat unhealthy at restaurants also eat unhealthy at home.
You had me at carafe of wine0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »@lemurcat12 Reading over your post, I recognize my own bias and lack of knowledge of different restaurants. I am not sure where you live, but near me, there dozens fast food restaurants, buffets, and chains, not interesting restaurants like the Ethiopian near you. I don't have a lot of experience with those restaurants, only the Americanized restaurants full of big portions, sugar sweetened beverages, lots of simple carbohydrates and fat, few if any vegetables.
I had an ex-boyfriend who was very overweight and ate out nearly every meal. Half a pizza followed by a pint of ice cream, 2 king size candy bars polished off with scoops of peanut butter. Many of my patients frequently eat out as well and often get the 32+ oz pop, entree, side and dessert. The state I live in is consistently ranked as one of the most unhealthy in the entire United States based on obesity, smoking, and infant mortality. When I made the blanket statement that eating at home is better, this was my perspective based on the environment I live in. I should have considered that not everyone is eating that way and it possible to eat out and eat healthy. Unfortunately where I live, that is extremely difficult and few people choose to do so.
certainly (my restaurant lunch, today):
Of course it is also a matter of accessibility, but I think that those who (choose to) eat unhealthy at restaurants also eat unhealthy at home.
I can't tell what that is...
2 grilled, fresh, whole calamari (squids), served with EVOO and half lemon to squeeze, side salad, red wine
1 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »@lemurcat12 Reading over your post, I recognize my own bias and lack of knowledge of different restaurants. I am not sure where you live, but near me, there dozens fast food restaurants, buffets, and chains, not interesting restaurants like the Ethiopian near you. I don't have a lot of experience with those restaurants, only the Americanized restaurants full of big portions, sugar sweetened beverages, lots of simple carbohydrates and fat, few if any vegetables.
I had an ex-boyfriend who was very overweight and ate out nearly every meal. Half a pizza followed by a pint of ice cream, 2 king size candy bars polished off with scoops of peanut butter. Many of my patients frequently eat out as well and often get the 32+ oz pop, entree, side and dessert. The state I live in is consistently ranked as one of the most unhealthy in the entire United States based on obesity, smoking, and infant mortality. When I made the blanket statement that eating at home is better, this was my perspective based on the environment I live in. I should have considered that not everyone is eating that way and it possible to eat out and eat healthy. Unfortunately where I live, that is extremely difficult and few people choose to do so.
certainly (my restaurant lunch, today):
Of course it is also a matter of accessibility, but I think that those who (choose to) eat unhealthy at restaurants also eat unhealthy at home.
I can't tell what that is...
2 grilled, fresh, whole calamari (squids), served with EVOO and half lemon to squeeze, side salad, red wine
Ah. I see the shape now. Thank you. Yummy. I always enjoyed squid.0 -
Posting this, because it's relevant: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/10/why-do-girls-reach-puberty-younger-than.html
It's Dr. Stephan Guyenet having a look at some studies that seek to answer the question of "why do girls seem to have boobies younger now?"
Spoiler alert: it's not "hormones in chicken". It's because kids are eating too damned much and getting fatter, younger. Specifically, high levels of leptin trigger earlier onset of puberty.4 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Posting this, because it's relevant: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/10/why-do-girls-reach-puberty-younger-than.html
It's Dr. Stephan Guyenet having a look at some studies that seek to answer the question of "why do girls seem to have boobies younger now?"
Spoiler alert: it's not "hormones in chicken". It's because kids are eating too damned much and getting fatter, younger. Specifically, high levels of leptin trigger earlier onset of puberty.
How people can believe that the real problem today is that kids are getting anorexia too much is beyond me.4 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Posting this, because it's relevant: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/10/why-do-girls-reach-puberty-younger-than.html
It's Dr. Stephan Guyenet having a look at some studies that seek to answer the question of "why do girls seem to have boobies younger now?"
Spoiler alert: it's not "hormones in chicken". It's because kids are eating too damned much and getting fatter, younger. Specifically, high levels of leptin trigger earlier onset of puberty.
How people can believe that the real problem today is that kids are getting anorexia too much is beyond me.
But but, muh bodypositivityshamingzomgeatingdisorder.
Seriously, I will never understand this ridiculous, overly cautious approach to everything that people seem to catch feels over. It's clearly not helping.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Posting this, because it's relevant: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/10/why-do-girls-reach-puberty-younger-than.html
It's Dr. Stephan Guyenet having a look at some studies that seek to answer the question of "why do girls seem to have boobies younger now?"
Spoiler alert: it's not "hormones in chicken". It's because kids are eating too damned much and getting fatter, younger. Specifically, high levels of leptin trigger earlier onset of puberty.
How people can believe that the real problem today is that kids are getting anorexia too much is beyond me.
But but, muh bodypositivityshamingzomgeatingdisorder.
Seriously, I will never understand this ridiculous, overly cautious approach to everything that people seem to catch feels over. It's clearly not helping.
We have raised at least one generation of crybabies, as I've found it's the rare millennial who can handle anything that doesn't coddle their feefees, and are setting out to screw up the next generation even more.
The Band-Aid(tm) needs to be ripped off and people need to be told that their seven year-old son does not have boobs because there's rBST in the cows, or soy lecithin in the ice cream. It's because they've been feeding him too much ice cream.
A baby sucking on a bottle of Coca-Cola isn't cute, it's a future diabetes patient. French fries are not a magic stop crying pill, it's setting the stage for a heart attack at 40. Kids can in fact play for hours without needing snacks, and they sure as hell don't need to gulp down Gatorade at a tee-ball game. Feeding kids into metabolic disease is child abuse every bit as much as underfeeding them until they're malnourished and sick is.5 -
I am just wondering what are those kid's getting at the school canteen.. Because it seems this issue is being solved from a wrong side. 'It is okay' for 10 year old to have an unhealthy meal at school or after because it is faster, it cost less and you don't have to be worried about what 'we will cook today' because there is always a place not so far away where you can get junk food.
I mean people.. what happened to traditional cooking? Home made food such as soups (not from a freaking can of course) which you got on discount or meals with high nutrients?
Kid's especially at that age should be kept away from fast food restaurants. But then again 'there will be this one guy talking about people right's..
All the education about eating habits should start at home. But instead of this majority of parents just rather give their children newest smartphone or tablet and daily or weekly ride to the fast food restaurant, because then there is no headache to what to cook. Everyone is full and 'happy'.
But then one day when it is far to late they start looking for a solution how to solve it. Once more the same story over and over again.
Why suddenly when someone starts to talk about healthier living they are seen as a bad guys? Why no one talks about the rubbish their kids are eating at schools?
Simply people love to complain about everything, but when it comes to doing something there are no volunteers, because you have to put more effort in it.
If you still think that we are living in a healthy world, society, just look around - I mean you know at least 10 or more people with obesity problem in your neighbourhood- work, school, friends circle. It is all because of GOOD Life. Sure lots of you have your own opinion but I just shared mine. Some of you might agree with me the others won't and it's normal. Because we can always find someone to blame when things are not right. Just wait and see, in 5-10 years if we will keep up with the lifestyles we have now the numbers of obesed people will be 10 times bigger than it is now.
But yeah who cares about that, right?
As long as it is not your garden burning, it is not your problem. That's the mentality of our MODERN society.1 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Posting this, because it's relevant: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/10/why-do-girls-reach-puberty-younger-than.html
It's Dr. Stephan Guyenet having a look at some studies that seek to answer the question of "why do girls seem to have boobies younger now?"
Spoiler alert: it's not "hormones in chicken". It's because kids are eating too damned much and getting fatter, younger. Specifically, high levels of leptin trigger earlier onset of puberty.
How people can believe that the real problem today is that kids are getting anorexia too much is beyond me.
Well, seeing as I've been called "anorexic looking", and weigh in at a 24.4 BMI, well, it's not hard to figure out why. Perceptions are skewed, since obesity and overweight are now "normalized" in many industrialized nations.3 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Posting this, because it's relevant: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/10/why-do-girls-reach-puberty-younger-than.html
It's Dr. Stephan Guyenet having a look at some studies that seek to answer the question of "why do girls seem to have boobies younger now?"
Spoiler alert: it's not "hormones in chicken". It's because kids are eating too damned much and getting fatter, younger. Specifically, high levels of leptin trigger earlier onset of puberty.
How people can believe that the real problem today is that kids are getting anorexia too much is beyond me.
But but, muh bodypositivityshamingzomgeatingdisorder.
Seriously, I will never understand this ridiculous, overly cautious approach to everything that people seem to catch feels over. It's clearly not helping.
We have raised at least one generation of crybabies, as I've found it's the rare millennial who can handle anything that doesn't coddle their feefees, and are setting out to screw up the next generation even more.
The Band-Aid(tm) needs to be ripped off and people need to be told that their seven year-old son does not have boobs because there's rBST in the cows, or soy lecithin in the ice cream. It's because they've been feeding him too much ice cream.
A baby sucking on a bottle of Coca-Cola isn't cute, it's a future diabetes patient. French fries are not a magic stop crying pill, it's setting the stage for a heart attack at 40. Kids can in fact play for hours without needing snacks, and they sure as hell don't need to gulp down Gatorade at a tee-ball game. Feeding kids into metabolic disease is child abuse every bit as much as underfeeding them until they're malnourished and sick is.
I've seen this picture from when Gatorade was first developed to replenish football players at practice in hot Florida weather. Note the player is probably 240+ pounds and he has maybe an 8 ounce cup of Gatorade.
1 -
coreyreichle wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Posting this, because it's relevant: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/10/why-do-girls-reach-puberty-younger-than.html
It's Dr. Stephan Guyenet having a look at some studies that seek to answer the question of "why do girls seem to have boobies younger now?"
Spoiler alert: it's not "hormones in chicken". It's because kids are eating too damned much and getting fatter, younger. Specifically, high levels of leptin trigger earlier onset of puberty.
How people can believe that the real problem today is that kids are getting anorexia too much is beyond me.
Well, seeing as I've been called "anorexic looking", and weigh in at a 24.4 BMI, well, it's not hard to figure out why. Perceptions are skewed, since obesity and overweight are now "normalized" in many industrialized nations.
My current BMI is 23.5 and I have been told to stop losing weight because once you get into the normal range it's time to stop. I have also been told that my target BMI (20.5) is "underweight" and that it is wrong to have a target BMI at all.1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Posting this, because it's relevant: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/10/why-do-girls-reach-puberty-younger-than.html
It's Dr. Stephan Guyenet having a look at some studies that seek to answer the question of "why do girls seem to have boobies younger now?"
Spoiler alert: it's not "hormones in chicken". It's because kids are eating too damned much and getting fatter, younger. Specifically, high levels of leptin trigger earlier onset of puberty.
How people can believe that the real problem today is that kids are getting anorexia too much is beyond me.
But but, muh bodypositivityshamingzomgeatingdisorder.
Seriously, I will never understand this ridiculous, overly cautious approach to everything that people seem to catch feels over. It's clearly not helping.
We have raised at least one generation of crybabies, as I've found it's the rare millennial who can handle anything that doesn't coddle their feefees, and are setting out to screw up the next generation even more.
The Band-Aid(tm) needs to be ripped off and people need to be told that their seven year-old son does not have boobs because there's rBST in the cows, or soy lecithin in the ice cream. It's because they've been feeding him too much ice cream.
A baby sucking on a bottle of Coca-Cola isn't cute, it's a future diabetes patient. French fries are not a magic stop crying pill, it's setting the stage for a heart attack at 40. Kids can in fact play for hours without needing snacks, and they sure as hell don't need to gulp down Gatorade at a tee-ball game. Feeding kids into metabolic disease is child abuse every bit as much as underfeeding them until they're malnourished and sick is.
I've seen this picture from when Gatorade was first developed to replenish football players at practice in hot Florida weather. Note the player is probably 240+ pounds and he has maybe an 8 ounce cup of Gatorade.
He's probably under 240 lbs since that picture was taken long before the obesity crisis, and that cup was probably only half full.
Couldn't find stats on Chip Hinton, but one of the other players who started with Gatorade in its early days was Allen Trammel, also a defensive back, whose NFL stats list him at 6'0" and 190 lbs.0 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Posting this, because it's relevant: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/10/why-do-girls-reach-puberty-younger-than.html
It's Dr. Stephan Guyenet having a look at some studies that seek to answer the question of "why do girls seem to have boobies younger now?"
Spoiler alert: it's not "hormones in chicken". It's because kids are eating too damned much and getting fatter, younger. Specifically, high levels of leptin trigger earlier onset of puberty.
How people can believe that the real problem today is that kids are getting anorexia too much is beyond me.
It's entirely possible for there to be multiple problems. For girls who have anorexia, anorexia is a problem. That too high a percentage of our population is obese doesn't change that. How serious obesity is depends, but as someone who was obese and never had anorexia, I'd pick obesity any day -- it was something I was able to address myself and when it started bothering me significantly I did something about it. Anorexia isn't that easy to take care of, as it's a mental disorder. (Other trauma in my childhood was much more problematic for me than obesity also -- I don't think the fact that obesity is more common means that those other things aren't a problem, or that it wouldn't have been better if they hadn't happened.) So really, I find the dismissal of anorexia or bulimia as something to be concerned about, because a lot of people are fat, to be pretty ridiculous.
Current obesity rates of adults is 35% (overweight + obese is more like 2/3s). Are people overweight because they don't know about calories or don't understand the connection between eating more and weight? Before MFP, I would have laughed at that idea, now, I don't know, but one can doubt that teaching everyone to count calories as children is the best way to prevent obesity without thinking that we shouldn't do anything to improve education about nutrition and how calories work and how obesity happens, which again seems to be the strawman that some are pushing on this thread. (Personally, I don't have strong feelings about when calorie counting should be explained, as I'm depressed about people's ability to retain knowledge of numerous other things that ARE taught in school, so don't particular thing it would help or hurt, but am not against it. The OP obviously was not talking about an actual class, however.)
Since this is about obesity in children, the stats are that about 17% of children in the US are obese. That varies quite a bit by race and income: about 14% of white kids are obese, vs. 20% of African-American kids and 22% of Latino kids. (To break down the stats, for white kids, 4% are extremely obese (included in the 14%) and 28.5% are overweight or obese. Just pointing this out because it's lower than I think some are suggesting.)
There's an income and education disparity too. For one example: "33 percent of adults who did not graduate high school were obese compared with 21.5 percent of those who graduated from college or technical college. [2008-2010 data]" (http://stateofobesity.org/obesity-rates-trends-overview/)
Also, Children of parents with less than 12 years of education had an obesity rate 3.1 times higher than those whose parents have a college degree. Children living below the federal household poverty level have an obesity rate 2.7 times higher than children living in households exceeding 400 percent of the federal poverty level.
Children living in low-income neighborhoods are 20 percent to 60 percent more likely to be obese or overweight than children living in high socioeconomic status neighborhoods and healthier built environments. So on.
The stats for anorexia (much less common, but for most more serious) are much lower (1 in 100), of course. If you add bulimia it's something like an additional 2-3%. I'd even argue this could be high, as it's from an ED site, However, the rates vary and are more common for females and more common in middle class and above households, basically the groups where obesity is less common. Depending on where the school is, obesity could be somewhat rare among kids and EDs also rare, but much higher than the national average.
But of course, once again, the bigger point is that concern about national obesity doesn't preclude concern about EDs -- that's a false dichotomy. Now, I don't think anorexia is caused by teaching nutrition, even badly, but since this thread isn't about a class in nutrition or nutrition curriculum, that's always been a strawman.3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions