Elementary School Gym teachers telling kids to restrict calories!

heiliskrimsli wrote: »

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.

Odd. I've never seen anyone who knows about BMI claiming that 20.5 is underweight.

My current BMI is 22, and most people just think I am average, not fat or thin. Various people have told me I don't need to lose more, but I am pretty sure they were being nice, and I've gotten nothing but positive comments on my weight loss. (Of course, I also realized that the friend who says "you are such a skinny minny these days" believes that's a nice, positive thing to say, and not a weird one, and so I take it that way.)

My goal is 118, which is 20.9 BMI, and while I have major issues (it seems) caring enough to bother losing the rest, I don't think anyone would think I was too thin at that weight. (If you mean on MFP, I share this all the time, and no one says I should not lose more weight, and a great many of the regular posters are thinner than me.) Growing up, it was in my head that 115 was the right weight for someone 5'3, and my sister (who is the same height as me) was that weight (BMI 20.4) most of her adult life (she's more like 120 now), and no one thought she was too fat or too thin (except her, who has issues with various parts of her body, like lots of women). Mostly what I find is that most people have no clue what different weights mean, if you aren't somewhat close to their height and a weight they've been.

I think I am pretty able to see if a kid is overweight, or an adult, but the question is what's the best way to help them. You can disagree on that without being HAES, and it's really quite irritating and offensive that that accusation is being tossed around.

heiliskrimsli wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

heiliskrimsli wrote: »

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.

Odd. I've never seen anyone who knows about BMI claiming that 20.5 is underweight.

My current BMI is 22, and most people just think I am average, not fat or thin. Various people have told me I don't need to lose more, but I am pretty sure they were being nice, and I've gotten nothing but positive comments on my weight loss. (Of course, I also realized that the friend who says "you are such a skinny minny these days" believes that's a nice, positive thing to say, and not a weird one, and so I take it that way.)

My goal is 118, which is 20.9 BMI, and while I have major issues (it seems) caring enough to bother losing the rest, I don't think anyone would think I was too thin at that weight. (If you mean on MFP, I share this all the time, and no one says I should not lose more weight, and a great many of the regular posters are thinner than me.) Growing up, it was in my head that 115 was the right weight for someone 5'3, and my sister (who is the same height as me) was that weight (BMI 20.4) most of her adult life (she's more like 120 now), and no one thought she was too fat or too thin (except her, who has issues with various parts of her body, like lots of women). Mostly what I find is that most people have no clue what different weights mean, if you aren't somewhat close to their height and a weight they've been.

I think I am pretty able to see if a kid is overweight, or an adult, but the question is what's the best way to help them. You can disagree on that without being HAES, and it's really quite irritating and offensive that that accusation is being tossed around.

Those are things that have been said to me here, too, especially the stuff about having a target weight and BMI being a sign of a disorder.

It's been said to you here? I wonder if you were misinterpreting.

Or was it said to a poster that they believed (rightly or wrongly) other warning signs?

Seems to me that most people have target weights, so why would anyone say that was a sign of a disorder?

CaliMomTeach wrote: »

As an elementary teacher, I feel bad for all of the very overweight children I see in class and on the school yard. I can't help but wonder what they are eating at home to be so overweight. They play and move at recess, so it is not all physical activity. I think some parents need to wake up and realize they are feeding their kids into early obesity. Unfortunately, kids are powerless over the food choices parents make for them. They don't shop or choose what goes on the table, in the fridge, in the pantry, or in the lunch box. Though I would never tell children to count calories, I would discuss, in a general not targeted to any child in particular kind of way, why healthy food choices matter and what foods are more nutritious if it came up in content or conversation. I'm sure this teacher is reacting to the large numbers of overweight children on elementary school campuses today. I don't have a source to quote, but I know I have read many times about the rise of childhood obesity and type 2 diabetes in children. I just feel bad for the kids.

This is BS and you really do need to get off your high horse. I have always been very slim. I wear a size 6 and think I am fat. I have always ate healthy and decent portion sizes.

Sadly, I have a 13 year old daughter that is well over 200 lbs. I put healthy meals in front of her. I constantly lead by example and order salads, no dressing, grilled chicken, a kiddie size sundae, kids meals, etc. She will consume obscene amounts of food when no one is home or after we have gone to bed. She needs for us to pad lock the fridge and pantry, but I am tired of being the food police. At some point she needs to own the fact that if she wants to eat like a hog, she is going to be very big.

Stop blaming the parents. I have had her in therapy for over eating since she was 5 and figured out how to find food. I have taken her to the pediatrician to discuss weight and diet. I have had her in food clinics. I have encouraged her to do sports. I ask her to go with me on walks and bike rides.

I have a son that is a bean pole like I have always been.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

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.)

I think it is easier to control the caloric and salt content of pizza made at home versus at restaurants. CNN had a good article about this: http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/05/health/pizza-healthy-food-drayer/

Context is very important, and I will admit I jumped to my own conclusion, I was thinking several slices (or the entire pie) of a deep dish cheese and heavy meat pizza with no veggies, several breadsticks and a large sugary beverage. I do not think this is not a healthy meal. I think a whole grain crust topped with tomato sauce, onions, mushroom, spinach, and 1 cupish of mozzarella cheese is a healthy meal.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

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.

Do you mean restaurant or homemade?

lemurcat12 wrote: »

(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.)

Sorry I have never heard of those restaurants so I don't have an opinion either way.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

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.

Yes, it can be fun to try new foods.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

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.)

I am aware of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines to ditch the single nutrition approach and focus on overall nutrition quality. However I disagree that foods aren't healthy OR unhealthy. The fact something is low in micronutrients and high in calories is what makes it unhealthy in my mind. I recognize focusing on overall meal patterns but at the end of the day, meals are made of individual foods.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

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.

About roasting a vegetables versus eating them raw. For some vegetables, cooking them makes the nutrients more available, while for others, cooking makes the nutrients less available for absorption. However I think people will drive themselves crazy trying to figure out if they should eat raw or cooked, so the take home message is just eat lots of vegetables. Also, eat the rainbow for fruits and veggies. Eating a variety is best, I don't believe spinach is superior to kale or vice versa.

Steak vs fish...I will say the Mediterranean style diet recommends fish 3+ times a week and limits red meat and those are the guidelines I try and follow.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

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.

The reason I like teaching counting calories is because when people see how much of there calories is eaten up by high calorie, low nutrient food, it gives them pause. They realize these foods aren't filling and often leave them hungry, yet they take over so much there allowance. I have had many patients in shock when they realize they are drinking 600+ calories, or there "snack" is 800+ calories. They change the behavior, and the weight comes off. I feel like kids are smart enough to see this concept too.

Sorry, I got busy with exams! I did want to respond but I was spending so much time looking up sources and not enough time studying.

Bull the teacher can speak about fitness without taking it that far she sounds clueless I would definitely voice my concerns with the school my daughter is the tallest kid in her class has been since preschool according to our Dr. She is about two years above average groth rate for her age she is extremely skinny cruelly she works out more then I do burpies wall sits lunges anyhow the school weighed her 1st grade class and by her age not height decided she was obese they told her that she needed to talk with her parents because she was borderline morbidly obese they sent home a note she was so upset crying not wanting to eat I took her to Dr and he explained how she was not over weight and needed to go back to eating and playing like everyone else. We had a very long talk with school district as well as principle kids definitely need to learn healthy living at a young age at the same time adults need to approach the situation with caution kids don't need a negative self image NO MATTER WHAT!! I hope your son realizes he is not fat and that he begins to view himself as the handsome young man I'm sure he is my daughter is going to the third grade now and I still have to assure her that she is ok and far from over weight

Food is fuel. Food is not the enemy. All people have to eat, or die. Whatever her intention or whatever she's actually saying as opposed to what the children are repeating, what seems to be getting through to your son is that food is bad and you have to avoid it or get fat. That is not a lesson anyone needs to learn, because it's not true. Teaching the downside of overeating without teaching the benefits of healthy eating isn't good, and she's clearly confusing her students.

I also agree that her talking about skipping meals and eating nuts, a high calorie food, when she's already blown her calorie budget, are red flags that her own eating habits are disordered. I think you were right to talk to the school about her.

I just realized this thread is a little older than I thought, and the issue with the teacher has already been resolved. Sorry! Still getting the hang of these forums on the app.

However, there's a larger issue here - the problem with expecting teachers to take up the slack when parents fail to teach their children about nutrition is that teachers are flawed humans with complex relationships with food, and our culture has competing and confusing theories about nutrition. Look at the obesity / diabetes disaster created by the food pyramid, which claimed that 11 slices of wonder bread a day was a good basis for a diet. That was official information, and presumably certified teachers with degrees in teaching health were told to present it as truth to their students. How is teaching going to improve nutrition if the teachers have bad info?

I am a recently diagnosed diabetic, and the nutritionist I was sent to consult with at the hospital told me that I should eat "three carb points" with each meal and that one "carb" such as a baked potato, sweet potato, piece of cake, bowl of rice, basically one serving of anything sweet or starchy, counted as a carb point. Well... even if you believe diabetics should eat that many carbs, she was an idiot, because a "carb point" on her system (I read her handout, as opposed to just listening to what she said) is supposed to be 12 - 15g carbs, and a single serving of rice or potato has way more than that. If you took her at her word and ate "three servings of carbs" with dinner, you might end up eating 1) a whole baked potato, 2) a roll of bread, and 3) a dessert and think you were doing just peachy - you only ate "three carb points," right? Despite eating maybe 250g of carbs, not 45g! It truly horrifies me that this woman is the nutritionist for a large hospital, and that most people will just listen to her and not do any further research. If official nutrition advice for adults is this messed up, the mind boggles at what children would be taught.